CAR_Public/151229.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 259


                            Headlines


24 HR LAUNDROMAT: Faces "Baca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
ADVANCED MICRO: Court-Ordered Mediation Set for January 2016
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone 5 Wifi Defect
APPLE INC: Wins iMessage Intercept Case in California

ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Calhoun" Suit Says
ASIANA AIRLINES: March 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ASSURANT INC: Defending Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
AUSTRALIA: Agrees to Pay 70% of Back Wages to Disable Workers
AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Faruqi & Faruqi Named Lead Counsel in Case

BAYER CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Fluoroquinolone Cases
BIL-JIM CONSTRUCTION: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says
BJN INC: Faces "Montes de Oca" Suit Over FLSA Violation
BURLINGTON STORE: Faces "Diaz" Suit in N.Y. Over ADA Violation
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Stayed in "Marchese" Pending Talks

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Consumer Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces "Wandel" Action in Delaware
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces "Gould" Class Action in Delaware
CAHABA GOVERNMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
CALSONIC KANSEI: Fixed Price of Radiators, Rush Truck Claims

CAPITAL ONE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Rogers" Action Claims
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Pennsylvania AG Sues Over "Deceptive" Leases
CMRE FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mizrahi" Suit Says
CNX GAS: Faces Class Action Over Kinney Lease Agreement
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery Underway in Shareholder Class Action

CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend Hale Litigation
CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend Addison Litigation
CONTE'S PASTA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA: Sued Over Debt Collection Practices
CREDIT ONE: Faces Class Action in Connecticut Over Robocalls

CRST VAN: Supreme Court to Help resolve Attorney Fee Award Dispute
CYAN INC: Wilson Sonsini Seeks to Avert State Court Pre-IPO Suits
D&K HARVESTING: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
DICK'S SPORTING: Settles Overtime Class Action for $10 Million
DIRECTV GROUP: Removed "Joaquin" Class Suit to Dist. New Jersey

DIRECTV INC: Can Opt for Private Arbitration to Avert Class Action
DIRECTV INC: BakerHostetler Discuss Supreme Court Ruling
DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: "Leon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in O&R Case Negotiate Written Deal
DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Die-Mension Case Negotiate Deal

DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Venotemp Case Negotiate Settlement
DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Flow Sciences Case Negotiate Deal
DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Altaflo Case Negotiate Settlement
EL AGUILA: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EMPIRE CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

ENJOY AGAIN: "Canfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Classes Decertified in Karapetian/Aguilar
ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: Judge Okays OT Class Action Settlement
FH CANN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Schwartz" Action Claims
FEDERAL HOME: Still Defending Ohio Public Employees Case

FEDERAL HOME: Suit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Still Open
FEDERAL HOME: Defending Jacobs and Hindes Suit vs. FHFA, Treasury
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Continues to Defend Hearing Loss Litigation
FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Faces ERISA Class Action in Massachusetts
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Fairness Hearing on Scheduled for January 5

G5IVE LLC: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GANT CONTRACTORS: "Facundo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Sued in N.J. Over Aluminum Sulfate-Price Fixing
GENERAL CHEMICAL: BTMUA Sues Over Aluminum Sulfate-Price Fixing
GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Terrell" Suit Seeks Damages Over Oven Defect

GERBER PRODUCTS: "Henry" Class Suit Removed to Oregon District
GROBRO INVESTMENTS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GUNNS: Liquidators Settle Shareholder Class Action
HERB THYME: Organic Foods Act Doesn't Pre-empt Labeling Suit
HERBALIFE LTD: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit

HILMAR CHEESE: "Rice" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HIRE DYNAMICS: Faces "Ragin" Suit Over FCRA Violation
HOME DEPOT: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Balk at Data Breach Settlement
HOME DEPOT: Says Did Not Send Data Breach Settlement Notices
IOWA: Sued Over Automated Traffic Enforcement Cameras

ITT EDUCATIONAL: March 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
J&R SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Calleja" Suit Says
JUDGE TECHNICAL: Faces "Ognibene" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LARY ARCHER: Faces "Kent" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LE CORDON: Shuts Down Schools Following Class Action Settlement

LES SCHWAB: Faces "Sylvis" Suit Over ADA Violations
LIFELOCK INC: FTC Approves Class Action Settlement
LUBBOCK: Sued Over Alleged Discriminatory Hiring Practices
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Action Mulled Over Bamboo Flooring
MAC'S CONVENIENCE: Temporary Foreign Workers File Class Action

MAISON BOURBON: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
MASTEC INC: Defending "Wrigley" Lawsuit in S.D. Fla.
MICK WHITE: Faces "Pulido" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Teahan" Suit Claims
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Sued in Mich. Over Alternator-Price Fixing

NESTLE INDIA: To Challenge SC Stay Order in Maggi Case
NIMBLE STORAGE: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
NORTEK INC: Says Product Liability Suits in Initial Stages
NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dilbert" Suit Claims
NU SKIN: Continues to Defend Suit Related to Negative Media

OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Sued for Minimum Wage Violations
PANASONIC: Jan. 22 Compressor Settlement Approval Hearing Set
PARTY CITY HOLDCO: Rosen Law Firm Files Investor Class Action
PC RICHARD: Illegally Collects Debt, "O'Shea" Action Claims

PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs' Expert's Testimony in Zoloft MDL Excluded
PFIZER INC: Recent Ruling May Jeopardize Zoloft Birth-Defect MDL
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Conway" Suit Claims
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kulama" Suit Claims
RBS CITIZENS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Reinig" Suit Says

REDFORD, MI: Faces Garner Suit Over Rental Certificate Fee
RECKITT BENCKISER: Accused of Misleading Consumers Over Painkiller
RUSHMORE LOAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sanchez" Suit Claims
SANFORD-FRITCH ISD: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SCHWARTZ SCHWARTZ: Illegally Collects Debt, "Iuliano" Suit Claims

SLATER & GORDON: ACA Lawyers Mulls Shareholder Class Action
SOUTHERN ARCH: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Trabalka" Suit Says
SPESS OIL: Seeks Dismissal of Earthquake Lawsuit
STEPHENS & MICHAELS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims

STERLING GROUP: Removed "Barnett" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
TAKATA CORP: Judge Allows Air Bag Racketeering Claims to Proceed
TARGA RESOURCES: Deal in Atlas Unitholder Case Up for Approval
TARGET CORP: Settles Data Breach Litigation for $39 Million
TEAM HEALTH: Dismissal of Operative Complaint Sought

TEXAS: Health Agency Sued Over Medicaid Program
TORRANCE COUNTY, NM: Class Action Mulled Over Alleged Extortion
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Allows Tip Class Action to Proceed
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bench Trial Sought in Misclassification Case
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Says Not Liable in Rape Suits Against Drivers

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: FL DEO Says Drivers Are Independent Contractors
UNITED STATES: Settles Rail Easement Class Action for $3.6MM
UPONOR CORP: Court Approves Class Action Settlements
VASCO DATA: Faces "Rossbach" Class Action in N.D. Ill.
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Defendant in 3 Class Actions

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Burden" Suit Alleges Clean Air Act Violation
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Tornambe" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Compensation Fund for Diesel Car Owners
WRIGHT TECHNOLOGY: Jury Awards $11MM in Hip Implant Case

WYNDHAM HOTELS: Enters Into Hacking Case Settlement Deal with FTC

* New Zealand Sees Spike in Class Actions Over Past Year
* Older Job Applicants Can sue Over Indirect Job Discrimination


                            *********


24 HR LAUNDROMAT: Faces "Baca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suyapa Baca and Arlex Escobar, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated employees v. 24 Hr Laundromat and Stephen
Gresovetti, Case No. 2:15-cv-06707 9 (E.D.N.Y., November 23, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the general coin-operated laundries
and full-service laundry wash business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil M. Frank, Esq.
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      500 Bi-County Blvd., Ste 465
      Farmingdale, NY 111735
      Telephone: (631) 756-0400
      Facsimile: (631) 756-0547
      E-mail: nfrank@laborlaws.com


ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit is pending.

On October 1, 2014, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against AcelRx and certain of our current and former officers. On
April 17, 2015, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint alleges that between September 30, 2013 and July
25, 2014, AcelRx and certain of our current and former officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with statements related to our drug
candidate, Zalviso. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

In response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 1,
2015. Plaintiffs' opposition was filed July 30, 2015 and the
Company's reply brief was subsequently filed September 14, 2015.
It is anticipated that the court will rule on the motion to
dismiss based on the filings.

"We believe that we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously," the Company said.


ADVANCED MICRO: Court-Ordered Mediation Set for January 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that a court-
ordered mediation is scheduled for January 2016 in a class action
lawsuit.

On January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v.
AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 was filed against the Company
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint purports to assert claims against the
Company and certain individual officers for alleged violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during
the period April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012. The complaint
seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading
statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the
individual officers regarding the Company's 32nm technology and
"Llano" product, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs
claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate the price paid
for the Company's common stock during the period. The complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
On July 7, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims. On March 31, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
On May 14, 2015, the Company filed its answer to plaintiffs'
corrected amended complaint. The discovery process is ongoing. On
September 4, 2015, plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. A court-ordered mediation is scheduled for January
2016.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone 5 Wifi Defect
-------------------------------------------------------
Martin Blanc, writing for Bidnessetc, reports that Apple Inc.
faces legal action once again, however not from regulatory
authorities or commissions this time.  On Dec. 17, its customers
on the AT&T network filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the
iPhone-maker had deliberately shipped defective products.  Certain
iPhone 5 and 5s models automatically switch unaware users from
Wi-Fi to cellular LTE data, which results in higher cellular
network bills.

The defect was uncovered shortly after Apple released the iPhone 5
and iOS 6 operating system in 2012, as per the complained filed
with the US District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The fault occurred because of the way the A6
processor on the device interacts with iOS 6 while controlling
wireless data transmission. The plaintiffs, represented by
consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman, allege that the tech giant
never fixed the issue until October 2014 when iOS 8.1 was
launched.

The A6 chipset has three GPU cores that help stream video/audio
which means its two CPU cores are unused in the process.  This
puts the CPU in sleep mode in order to save the battery which in
turn shuts down the Wi-Fi transmitter.  With the Wi-Fi down, the
handset automatically switches to network data as a background
process, while users remain unaware of their use of relatively
costly cellular data.

Managing partner at Hagens, Steve Berman said: "Apple failed to
report or fix this defect for years, leaving hundreds of thousands
of iPhone users racking up month after month of data overage
charges."  Customers were then left to sort out the charges with
their wireless carriers.  By withholding information over this
defect, Apple violates various consumer laws in California such as
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair
Competition Law.

A few days after initial complaints surfaced, the tech giant
issued a repair update for iPhone 5 users on the Verizon network,
however it did not admit to any product faults.  Yet there was no
fix for AT&T subscribers.  It is believed Apple may have rushed
the launch of iPhone 5 without proper tests of its software, due
to competitive pressures from rival Samsung Group that had become
the number one smartphone seller in the US in 2012.

This is not the first time that Apple has been plagued with
quality control issues over its products.  It had problems with
network signal transmission due to the metallic strips on its
sides.  Steve Jobs personally apologized for that issue and
admitted the mistake in design.  The iPhone 6 was famously
involved in the "bendgate scandal", where reports claim the
handset bends under pressure.

So far, no judge has been appointed to oversee this case, with
hearing dates also yet to be decided.  Apple is already involved
in other lawsuits elsewhere, with Samsung set to appeal against an
almost $550 million patent infringement fine and the European
Union set to rule soon against possible tax avoidance in Ireland.


APPLE INC: Wins iMessage Intercept Case in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
in San Jose, California, ruled on Dec. 1 that a glitch that's kept
former iPhone users from receiving some text messages doesn't
constitute an "interception" under the Wiretap Act.  The ruling
frees Apple Inc. from the threat of a pricey payout under the law
that carries statutory damages of up to $10,000 per violation.

Lawyers at Audet & Partners sued Apple in May 2014 on behalf of
Apple customers who later switched to non-Apple devices and whose
incoming texts were misrouted as a result of a glitch in iMessage,
the messaging system introduced by Apple in a 2011 iPhone update.
The feature allows users to send messages that bypass the
traditional text messaging systems of cellular carriers.  But
according to plaintiffs, Apple users who later switched to
non-Apple devices had their phone numbers stuck in the system,
causing them to miss out on messages sent in the iMessage format.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of
California allowed plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claims to survive
motion to dismiss last November, though she tossed some related
claims under the Stored Communication Act and California state
law.  In August, she declined to certify a class of former Apple
customers, finding that it would be "administratively infeasible"
to determine who qualified as a class member.

On Nov. 1, she sided with Apple and its lawyers at Morrison &
Foerster, granting summary judgment on the Wiretap Act claims and
related state law claims and finding that Apple had shown that it
hadn't unlawfully acquired the messages "at the time of
transmission."  She further found that the way the company used
its iMessage server fell within an exemption to Wiretap Act
liability for conduct that's within the "ordinary course of
business" for electronic communications services.

"There can be no interception for purposes of the Wiretap Act if
the acquisition of the message occurs while the message is in
storage, even if it is in temporary storage incidental to the
transmission of the communication," Judeg Koh wrote.  "[Apple]
does not 'intercept' the message within the meaning of the Wiretap
Act by erroneously classifying the message as an iMessage," she
wrote.

Joshua Ezrin of Audet & Partners, who represents the plaintiffs,
did not respond to phone and email messages on Dec. 1.  Morrison &
Foerster's David Walsh -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- who represents Apple,
also didn't respond to messages.


ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Calhoun" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Calhoun, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated v. Ashwood Financial, Case No. 3:15-cv-08250 (D.N.J.,
November 23, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Ashwood Financial operates a debt collection firm in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Taylor Sheffield, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LUPOLOVER
      120 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 300
      Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
      Telephone: (201) 461-0059
      E-mail: ms@lupoloverlaw.com


ASIANA AIRLINES: March 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
If You Directly Purchased Airfreight Shipping Services
Between January 1, 2000 and September 30, 2006,
Your Rights may be Affected by a Class Action Lawsuit

What is this about?

Plaintiffs claim that numerous air cargo carriers conspired to fix
prices of Airfreight Shipping Services in violation of U.S.
antitrust laws, and that as a result, purchasers paid more for
Airfreight Shipping Services than they otherwise would have paid.
Defendants deny these claims and have asserted various defenses.

This notice: 1) provides information concerning three new
settlements with Asiana Airlines Inc., EVA Airways Corp., and
Nippon Cargo Airlines Co. Ltd.; and 2) announces an order
certifying a Litigation Class.  A trial has been scheduled for
April 18, 2016 against the remaining Non-Settling Defendants: Air
China Ltd., Air China Cargo Company Ltd., Air India, Air New
Zealand Ltd., Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., Polar Air Cargo
LLC, and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. A complete list of
Defendants is found on the settlement website:
www.aircargosettlement5.com

Who is a class member?

The Settlement Class - You are a Settlement Class member in each
of the new proposed settlements with Asiana, EVA and Nippon Cargo
if you purchased airfreight shipping services directly from any
of the Defendants to the United States, from the United States, or
WITHIN the United States from January 1, 2000 up to and including
September 11, 2006.

The Litigation Class - The Court has certified a Litigation Class.
You are a member of the Litigation Class if you purchased
airfreight shipping services directly from any of the Defendants
to or from the United States from January 1, 2000 up to and
including September 30, 2006.

What do the Settlements provide?
The settlement with Nippon Cargo provides $36.35 million, the
Asiana settlement provides $55 million, and the EVA settlement
provides $99 million.  These are in addition to prior settlements
with other air cargo carriers of approximately $848 million.  The
case is continuing against the remaining Non-Settling Defendants.

What are my options?

At this time, there is no claim form, plan of allocation, or
attorneys' fees or reimbursement of expenses to be addressed.
There will be a later notice concerning these matters.  This
notice provides class members a deadline to object and an
opportunity to exclude themselves from any of the settlements or
the Litigation Class.  You must decide at this time if you want to
exclude yourself from: 1) any of the settlements described in this
notice: Asiana, EVA, and Nippon Cargo; and 2) if you want to
exclude yourself from the Litigation Class.  Right now you can:

   * Stay in the classes: This is the only way to get a payment.
If you do nothing you will remain in the

Litigation Class and be bound by the terms of the settlements.

   * Exclude yourself from one or more of the settlements: Get no
payment.  This is the only option that allows you to sue or
continue to sue the Settling Defendants concerning the claims in
this case.

You must exclude yourself by January 22, 2016.  You will be
eligible to receive payment from any of these settlements from
which you do NOT exclude yourself.

   * Exclude yourself from the Litigation Class: This is the only
option that allows you to sue or continue to sue the Non-Settling
Defendants concerning the claims in this case.  You must exclude
yourself by January 22, 2016.  You will not be eligible to receive
any money from future distributions if the Plaintiffs obtain any
money as a result of a trial or from any future settlements with
the Non-Settling Defendants.

   * Object: Write to the Court about why you don't like the
Proposed Settlements.  The deadline to object is March 4, 2016.
Detailed instructions on how to exclude yourself or object are
found on www.aircargosettlement5.com

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on March 24, 2016 at
10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 6C South at the United States Courthouse,
225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201.  The Court will
consider whether the proposed settlements are fair, reasonable,
and adequate.

This is only a summary.

For more information, visit www.aircargosettlement5.com, email
administrator@aircargosettlement5.com, or call toll-free at
1-855-382-6460 in the U.S., U.S. territories, and Canada.  Other
countries can call 1-513-795-0998, toll charges apply.  You may
write to: Air Cargo Settlement 5, c/o Garden City Group
LLC, P.O. Box 10083, Dublin, OH 43017-6683, USA.


ASSURANT INC: Defending Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in class actions in a number of jurisdictions regarding
its lender-placed insurance programs. These cases allege a variety
of claims under a number of legal theories. The plaintiffs seek
premium refunds and other relief. The Company continues to defend
itself vigorously in these class actions. The Company has accrued
an estimated loss for this litigation.


AUSTRALIA: Agrees to Pay 70% of Back Wages to Disable Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Davidson, writing for The Guardian, reports that a long-
running legal battle over a disability employment scheme which
paid some people as little as $1 an hour has come to an end after
the federal government agreed to back pay 70% of the wages owed.

The Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (Bswat) assessed the
pay of about half the employees working in the government-
supported Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs) -- formerly
known as sheltered workshops. It assessed the competency and
productivity of workers, but several aspects were criticized as
deeply flawed.

After a 2012 federal court case found two people, Michael Nojin
and Gordon Prior had been discriminated against by the system
which reduced wages to as little as $1 an hour, the Bswat was
suspended.

The federal government appealed to the high court, lost, and then
was granted one year by the Australian Human Rights Commission to
come up with a replacement scheme.

A bill which was passed in the Senate in 2014 legislated to repay
workers 50% of what they were owed.  A class action lawsuit
brought by the Maurice Blackburn law firm rejected the move and
continued to seek 100%.

On Dec. 17, after extensive mediation between the government and
representatives of the class action, the social services minister,
Christian Porter, announced new legislation would be introduced
under which the Commonwealth would repay 70%.

The legislation will ensure there are no tax implications and
disability pensions are unaffected.

The repayments will be available to all workers with an
intellectual disability who have worked in an ADE, not just those
involved in the class action.  It will also be widened, including
people who, for example, have since retired.

Kairsty Wilson, senior legal practitioner for the AED Legal Centre
and who has worked on the case since 2002, welcomed the agreement.

"I think it's a good deal and we'd be encouraging all employees
with intellectual disabilities to register, and if they need
assistance we're happy to help them do it," Ms. Wilson told
Guardian Australia.

"They're entitled to [the repayments], and Michael Nojin and
Gordon Prior had the courage to stand up for themselves in the
first place.

"It takes guts to do that.  They've got it and they should be so
proud of themselves, Gordon and Michael and their mothers who
fought on behalf of their sons."

Craig Wallace, the president of the People With Disability
advocacy group, tweeted his congratulations to the minister and
said the decision was "right and just".


AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Faruqi & Faruqi Named Lead Counsel in Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 2015, District Court Judge James Donato of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP to serve as Lead Counsel
in consolidated action In re Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc., Sec.
Litig., Case No. 3:15-cv-03185-JD.

If you purchased shares pursuant to Avalanche Biotechnologies,
Inc.'s initial public offering on or about July 31, 2014, pursuant
to Avalanche's secondary offering on or about January 13, 2015,
and/or in the open market between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015,
both dates inclusive, please contact the firm to discuss this
matter with us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-
4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com

For more information, you may visit the firm's website at
www.faruqilaw.com/AAVL

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a national law firm which represents
investors and individuals in class action litigation.  The firm is
focused on providing exemplary legal services in complex
litigation in the areas of securities, shareholder, antitrust and
consumer litigation, throughout all phases of litigation.  The
firm has an experienced trial team which has achieved significant
victories on behalf of the firm's clients.


BAYER CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Fluoroquinolone Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy and Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, report that
plaintiffs in 32 cases accusing Bayer Corp., Merck & Co. Inc. and
others of hiding the risk of permanent nerve damage resulting from
using antibiotics known as fluoroquinolones have asked a
Pennsylvania state court to consolidate the suits into a mass tort
litigation.

The plaintiffs claim they suffered similar injuries because drug
companies selling fluoroquinolones -- drugs often used to treat
lung, sinus, skin and urinary tract infections -- downplayed the
risk of peripheral neuropathy for years.  They say that because
all legal theories, facts and relief sought are identical across
the board -- and in about 30 more cases expected to be filed --
mass tort designation would eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid
inconsistent rulings, promote efficient resolution of claims and
conserve resources.

The cases specifically accuse companies involved in the
manufacturing, marketing or distribution of the prescription drugs
Levaquin, Avelox or Cipro of negligence, strict liability, breach
of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and fraud.

Although the connection between these antibiotics and peripheral
neuropathy -- a potentially permanent condition caused by nerve
damage with symptoms including numbness, tingling and muscle
weakness -- has allegedly been known since 1990, the drugmakers
allegedly didn't publicly acknowledge it until 2004, the
plaintiffs say.

That year, the drugmakers amended the drugs' labels to note the
"rare" risk of the condition, a change the plaintiffs say was
inadequate because it misled patients and doctors by incorrectly
advising them that the disease was rare and could be avoided by
stopping use of the drug after the onset of certain symptoms.  The
plaintiffs say that the onset of irreversible peripheral
neuropathy is often rapid and that patients who stop using the
drug aren't necessarily safe.

In August 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required
another label change that included the risk of rapid onset of
irreversible peripheral neuropathy, but the plaintiffs maintain
that this change was also inadequate because the suggestion that
discontinuing use of the drug can prevent permanent nerve damage
still remained.

"Rather than warning patients and physicians that the use of [the
drugs] may result in permanent nerve damage, defendants instead
adopted a warning that misleadingly indicated such damage was rare
and, in any event, could be avoided by simply discontinuing the
drug upon the onset of certain symptoms," the plaintiffs said.

A month ago, an FDA advisory committee said that fluoroquinolones
still have inadequate warnings related to their use in treating
sinus infections, infections related to chronic bronchitis and
urinary tract infections.

The panel voted 21 to 0 that the drugs don't have adequate labels
for the treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis, 18 to 2 that the
labels are insufficient for the treatment of bacterial problems
that complicate chronic bronchitis in patients with chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, and 20 to 1 that the labels don't
have sufficient warnings for the treatment of urinary tract
infections, an FDA spokeswoman said.

The drugs involved in the Pennsylvania suit are all top-selling
antibiotics manufactured by major companies.

Levaquin, manufactured by Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., was
approved by the FDA in 1996 and became the top-prescriped
fluoroquinolone in the U.S. seven years later, and in the world
three years after that.

Avelox, made by Bayer, generated sales of nearly $700 million in
2007, and Cipro, another Bayer product, was the best-selling
antibiotic in the world in 2002.

Since August, about 200 cases related to injuries caused by
fluoroquinolones have been transferred to a multidistrict
litigation before U.S. District Judge John T. Tunheim.

The drug companies could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Laura A. Feldman and Rosemary
Pinto of Feldman & Pinto, Michael M. Weinkowitz --
mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman and
John E. Kotsatos of the Law Offices of John E. Kotsatos PLLC.

Counsel information for the defendants was not available on
Dec. 2.

The case is Jacqueline Whitters v. Bayer Corp., et al., case
number 02686, in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia
County.


BIL-JIM CONSTRUCTION: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Wall, Walter Everett Tammy Bollinger and John Horaneck,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Bil-Jim Construction Co., Inc., Case No. MID-L-6671-15 (N.J.
Super. Ct., November 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay employees' prevailing wages and other benefits
for their employment activities.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul A. Digiorgio, Esq.
      KEEFE BARTELS, LLC
      170 Monmouth St
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (732) 224-9400
      Facsimile: (732) 224-9494


BJN INC: Faces "Montes de Oca" Suit Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Geovany Montes de Oca, and all others similarly situated v. BJN,
Inc., dba AMG Stone, Jeff Nadel and Essential HR, Inc., dba
FirstStarHR, Case No. 0:15-cv-62489 (S.D. Fla., November 24,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BJN install various stone countertops and fixtures. Its principal
place of business is in Broward County.

FirstStar is a Professional Employer Organization that processed
payroll for BJN and paid BJN's employees, including Plaintiff,
their wages on checks issued from FirstStar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Hudson, Esq.
      HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC
      355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 444-6628
      Fax: (305) 444-6627
      E-mail: rhudson@hudsoncalleja.com


BURLINGTON STORE: Faces "Diaz" Suit in N.Y. Over ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christhian Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Burlington Store, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09179
(S.D.N.Y., November 20, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Burlington Store, Inc. operates retail department stores
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Stayed in "Marchese" Pending Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, that motion practice and discovery have been
stayed pending settlement discussions in the case, Marchese, et
al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.  After
three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice
by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale
of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages
to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision,
and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly
seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible
set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary
damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.

On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the District Court
issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2
monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and
related state common law claims to proceed.  Cablevision's answer
to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012.

On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. Motion practice and discovery have been stayed
pending settlement discussions.

In the quarter ended September 30, 2015, the Company recorded
estimated charges associated with a probable settlement totaling
$12,800,000, of which $9,500,000 is reflected in selling, general
and administrative expense and $3,300,000, representing the cost
of benefits to class members that are reasonably expected to be
provided, is reflected as a reduction to revenue, net. It is
possible that the amount ultimately paid in connection with the
settlement could exceed the amount recorded.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, that expert discovery is proceeding in the
case, In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored.

Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on
behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of
Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action
before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on
February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking
unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May
2, 2012.

On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial
summary judgment.

On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment. On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert
discovery commence. Expert discovery is proceeding.

On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and
on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan.
The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out
period expired on February 27, 2015.

The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces "Wandel" Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, that the Company faces the case, Arnold Wandel
v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al.

On September 24, 2015, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against Cablevision, the Company's Board of Directors, Altice and
Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties to Cablevision's stockholders by
approving the sale of the Company to Altice for inadequate
consideration and by agreeing to preclude other potential
acquirers from tendering superior proposals, and that Altice aided
and abetted the breaches. The complaint seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief blocking the closing of the Merger,
rescission of the Merger were it to close, costs, attorneys' fees,
and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The
parties have agreed to suspend the time to answer or otherwise
respond to the complaint until plaintiffs file a consolidated
complaint, at which time the parties will meet and confer on a
schedule. The Company believes that this claim is without merit
and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range
of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces "Gould" Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, that the Company faces the case, James R.
Gould, Jr. v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al.

On September 24, 2015, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against Cablevision, the Company's Board of Directors, Altice and
Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties to Cablevision's stockholders by,
among other reasons, failing to properly value the Company and
failing to take steps to maximize the value of Cablevision to its
public stockholders in connection with the sale of the Company to
Altice, and that Altice, Cablevision and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the breaches. The complaint seeks injunctive relief
blocking the closing of the Merger, unspecified damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. The parties have agreed to suspend the time to answer
or otherwise respond to the complaint until plaintiffs file a
consolidated complaint, at which time the parties will meet and
confer on a schedule. The Company believes that this claim is
without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but
is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


CAHABA GOVERNMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis M. Coerver, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Cahaba Government Administrators LLC, Case No. 4:15-
cv-03400 (S.D. Tex., November 18, 2015) seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to consumers'
cellular telephone.

Cahaba Government Administrators LLC operates a health insurance
company in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES AND ELLZEY
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      E-mail: jarrett@crafthugheslaw.com


CALSONIC KANSEI: Fixed Price of Radiators, Rush Truck Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Rush Truck Centers of Alabama, Inc., et al. v. Calsonic Kansei
Corp., Calsonic Kansei North America, Inc., T. RAD Co. Ltd., T.
RAD North America, Inc., Mitsuba Corp., American Mitsuba Corp.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-14097-RHC-MKM (E.D. Mich., November 20, 2015)
alleges that the Defendants -- manufacturers and suppliers of
radiators globally and in the United States -- engage in a long-
running conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the
vehicle parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix,
stabilize, and maintain the prices of Radiators, which were sold
to Truck and Equipment manufacturers in the United States and
elsewhere.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Radiators throughout
the United States and in other countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne A. Mack, Esq.
      J. Manly Parks, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS LLP
      30 S. 17th Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 979-1000
      Facsimile: (215) 979-1020
      E-mail: wamack@duanemorris.com
              jmparks@duanemorris.com


CAPITAL ONE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Rogers" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Rogers, Pamela Martin, and Sandra Roberts, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-04016-TWT (N.D. Ga., November 18,
2015) seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of making
unsolicited calls to consumers' cellular telephone.

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. operates a bank holding company
specializing in credit cards, home loans, auto loans, banking and
savings products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON & RADBIL, PLLC
      Suite 913, 106 East Sixth Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 322-3912
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Craig J. Ehrlich, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. EHRLICH, LLC
      Suite 300, 2300 Henderson Mill Road
      Atlanta, GA 30345
      Telephone: (404) 365-4460
      Facsimile: (855) 415-2480
      E-mail: craig@ehrlichlawoffice.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Pennsylvania AG Sues Over "Deceptive" Leases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rubinkam, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Pennsylvania's attorney general sued one of the nation's largest
producers of natural gas on Dec. 9 over claims it cheated at least
4,000 landowners who signed drilling leases with the company.

Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake Energy Corp. tricked landowners
into signing industry-friendly leases in the early years of the
Marcellus Shale drilling boom and then improperly deducted
post-production expenses from their royalty checks, according to
the lawsuit filed in Bradford County.

Chesapeake, the nation's No. 2 gas producer, engaged in a "bait
and switch scheme" with landowners, said the lawsuit, which seeks
tens of millions of dollars in restitution as well as civil
penalties.

Chesapeake denied the claims.

"We strongly disagree with Attorney General (Kathleen) Kane's
baseless allegations and will vigorously contest them in the
appropriate forum," Chesapeake spokesman Gordon Pennoyer said.

Landowners in the Marcellus Shale -- a deep rock formation that
holds the nation's largest known reservoir of natural gas -- have
been complaining for years about Chesapeake's business practices,
and a settlement agreement between the driller and thousands of
landowners is pending.  Ms. Kane is seeking to modify the civil
settlement so that her own lawsuit can go forward.

A landowners group hailed the lawsuit.

"We've been waiting a long time for this," said Jackie Root,
president of the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association
of Royalty Owners.  "It looks like it's going to provide relief to
a lot of lessors, people who have been cheated out of what was due
them, and hopefully without attorneys' fees and without having to
fight for it."

Ms. Kane's office launched an investigation nearly two years ago
into complaints that landowners in northeastern Pennsylvania were
being cheated of royalties, interviewing hundreds of landowners
and sifting through their lease paperwork to decide who might have
been defrauded.

"We have identified at least 4,000 landowners, but we expect the
number could be considerably higher.  We're hopeful that today's
filing will lead other affected landowners we have not spoken with
to share their concerns with the office," said Jeffrey Johnson, a
spokesman for Kane.

Ms. Root said she recently worked with one landowner who not only
stopped receiving royalty checks from Chesapeake, but was told by
Chesapeake that he owed the company money.

Like other drillers, Chesapeake deployed so-called "landmen" to
negotiate with property owners in the early years of a drilling
and fracking boom that turned Pennsylvania into the nation's No. 2
gas-producing state after Texas.  The rush to lock up huge tracts
of land for drilling "provided the conditions necessary for the
unscrupulous procurement of oil and gas leases from Pennsylvania
landowners," the suit said.

Chesapeake's landmen used high-pressure sales tactics; discouraged
landowners from comparing terms with one another and from hiring
lawyers; made false statements about the leasing process; and
engaged in other "unfair and deceptive negotiation tactics" to get
unsuspecting, unsophisticated landowners to sign, the suit said.

Later, Chesapeake and another company, Williams Partners LP,
artificially inflated transportation and other post-production
costs, and Chesapeake improperly passed them on to the landowners,
the suit said.

A Williams spokesman said the company was preparing a comment on
the lawsuit.


CMRE FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mizrahi" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Rivkah Mizrahi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-06725 (E.D.N.Y., November 23, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

CMRE Financial Services, Inc. provides both soft-core and
continued collection services that help healthcare organizations
reconcile delinquent accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


CNX GAS: Faces Class Action Over Kinney Lease Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against CNX Gas Company LLC
and Noble Energy Inc. after the plaintiffs claim the companies
were unjustly enriched at their expense.

On Sept. 9, 2009, David L. Kinney and Raymond P. Kinney entered
into an oil, gas and coalbed methane gas lease agreement with CNX
regarding their property, according to a complaint filed in
Marshall Circuit Court.

The Kinneys claim on Nov. 2, 2011, CNX assigned 50 percent of its
right, title and interest in certain oil, gas and/or mineral
leases to Noble Energy, which included the 2009 lease with them.

Oil and/or gas wells have been drilled on the Kinney property and
production has already occurred, and both CNX and Noble have made
royalty payments to the plaintiffs in which a flat-rate of
expenses per MMBtu has been subtracted, according to the suit.

The Kinneys claim as a result of the provisions in the 2009 lease
and the defendants' actual royalty payments made to the
plaintiffs, expenses have been subtracted from their royalty
payments that have not been actually incurred and were not
reasonable.

Moreover, the defendants also subcontracted expenses from the
plaintiffs' royalty payments without providing, by evidence of the
type normally developed in legal proceedings requiring an
accounting, that the defendants actually incurred such costs and
that they were reasonable, according to the suit.

The Kinneys claim they bring their claims for declaratory
judgment, unjust enrichment and fraud on behalf of all individuals
who have received royalty payments from the defendants in which a
flat-rate of post-production costs have been subcontracted, which
have not been actually incurred and are not reasonable.

The defendants received a benefit from the plaintiffs and class
members and were unjustly enriched at their expenses, according to
the suit.

The Kinneys claim the defendants' actions constitute fraud.

The Kinneys are seeking class certification and compensatory and
punitive damages.

They are being represented by James G. Bordas Jr. and Jeremy M.
McGraw of Bordas & Bordas.

Marshall Circuit Court case number: 15-C-186


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery Underway in Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court
has lifted the discovery stay; and discovery is underway in a
consolidated federal securities class action lawsuit.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the
Company's motion to dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to
file a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which
was filed on October 5, 2015. The Company's motion to dismiss must
be filed by November 4, 2015. The court also lifted the discovery
stay and discovery is underway. The Company believes this
consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend
this case.


CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend Hale Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. continues to defend the so-called Hale
litigation in Virginia, the Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

This class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants, or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, and on June 23, 2015 CNX Gas Company filed its
Opposition to same. The Court held a hearing on the Renewed Motion
on September 18, 2015. The Court took the Motion under advisement
and has not yet issued a ruling.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously.


CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend Addison Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. continues to defend the so-called Addison
litigation, it disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the
United States District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative
class consists of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict.
The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM
and damages based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed
to either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant lessors or
paid them less than required because of the alleged practice of
improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-
production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On August 19,
2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the
Order certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, and on June 23, 2015 CNX Gas Company filed its
Opposition to same. The Court held a hearing on the Renewed Motion
on September 18, 2015. The Court took the Motion under advisement
and has not yet issued a ruling.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously.


CONTE'S PASTA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hepafrodito Camposeco and Maria J. Martinez v. Conte's Pasta
Company Inc., Mauro Conte, and Claudio Conte, Case No. 1:15-cv-
08223-RMB-AMD (S.D.N.Y., November 23, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime premiums for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants own, manage, and operate Conte's Pasta Company --
selling traditional, homemade-style Italian fresh and frozen food
products, including pizzas, sauces, ravioli, garlic breads, and
other specialty items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
      110 State Highway 35, Suite #10
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (718) 799-9111
      Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA: Sued Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Mansur Djahongirov, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-06728 (E.D.N.Y., November 23, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc. operates a collection agency in
Sonoma, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


CREDIT ONE: Faces Class Action in Connecticut Over Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Las Vegas-based
Credit One Bank has been hit with a proposed class action accusing
it of violating federal law by making repeated auto-dialed calls,
or "robocalls," to thousands of consumers' cell phones without
consent.

The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 16 in Connecticut federal court on
behalf of New Haven resident Eileen Waldron, who said the credit
card bank called her cell phone about 200 times in two months even
though she was never a customer and did not give the bank her
phone number.


CRST VAN: Supreme Court to Help resolve Attorney Fee Award Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 4 agreed to referee a long-running
dispute between Jenner & Block and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission over $4.6 million in attorney fees awarded
to a client of the law firm.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit nixed the
attorney fee award because the sex discrimination case brought by
the EEOC against Jenner client CRST Van Expedited Inc. was
dismissed rather than decided on the merits.  It also noted that
one of the claims involved in the case was settled with the
company.

In his petition before the high court, Paul Smith, chairman of
Jenner's Supreme Court practice, argued that the trucking company
had in fact prevailed in the "massive" litigation brought on
behalf of a class of female drivers who claimed sexual harassment
on the job.

The Eighth Circuit's ruling, Smith asserted, conflicts with
decisions in three other circuits that have awarded fees when
similar suits have been dismissed because of the failure of the
EEOC to conduct any pre-suit investigation or conciliation.

"The Eighth Circuit's ruling makes no sense as a matter of
statutory policy," Mr. Smith wrote in the petition in CRST Van
Expedited Inc. v. EEOC.  The case is likely to be argued next
spring with a decision before the end of June 2016.

The EEOC first filed the suit against CRST in 2007, claiming
persistent harassment of female long-haul drivers and trainees.
The number of women in the case grew to 270, but the company filed
motions asserting the EEOC could not possibly have evidence to
prove their claims were valid.

The district court agreed that the EEOC had "wholly abandoned its
statutory duties," dismissing most of the claims and awarding the
$4.6 million in fees, one of the largest awards in EEOC history.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the ruling last year.

In the government's opposing brief, Solicitor General Donald
Verrilli Jr. asserted that under high court precedent, legal fees
can only be awarded to a prevailing defendant if the litigation is
shown to be "frivolous" -- a determination that can only be made
if the case is decided on the merits.


CYAN INC: Wilson Sonsini Seeks to Avert State Court Pre-IPO Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that there's only one
place where federal securities claims belong, according to a team
of lawyers with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and that's
federal court.

The Wilson team led by partner Boris Feldman is trying to dam a
perceived flood of post-initial public offering securities suits
brought in the traditionally plaintiff-friendly state courts.  In
a petition filed on Dec. 2 seeking an emergency appeal, Wilson
seeks review of San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow's
October ruling that a case against Cyan Inc. could proceed in
state court.

"This case has legal significance not just to petitioners,"
Mr. Feldman wrote in the writ petition filed with the First
District Court of Appeal, "but to all companies who face Section
11 claims when their stock fails to meet expectations following an
initial or secondary public offering."

Mr. Feldman is just one of many defense attorneys who say
plaintiffs shouldn't be allowed to circumvent tough federal
pleading standards by selecting a state court forum.  The
jurisdiction question was settled in 1998, they argue, when the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) stripped state
courts of control over federal securities cases.  But Mr. Feldman
and his cohorts face an uphill battle. In the Northern District of
California, plaintiffs overwhelmingly are winning their fights to
keep IPO cases in state court.

In recent months, Bay Area federal judges including Lucy Koh,
Phyllis Hamilton and Haywood Gilliam Jr. have granted plaintiffs'
motions to kick suits back to state court after defendants tried
to remove them.  Ruling against Etsy Inc. in October, Hamilton
recognized a "lack of clear authority from the Supreme Court or
the Ninth Circuit (or any circuit) on this issue," and a split
among district courts.  But she also pointed to the "increasing
majority view" of local district judges that these cases should be
returned to state court, citing 10 such decisions from the past
five years.

Those plaintiff-friendly rulings combined with a booming IPO
market have led to a hefty state court case load.

More than 25 Section 11 class actions were filed in California
state courts over the past five years -- with at least 12 filed
this year alone, according to the Cyan writ petition.  Companies
battling IPO or secondary-offering suits in local state courts
include Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., Etsy Inc., Xoom Corp.,
SunEdison Inc. and FireEye Inc.

The Cyan lawsuit stems from lackluster performance by the
communications hardware and software provider following the
company's 2013 IPO.  Plaintiffs sued in San Francisco Superior
Court, and Cyan responded with a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, claiming the state court lacked jurisdiction.  Judge
Karnow denied the motion in October, citing Luther v. Countrywide
Financial, a 2011 ruling from the Second District Court of Appeal
that held SLUSA did not strip state courts of concurrent
jurisdiction over federal Section 11 claims.  But that decision is
irrelevant, Mr. Feldman argues, because unlike in the Cyan case,
the securities at issue in Luther weren't traded on a national
exchange.

Nevertheless, Luther appears to offer the only appellate guidance
on the venue question, and the case routinely is cited by
plaintiffs lawyers.

The decision is supported by an "overwhelming consensus of recent
U.S. District Court decisions," wrote lawyers with Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, who represent plaintiffs in the Cyan case.  They
even tried to pre-empt the defendant's attempt at removal by
citing Luther in their complaint.

Mr. Feldman, who said he's prepared to take the jurisdiction fight
to the California Supreme Court, thinks state court judges are
being too easy on plaintiffs.  They weigh the pleadings "as if
this were a slip-and-fall case," Mr. Feldman said in an interview,
instead of applying the level of scrutiny demanded under federal
law.

"It means that cases that would absolutely get dismissed in
federal court are being allowed to survive demurrers in state
court," he said.

There are advantages for plaintiffs lawyers to filing in state
court, said Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro partner Reed Kathrein --
reed@hbsslaw.com.  It allows them to avoid the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), meaning the lawyers don't risk
losing control of a case they filed if they don't represent the
plaintiff with the biggest losses.  And different pleading
requirements could mean a plaintiff will have an easier time
surviving a demurrer,
Mr. Kathrein added.

But Robbins Geller founding partner James Jaconette  --
jamesj@rgrdlaw.com -- insists state court isn't inherently better
for plaintiffs, and says he files in both forums.  Generally the
cases he files in federal court have higher potential damages, he
said in an email.

Not all defense lawyers intend to join in Feldman's fight.  Keker
& Van Nest partner Michael Celio -- mcelio@kvn.com -- indicated
he's seen the writing on the wall.  He recently entered a stock
offering case on behalf of Revance Therapeutics Inc., replacing
lawyers at Cooley after they tried and failed to steer the case
into federal court.

Mr. Celio called removing a Section 11 case "something of a long
shot at this point," adding "it's not something that I would
typically do."


D&K HARVESTING: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baldemar Bautista-Cruz, Ricardo Guerrero-Chavero, Jose Omar
Martinez-Coronel, Enrique Martinez-Zeferino, Leopoldo Antonio
Ortega, Efren Pichardo-Hernandez, Antonio Marcelino Rosendo and
Edgar David Velazquez-Reyes, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. D&K Harvesting, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00725-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., November 23, 2015) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

D&K Harvesting, Inc. operates a fruit harvesting company located
at 890 Spratt Blvd, LaBelle, FL 33935.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karla C. Martinez, Esq.
      Gregory S. Schell, Esq.
      MIGRANT FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT
      508 Lucerne Avenue
      Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819
      Telephone: (561) 582-3921
      Facsimile: (561) 582-4884
      E-mail karla@floridalegal.org
             greg@floridalegal.org


DICK'S SPORTING: Settles Overtime Class Action for $10 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Opfer, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Dick's
Sporting Goods Inc. has agreed to pay $10 million to settle a
class action for unpaid overtime wages, according to the terms of
a settlement that a federal judge preliminarily approved Dec. 11.

The settlement would resolve claims by six workers alleging that
Dick's misclassified them as exempt managers under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  It would also cover a class of employees who
worked in Dick's stores across the country in the three years
leading up to the litigation.

The agreement comes as the Labor Department is working to finalize
a rule to enhance overtime protections for workers and has
signaled that it intends to crack down on worker
misclassification.  Dick's agreed in 2011 to shell out $15 million
to resolve a class action by workers alleging they weren't
compensated for time worked during meal breaks and time they were
required to be at work after their scheduled shifts.

Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts said the court will consider whether to
grant final approval of the settlement after an April 1 fairness
hearing.

The workers held various assistant store manager positions at
stores in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Georgia.  They said
Dick's classified them as exempt from the FLSA's requirement that
employees be paid time-and-a-half wages for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

Although they were paid salaries, the workers argued that their
jobs didn't involve the type of managerial work covered by the
FLSA's "white collar" exemption.  They didn't have the authority
to supervise other workers and delegate tasks or to discipline,
hire or fire other employees, according to their complaint.

Dick's didn't admit liability as part of the settlement.  Instead,
the agreement states that the company "denies that it violated the
law in any manner and specifically denies that it violated any
statutory or common law alleged in the Wage-Hour Lawsuits."


DIRECTV GROUP: Removed "Joaquin" Class Suit to Dist. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Angela Joaquin, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. DirecTV Group Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. MID-L-15-06149, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey Middlesex County to the U.S. District
Court District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-08194-MAS-DEA to the proceeding.

DirecTV Group Holdings, Inc. is a broadcast satellite service
provider and broadcaster based in El Segundo, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wei Li, Esq.
      THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
      1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
      North Brunswick, NJ 08902
      Telephone: (732) 545-7900
      Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
      E-mail: ali@wolflawfirm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Marc E. Wolin, Esq.
      Jakob Benjamin Halpern, Esq.
      SAIBER LLC
      18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200
      Florham Park, NJ 07932-2266
      Telephone: (973) 622-3333
      E-mail: mwolin@saiber.com
              jbh@saiber.com


DIRECTV INC: Can Opt for Private Arbitration to Avert Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 14 that satellite provider DirecTV can
avoid a class action lawsuit in California over early termination
fees and force customers into private arbitration hearings
instead.

In a 6-3 opinion, the justices said that DirecTV's contracts can
specifically prohibit customers from banding together to sue the
company, even though California state law would allow such class
action lawsuits to go forward.

It's the latest in a series of high court rulings that favor the
ability of businesses to limit their litigation costs by including
mandatory arbitration in standard customer contracts. Consumer
advocates say such agreements rob customers of any meaningful
power to challenge corporate misconduct.

Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said California law
is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act, which lets companies
require customer disputes to be settled one by one in arbitration.

A California state appeals court had ruled against DirecTV last
year, saying that state law forbids agreements that waive
customer's rights to bring a class action. The state's highest
court affirmed.

The case began in 2008 when Amy Imburgia and Kathy Greiner filed
class action lawsuits claiming that DirecTV wrongly charged them
cancellation fees.  At issue was language in the customer
agreement that said contract disputes would be settled through
arbitration unless "the law of your state" prevents it.

But Breyer said the high court had ruled in another case in 2011
that California's law was invalid because it conflicted with
federal arbitration law.  He said language in the contract
referring to state law means "valid state law." Just because the
state law was valid at the time the contract was made did not
matter if it became invalid later, he said.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying he does not believe
federal arbitration law applies to proceedings in state courts.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a separate dissent, joined by
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saying that parties to a contract can
choose to be bound by a particular state law, even if it is
superseded by federal law.

Ginsburg said the majority opinion and previous ruling in favor of
arbitration clauses "have predictably resulted in the deprivation
of consumers' rights to seek redress for losses."  As a result,
she said powerful companies can impose contracts banning class
action lawsuits "on people with little or no bargaining position."

A copy of the Supreme Court decision is available at
http://is.gd/zGX13Dfrom Leagle.com.


DIRECTV INC: BakerHostetler Discuss Supreme Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lewis, Esq. -- plewis@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler,
in an article for JDSupra, wrote that in a 6-3 decision on Dec.
16, the Supreme Court in DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 577 U.S. ___,
S. Ct. (2015) reversed a decision of the California Court of
Appeals that refused to enforce a class action arbitration waiver
on unconscionability grounds.  At issue in that case was a class
action arbitration waiver that contained a provision stating that
the entire arbitration provision was unenforceable if "the law of
your state" made class action waivers unenforceable. At the time
the contracts were entered into, class action waivers were
unenforceable in California under the Discover Bank rule (which,
of course, was later overruled by the Supreme Court in
Concepcion).  The lower California courts in Imburgia sought to
escape Federal Arbitration Act preemption by seizing on the "law
of your state" clause in the contract, holding that Sections 1751
and 1781 of the California Remedies Act -- rather than the
Discover Bank case itself -- rendered the class action arbitration
waiver invalid under California state law.  Therefore, to the
lower courts, the entire arbitration provision was unenforceable
by its own terms notwithstanding any preemptive force of the FAA.

The Court roundly rejected this analysis. Under the FAA, federal
courts must adhere to the state courts' interpretation of
contracts provided that the analysis places arbitration provisions
"on equal footing with all other contracts." (Slip op. at 9,
citing Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 43
(2006)).   Here, the Court held that for a number of reasons, the
court of appeals' decision had treated the arbitration provision
in this case differently than it would other contracts, did not
therefore give "due regard . . . to the federal policy favoring
arbitration," and would be therefore preempted by the FAA. Chief
among these reasons was the Court's interpretation of the "law of
your state" clause: "absent any indication that this language is
meant to refer to invalid state law, it presumably takes its
ordinary meaning: valid state law." (Slip op. at 9) (emphasis in
original).  Notwithstanding the California courts' citation to the
California Remedies Act, the majority saw the real source of
authority for the California courts' position being Discover Bank,
which was preempted by the FAA in Concepcion.  Thus, any
California state law deeming class action waivers unenforceable
was "invalid" and not the "law of your state" for purposes of
determining the applicability of the arbitration provision.

The case drew two dissents.  The first, by Justice Thomas,
repeated his view that the FAA does not apply at all to state
court proceedings.  The second, by Justice Ginsburg and joined by
Justice Sotomayor, pushed back on what she termed a "routine . . .
for powerful economic enterprises to write into their form
contracts with consumers and employees no-class-action arbitration
clauses" and held that she would have given the "benefit of the
doubt" to the consumer. (Slip op. at 15).

The case was also noteworthy as a rebuke to the California courts
for trying to stray from Concepcion.  Justice Breyer began the
opinion by reinforcing the Supremacy Clause and the state courts'
obligation to follow authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court,
even if they disagree with them. And, of course, it is relatively
uncommon for the Supreme Court to accept certiorari in a case
decided by an intermediate appellate state court when that state's
supreme court declines to review the case.


DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: "Leon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Leon, and all others similarly situated v. Diversified
Concrete, LLC, Ryan Rogers, and Bradley Rogers, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06301 (E.D. La., November 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a commercial concrete construction company
operating within the New Orleans, Baton Rouge, & Mississippi Gulf
Coast regions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Tel: (504) 914-1048
      Fax: (504) 272-2956
      E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

          - and -

      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Tel: (504) 483-8008
      E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in O&R Case Negotiate Written Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that at
the request of the parties in the case, O&R Construction, LLC v.
Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:12 CV
02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.), a court has entered an order striking
plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and
striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a
written settlement agreement.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In
May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC,
Credibility. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and
allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the
products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages
and equitable relief.

DBCC was served with the complaint on December 14, 2012. The
Company was served with the complaint on December 17, 2012.

On February 18, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped
the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices
allegations. The defendants filed new motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court
heard the motions and denied DBCC's motion but granted the
Company's motion. Specifically, the Court dismissed the contract
claim against the Company with prejudice, and dismissed all the
remaining claims against the Company without prejudice.

On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and
unfair business practices under Washington state law against the
Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports.
The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint
venture or agency theory for practices relating to CreditBuilder.
As against DBCC, the SAC alleges claims for negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unfair and deceptive
acts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

DBCC filed a motion to dismiss the claims that were based on a
joint venture or agency liability theory. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the SAC.

On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the defendants'
motions. It dismissed with prejudice the claims against the
defendants based on a joint venture or agency liability theory.
The Court denied the Company's motion with respect to the
negligence, defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23,
2014, the defendants answered the SAC.

At a court conference on December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the
Court that it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class,
but instead limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in
Washington.

On May 29, 2015, plaintiff filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed
oppositions to the motions for class certification.

On September 16, 2015, plaintiff filed reply briefs in support of
the motions for class certification. The parties have since
reached an oral agreement in principle to resolve the action,
which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a written
settlement agreement and Court approval.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiate a written settlement agreement.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Die-Mension Case Negotiate Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that at
the request of the parties in the case, Die-Mension Corporation v.
Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855
(TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)), the
court has entered an order striking plaintiff's class
certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming
deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement.

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-
Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company and DBCC, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class
of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States
or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint
alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company,
the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("DTPA"), defamation, and negligence. As against
DBCC, the complaint alleged violations of the DTPA, negligent
misrepresentation and concealment.

On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court,
Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive
allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported
class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder
product. On March 12, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the
amended complaint and on March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to
waive service.

On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to
Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On
June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the
Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case
was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to
an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court,
this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with
related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In
response, Die-Mension filed a second amended complaint on March
13, 2015.

On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Die-Mension filed its
oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June
12, 2015.

On July 17, 2015, Die-Mension filed motions for class
certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015,
the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion
to dismiss, and on September 10, 2015, it entered an order
granting DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice.

The parties have since reached an oral agreement in principle to
resolve the action, which is subject to the negotiation and
execution of a written settlement agreement and Court approval.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiate a written settlement agreement.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Venotemp Case Negotiate Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that at
the request of the parties in the case, Vinotemp International
Corporation and CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed
as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal.)), the court has entered an order
striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice
and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a
written settlement.

On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation
("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and
CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint
alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of
Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint
alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information
on credit reports in violation of Sec. 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and
defamation claims.

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint and on April 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was
transferred to the Western District of Washington.

Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a
stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule.

On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In response, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, plaintiffs
filed their oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply
briefs on June 12, 2015.

On July 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington
court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss.

The parties have since reached an oral agreement in principle to
resolve the action, which is subject to the negotiation and
execution of a written settlement agreement and Court approval. At
the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered
an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions and
DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice and striking all
upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written
settlement agreement.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Flow Sciences Case Negotiate Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that at
the request of the parties in the case, Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun
& Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404
(TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.)), the
court has entered an order striking plaintiff's class
certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming
deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement.

On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences")
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and
DBCC. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of
DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The
complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive
practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder
credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's
Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In
addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence
and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 18, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the complaint
and on June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina
court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014,
the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On
April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Flow Science filed its oppositions
to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015.

On July 17, 2015, Flow Sciences filed motions for class
certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015,
the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion
to dismiss and on October 19, 2015, it entered an order denying
DBCC's motion to dismiss.

The parties have since reached an oral agreement in principle to
resolve the action, which is subject to the negotiation and
execution of a written settlement agreement and Court approval. At
the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered
an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without
prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties
negotiate a written settlement agreement.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Altaflo Case Negotiate Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that at
the request of the parties in the case, Altaflo, LLC v. Dun &
Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288
(TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.)), the
court has entered an order striking plaintiff's class
certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming
deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement.

On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo
purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint
alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices
in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit
monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the
Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims.
The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint, and on July 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the
Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014.

Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
Altaflo filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3,
2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint,
and on May 22, 2015, Altaflo filed its oppositions to the motions.
Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015,
Altaflo filed motions for class certification against the Company
and DBCC.

On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order
denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on October 19, 2015,
it entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss without
prejudice.

The parties have since reached an oral agreement in principle to
resolve the action, which is subject to the negotiation and
execution of a written settlement agreement and Court approval. At
the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered
an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without
prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties
negotiate a written settlement agreement.


EL AGUILA: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Maldonado, and all others similarly situated v. El Aguila
Lex, LLC dba El Aguila, El Aguila III, LLC dba El Aguila, El
Aguila NY, LLC dba El Aguila, Pedro Matar and Fernando Matar, Case
No. 1:15-cv-09306 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate three restaurants under the common
trade name "El Aguila," in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EMPIRE CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Giovanni Divella, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Empire Credit & Collection, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-06709 (E.D.N.Y., November 23, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Empire Credit & Collection, Inc. operates a debt collection
company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Barshay, Esq.
      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
      E-mail: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com
              csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


ENJOY AGAIN: "Canfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Nacole Canfield, Thomas Bayles, Octavia Jelks, and all others
similarly situated v. Enjoy Again, LLC and Antonio Durant, Case
No. 2:15-cv-14141 (E.D. Mich., November 24, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Detroit, Michigan.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq.
      GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
      2701 Troy Center Dr., Ste. 400
      Troy, MI 48084
      Tel: (248) 275-5200
      E-mail: cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Classes Decertified in Karapetian/Aguilar
--------------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
court has decertified all classes in the Karapetian/ Aguilar case.

Four different putative class action lawsuits were filed against
AMR and certain subsidiaries in California alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws. On April 16, 2008, Laura Bartoni
commenced a suit in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed
suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles; and on March 11, 2010, Melanie Aguilar filed suit in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases have been coordinated in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian cases have subsequently
been consolidated into a single action.

In these cases, the plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR
entities failed to pay wages, including overtime wages, in
compliance with California law, and failed to provide required
meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium compensation for missed
breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify classes on these
claims and are seeking lost wages, various penalties, and
attorneys' fees under California law.

While it denied certification of the rest period claims in the
consolidated Karapetian/ Aguilar case, the Court certified classes
on claims alleging that AMR has not provided meal periods in
compliance with the law as to dispatchers and call takers, that
AMR has an unlawful time rounding policy, and that AMR has an
unlawful practice of setting rates for those employees.

On October 13, 2015, the Court decertified all classes in the
Karapetian/ Aguilar case.

In the Banta case, the Court denied certification of the meal and
rest period claims as to EMTs and paramedics, a decision that is
being appealed; the Court indicated that it would certify a class
on overtime claims, but plaintiff's counsel has indicated that
they intend to dismiss that claim as AMR's policy complies with a
recent Court of Appeals decision.

In the Bartoni case, the Court denied certification on the meal
and rest period claims of all unionized employees in Northern
California, a decision that is being appealed; while the Court
certified a class on the overtime claims, plaintiffs' counsel
stipulated to decertify and dismiss those claims as AMR's policy
complies with a recent Court of Appeals decision.

The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of
potential damages, if any.


ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: Judge Okays OT Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a $300,000 settlement resolving a class action by Essex County
corrections officers claiming they were cheated out of overtime
pay has garnered a New Jersey federal judge's approval.

U.S. District Judge Claire Cecchi on Dec. 1 also signed off on an
additional $61,000 in attorney fees, noting that further costly
litigation would be averted -- though the plaintiffs apparently
are in line to receive everything they sought.

"It appears that plaintiffs are being fully compensated for their
alleged overtime hours and are receiving an equivalent sum in
liquidated damages," Judge Cecchi said.  "Therefore, plaintiffs
are recovering all unpaid wages under the [Fair Labor Standards
Act] that they would have had they proceeded to trial."

According to the decision, the action was lodged in February 2014
by named plaintiffs Dwayne Davis and Jeda Austin on behalf of
corrections officers employed on or after Feb. 11, 2011, at the
Essex County Juvenile Detention Center.  It claimed willful
violations of the FLSA and its state counterpart, the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law.

Of the estimated 158 potential class members, 60 opted-in in
written notice to the court, as the FLSA requires.  The action
proceeded through discovery, during which compensation records
were parsed and extrapolations calculated, the decision states.

Essex County disputed the suit's allegations, maintaining that it
acted in good faith -- which would bar the suit as untimely -- and
accusing the corrections officers of intentionally under-reporting
the hours they worked.  The county also contended that a
legitimate overtime policy and procedure was in place and that
some of the putative class members had in fact been paid the wages
sought by the suit, according to the decision.

The parties settled in conferences with U.S. Magistrate Judge
James Clark III.  The agreement required the county to pay, in
addition to the allegedly unpaid wages and attorney fees,
liquidated damages and service payments of $1,000 each to the
named plaintiffs.

In September, both sides moved jointly for approval of the
settlement, which Judge Cecchi, sitting in Newark, granted Nov. 1.
She certified the class, deeming the members similarly situated,
and said the settlement itself resolves a "bona fide dispute," is
fair and reasonable and does not frustrate the implementation of
the FLSA in the workplace.

"The complexity of the issues presented suggests further
litigation will be exceedingly time-consuming and costly,"
Judge Cecchi said.

The judge approved the method of disbursement and deemed Davis and
Austin entitled to service awards because they "agreed to bring
this action in their names, they expended time and effort to
assist in the preparation of the complaint, provided plaintiffs'
counsel with relevant information, and assisted counsel in the
investigation of the claims at issue, and the finalization of the
settlement."  She called the service awards consistent with those
paid in other class suits.

As for attorney fees -- provided for by the FLSA -- Judge Cecchi
approved the $61,000 amount, noting that it equaled 20 percent of
the settlement fund -- while awards ranging from 19 percent to 45
percent had been approved in other cases.

The judge calculated the lodestar for the 248 attorney, paralegal
and staff hours spent on the case at about $72,600 -- which also
counseled in favor of approving the $61,000 sought, she said.
Assistant Essex County Counsel Courtney Gaccione, who heads the
office's labor and employment section, declined to comment.

Class counsel Andrew Glenn of Jaffe Glenn Law Group in
Lawrenceville didn't return a call seeking comment on the
settlement.


FH CANN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Schwartz" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Schwartz, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated consumers v. F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-06608-ENV-SMG (E.D.N.Y., November 18, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc. operates a commercial and consumer
collection agency in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


FEDERAL HOME: Still Defending Ohio Public Employees Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the Company continues to defend the case, Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et
al.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from
August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements concerning our business, risk management,
and the procedures we put into place to protect the company from
problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff sought
unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

On October 8, 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. On October 31, 2014, the Court granted defendants'
motions and dismissed the case in its entirety against all
defendants, with prejudice. On November 25, 2014, plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

"At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business,
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations," the
Company said. "In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an
adverse judgment in the foregoing matter due to the following
factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of the appellate
process; the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation in the
event the case is ultimately remanded to the District Court in
whole or in part; and the fact that the District Court has not yet
ruled upon motions for class certification or summary judgment. In
particular, absent resolution of the appellate process, the
certification of a class, the identification of a class period,
and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that
survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss."


FEDERAL HOME: Suit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Still Open
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the Company continues to defend the case, In re Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class
Action Litigations.

This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative
class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal
National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013; American European
Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 30,
2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal
National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case was
also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.)

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2013. In
the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other
items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement
breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with
the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such
contracts. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and
expert fees.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who
held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu
lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers
of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued by
Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time.


FEDERAL HOME: Defending Jacobs and Hindes Suit vs. FHFA, Treasury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the Company is defending the case, Jacobs and Hindes
vs. FHFA and Treasury.

This case was filed on August 17, 2015 as a putative class action
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of a class of holders of preferred
stock or common stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. The
case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit,
purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as "nominal"
defendants. The complaint alleges, among other items, that the
August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement violated
applicable state law and constituted a breach of contract, as well
as a breach of covenants of good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiffs seek equitable and injunctive relief (including
restitution of the monies paid by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to
Treasury under the net worth sweep dividend), compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Continues to Defend Hearing Loss Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation continues to defend lawsuits filed by
firefighters over hearing loss, the Company revealed in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004 involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six
additional cases were filed in Cook County involving 299
Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was
filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for
the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The
Company appealed this verdict.

On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this
appeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with
the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7,
2013. The Company sought further review by filing a petition for
leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013.

On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs,
which has resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the
trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this
matter.

Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate Court
reversed the trial court's certification order.  Thereafter, the
trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial involving three
firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December 2012. Prior to the
start of this trial, the claims of two of the three firefighter
plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012, the jury entered
a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class.

During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented
to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their
complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago
firefighter plaintiffs as well as the approximately 1,800
firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March
11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motions to amend
their complaints. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will now
file motions to certify classes in these cases.

On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County
chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues.
The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at
certification. The Company also has filed motions to dismiss cases
involving firefighters located outside of Cook County based on
improper venue. Plaintiffs have requested discovery from the
Company related to these venue motions. The Court scheduled a
further status hearing regarding venue matters for December 2,
2015.


FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Faces ERISA Class Action in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Iacurci, writing for Investment News, reports that a unit of
Fidelity Investments has been targeted in a class-action suit for
fiduciary breach under ERISA as a result of its alleged
mismanagement of a stable value fund. The fund's low investment
returns and high fees made it an imprudent investment for 401(k)
plan participants, plaintiffs claim.

The suit, Ellis et al v. Fidelity Management Trust Co., was filed
Dec. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The lead plaintiffs in the case, James Ellis and William Perry,
were invested in the stable value fund in question -- the Fidelity
Group Employee Benefit Plan Managed Income Portfolio Commingled
Pool -- through the Barnes & Noble Inc. 401(k) plan at different
times over the period from 2009 to 2015.

"The poor performance and high fees of the MIP were the result of
the intentional actions and omissions of the trustee and fiduciary
for the MIP, Defendant Fidelity Management Trust Company," the
complaint stated.

The class represented in the suit is all the participants and
plans using the fund, as long as the plans are governed by ERISA,
said Thomas Clark Jr., an ERISA attorney at the Wagner Law Group
who is not involved in the suit against Fidelity.  The stable
value fund held $6.4 billion as of Nov. 30, versus about $9.4
billion in October 2009.

The MIP is structured as a collective investment trust. Such
trusts differ from mutual funds in that the assets they hold are
considered "plan assets," and thus ERISA's fiduciary duties apply,
Mr. Clark said.

ALLEGATIONS

Prior to 2009, Fidelity engaged in "an imprudent and ultimately
unsuccessful investment strategy" by holding a large amount of the
portfolio in various forms of securitized debt, such as asset-
backed securities, mortgage-backed securities and collateralized
debt obligations, which declined in value when the financial
crisis hit, the complaint says.

Fidelity significantly modified its asset allocation to reduce
risk to the wrap providers for the fund, adopting an overly
conservative investment strategy, the complaint says.  Wrap
providers for a stable value fund -- in this case, AIG Financial
Products, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Monumental Life Insurance Co.,
Rabobank Nederland and State Street Bank and Trust -- provide
principal protection and liquidity to the fund.

The conservative strategy led to lower returns for participants,
the complaints says.

Fidelity also upped the fees paid to the wrap providers by 14
basis points, to 22 bps annually, excessive fees which had an
"immediate negative financial impact" on participants, according
to the complaint.

The suit also claims Fidelity tried to disguise the fund's poor
performance by using a money market fund benchmark, as opposed to
one more appropriate for stable value funds, in communications
with plan sponsors and participants.

"We believe that the claims in this case are without merit and we
intend to defend it vigorously," Fidelity spokesman Steve Austin
said.  He pointed to the fund's prospectus when asked for further
comment.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs -- Christopher Micheletti --
cmicheletti@zelle.com -- of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason; Garrett
Wotkyns -- gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com -- of Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns; and Matthew Righetti of Righetti
Glugoski -- didn't return calls seeking comment.

"This [suit] could be a big deal for others who have similar fact
patterns of going conservative after big losses from mortgage-
backed securities," Mr. Clark said.  "But all of that assumes what
Fidelity did is wrong under ERISA.  This is a novel issue and the
plaintiffs have an uphill battle to win in court."

According to the Plan Sponsor Council of America, nearly 60% of
401(k) plans offer a stable value fund.

Fidelity has been involved in other 401(k) suits in recent years.
The firm settled a pair of suits for $12 million last year with
participants in its own retirement plan.  In another suit, Tussey
v. ABB, plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duty on the issue
of float income; an appellate court found in Fidelity's favor last
year, reversing the decision of the lower court.


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Fairness Hearing on Scheduled for January 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freightcar America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a fairness
hearing on a proposed class action settlement has been scheduled
for January 5, 2016.

On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Illinois
Court"). The case names as defendants the United Steel, Paper &
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial &
Services Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW"), as
well as approximately 650 individual Retiree Defendants (as
defined in the Complaint), and was assigned Case No 1:13-cv-4889.

As described in the Complaint, pursuant to the 2005 Settlement
Agreement among the Company, the USW and the Retiree Defendants,
the Company agreed to make certain levels of contributions to
medical coverage for the Retiree Defendants and to continue to
provide life insurance benefits at their amount at that time under
certain of the Company's employee welfare benefit plans. The 2005
Settlement Agreement expressly provided that, as of November 30,
2012, the Company could cease making these contributions. In June
2011, the Company and the USW began discussing the possibility of
an extension beyond November 30, 2012 for the Company's
contributions to retiree medical coverage and life insurance
benefits at a reduced amount and on other mutually acceptable
terms. The Company engaged in voluntary negotiations for two years
with the USW and counsel for the Retiree Defendants in an effort
to reach a consensual agreement regarding such medical and life
insurance benefits, but the parties were unable to reach a final
agreement. The Company terminated, effective November 1, 2013, its
contributions for medical coverage provided to the Retiree
Defendants and the provision of life insurance benefits and is
seeking declaratory relief to confirm its rights under ERISA to
reduce or terminate retiree medical coverage and life insurance
benefits pursuant to the plans that were the subject of the 2005
Settlement Agreement.

On July 9, 2013, the USW and certain Retiree Defendants
(collectively, the "Pennsylvania Plaintiffs") filed a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Court"), captioned as
Zanghi, et al. v. FreightCar America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-
cv-146. The complaint filed with the Pennsylvania Court alleges
that the Company does not have the right to terminate welfare
benefits previously provided to the Retiree Defendants and
requests, among other relief, entry of a judgment finding that the
Retiree Defendants have a vested right to specified welfare
benefits.

On July 26, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs filed with the
Illinois Court a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b) or in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1404(a), as well as a Motion to Stay and/or Prevent Plaintiff from
Obtaining Defaults against the Retiree Defendants. On August 5,
2013, the Company filed with the Pennsylvania Court a Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or in the Alternative,
to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a).

On January 14, 2014, the Pennsylvania Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss and, on January 16, 2014, the Illinois Court
transferred the Company's case to the Pennsylvania Court. On
January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to consolidate both
cases before the Pennsylvania Court. On April 3, 2014, the
Pennsylvania Court entered an order (the "Initial Procedural
Order") that, among other things, consolidated both cases before
the Pennsylvania Court, certified a class for purposes of the
consolidated actions, established discovery parameters and
deadlines and established a briefing schedule applicable to the
parties' cross motions for summary judgment as to liability only.

On July 17, 2014, the parties filed with the Pennsylvania Court
their respective motions for summary judgment as to liability. On
March 30, 2015, the Pennsylvania Court issued an order denying
both parties' summary judgment motions. A trial was scheduled to
commence on August 25, 2015 in the Pennsylvania Court but was
postponed pending settlement discussions between the parties.

On August 20, 2015, the Company reached a preliminary settlement
agreement with the USW and the other plaintiffs and, on September
21, 2015, the class representatives, the USW and the Company filed
a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
with the Pennsylvania Court. Pursuant to the proposed settlement
agreement, the parties agreed that (1) USW will create a voluntary
employee's beneficiary association trust fund (the "VEBA") that
will administer the payment of health and welfare benefits to
class members and will be administered independently of the
Company, (2) the Company will make a one-time contribution to the
VEBA of $31,450,000, (3) the Company will pay an award for
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in an amount approved by the
Pennsylvania Court not to exceed $1,300,000 (and, if the amount
approved by the Pennsylvania Court is less than $1,300,000, the
Company will contribute an amount equal to the difference to the
VEBA), (4) if the Company fails to make the required payments to
the VEBA prior to February 16, 2016, interest on the unpaid
amounts will accrue at a rate of 5% per annum, subject to a cap of
$250, and (5) class members will fully and finally release all
claims against the Company in accordance with the terms of the
proposed Settlement Agreement.

Settlement of the lawsuit requires preliminary approval by the
Pennsylvania Court and notice of the proposed settlement to class
members, followed by a fairness hearing in which the Pennsylvania
Court determines whether the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate. Class members have the ability to object
to the proposed settlement but not to opt out of the class.

The Pennsylvania Court has granted preliminary approval to the
proposed settlement and notice of the proposed settlement has been
provided to class members. A fairness hearing on the proposed
settlement has been scheduled for January 5, 2016.

The ultimate outcome of the proceedings before the Pennsylvania
Court cannot be determined at this time.

On September 5, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs and certain
putative class representatives filed a Plaintiffs' Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the "TRO
Motion") with the Pennsylvania Court. In the TRO Motion, the
plaintiffs requested that the Pennsylvania Court enter an
injunction requiring the Company to continue to make monthly
contributions at the same rate established by the 2005 Settlement
Agreement until the parties' dispute is fully adjudicated on the
merits. Following entry of the Initial Procedural Order, the
Pennsylvania Court denied the TRO Motion without prejudice.

The Company has recorded postretirement benefit plan obligations,
a substantial portion of which relates to the dispute now before
the Pennsylvania Court (see Note 16).


G5IVE LLC: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jameka Brown, and other similarly situated individuals v. G5ive,
LLC d/b/a G5ive, Case No. 1:15-cv-24347-MGC (S.D. Fla., November
23, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

G5ive, LLC owns and operates an adult night club in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GANT CONTRACTORS: "Facundo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Facundo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated and Juan Martinez v. Gant Contractors, Inc. and Paul E.
Gant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00808 (E.D. Tex., November 23, 2015) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and related penalties pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a commercial site development
company in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Loren, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A.
      3102 Maple Avenue -Suite 450
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (954) 585-4878
      Facsimile: (954) 585-4886
      E-mail: JLoren@Lorenlaw.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Sued in N.J. Over Aluminum Sulfate-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amrex Chemical Company, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-08227-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., November 23, 2015) arises out
of the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and
allocate customers and territories with respect to the sale of
aluminum sulfate to governmental and privately-contracted water
district authorities and to pulp and paper companies in the United
States.

General Chemical Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures water treatment chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

          - and -

      Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
      Mindee J. Rueben, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      1835 Market Street - Suite 2700
      Philadelphia, NJ 19103
      Telephone: (267) 519-8306
      E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
              mreuben@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Suite 300
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 421-3400
      Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
      E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
              smacrae@steyerlaw.com

         - and -

      Arthur Bailey, Esq.
      RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
      1600 Liberty Building
      424 Main Street
      Buffalo, NY 14202
      Jamestown, NY 14701
      Telephone: (716) 854-3400
      Facsimile: (716) 332-0336
      E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: BTMUA Sues Over Aluminum Sulfate-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brick Township Municipal Utilities Authority, and all others
similarly-situated v. Frank A. Reichl; General Chemical
Corporation; General Chemical Performance Products, LLC; GenTek
Inc.; Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund; Chemtrade Logistics Inc.;
Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation; Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC; and
John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-08273 (D.N.J., November 24,
2015), seeks to recover damages and to secure equitable and
injunctive relief against the Defendants for violating Section 1
of the Sherman Act.

The lawsuit alleges a pervasive and long-running conspiracy among
manufacturers of a key water treatment chemical, liquid aluminum
sulfate, to rig bids, allocate customers, and artificially fix,
raise, stabilize and/or maintain the prices of LAS sold in the
United States, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of liquid
aluminum sulfate used primarily by municipalities in potable water
and wastewater treatment and by pulp and paper manufacturers as
part of their manufacturing processes. Liquid aluminum sulfate is
also used for algae control in lakes and ponds, to fix dyes to
fabrics and textiles, and by poultry houses as a litter amendment
for ammonia control.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michelle C. Zolnoski, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 980-7400
      E-mail: mzolnoski@robinskaplan.com

          - and -

      Michael D. Fitzgerald, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. FITZGERALD
      800 Old Bridge Road
      Brielle, NJ 08730
      Tel: (732) 223-2200
      E-mail: mdfitz@briellelaw.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Terrell" Suit Seeks Damages Over Oven Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Terrell, and all others similarly-situated v. General
Electric Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-04270 (W.D. Mo., November 24,
2015), seeks damages against the Defendant for manufacturing and
selling defective microwave ovens in violation of the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act.

The cooking compartment of the microwave ovens were coated with
epoxy and cured with amite, which combines to create a polyamite
structure, similar to a protein structure found in meat. When
heated, the epoxy/amite coating "cooks" like a meat protein. The
coating begins to bubble and peal exposing the sheet metal of the
cooking compartment. Exposed metal in a microwave is unsafe as it
can cause sparking and fire.

GE is one of the largest technology, media, and financial services
companies in the world. Its Industrial Division produces and sells
a variety of technological products, including consumer
appliances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew B. Uhrig, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MATT UHRIG, LLC
      501B South Henry Clay
      PO Box 640
      Ashland, MO 65010
      Tel: (573) 657-2050
      Fax: (573) 657-2051
      E-mail: matt@MUhriglaw.com

          - and -

      Tom Pirmantgen, Esq.
      LAKE LAW FIRM LLC
      3401 West Truman Blvd
      Jefferson City, MO 65109
      Tel: (573) 761-4790
      Fax: (573) 761-4220
      E-mail: tom@lakelawfirm.com

          - and -

      Fredrick J. Ludwig, Esq.
      LUDWIG LAW OFFICE, LLC
      9666 Olive Blvd., Ste. 690
      St. Louis, MO 63132
      Tel: 314-203-0660
      E-mail: fredrick@ludwig.law


GERBER PRODUCTS: "Henry" Class Suit Removed to Oregon District
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Nancy Henry, on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated v. Gerber Products Company,
Case No. 15CV25526, was removed from the Multnomah County Circuit
Court of Oregon to the U.S. District Court District of Oregon. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02201-HZ to the
proceeding.

Gerber Products Company is a manufacturer of baby food and baby
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David F. Sugerman, Esq.
      DAVID F. SUGERMAN ATTORNEY, PC
      707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600
      Portland, OR 97205
      Telephone: (503) 228-6474
      Facsimile: (503) 228-2556
      E-mail: david@davidsugerman.com

         - and -

      Stephen Gardner, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      1680 NW Precision Lane
      Bend, OR 97703
      Telephone: (214) 443-4316
      Facsimile: (214) 443-4316
      E-mail: steve@consumerhelper.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Heidee Stoller, Esq.
      Thomas R. Johnson, Esq.
      PERKINS COIE, LLP
      1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor
      Portland, OR 97209-4128
      Telephone: (503) 727-2000
      Facsimile: (503) 727-2222
      E-mail: HStoller@perkinscoie.com
              TRJohnson@perkinscoie.com


GROBRO INVESTMENTS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Cardoso and all others similarly situated v. Grobro
Investments, L.L.C., SMG Ventures, Inc., and Sean Grosman, Case
No. 1:15-cv-24317-DLG (S.D. Fla., November 23, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a small organization in the investors
industry located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


GUNNS: Liquidators Settle Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Daily Telegraph reports that the liquidators of Tasmania's
failed Gunns forestry company have reached a confidential
settlement with shareholders who had launched a class action
against the business's directors in 2011.

Former chairman John Gay was among those targeted by the action,
and in a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange on Dec. 18,
liquidators IMF Bentham announced that the parties had reached a
settlement.

"If court approval is received, IMF expects to generate revenue of
approximately $4.9 million and a profit before tax of about $2.9
million," IMF boss Andrew Saker said, adding that court approval
will be sought in March.


HERB THYME: Organic Foods Act Doesn't Pre-empt Labeling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that the state
Supreme Court on Dec. 3 offered a post-Thanksgiving litigation
feast to plaintiffs lawyers, ruling unanimously that Californians
enjoy a private right of action under state consumer protection
laws to sue companies that mislabel food as organic.

The Supreme Court rejected lower-court findings that the federal
Organic Foods Production Act pre-empts such lawsuits.

Raymond Boucher, an attorney representing plaintiffs in the
putative class action, said the decision will have "broad, broad
implications."

"When you have a unanimous decision by the California Supreme
Court it means something," Mr. Boucher said.  "This will have
reverberations across the country."

Greenberg Traurig partner Mark Kemple -- kemplem@gtlaw.com -- who
argued for Herb Thyme Farms Inc. before the high court, declined
to comment on the decision.  Leslie Krasny, a Keller & Heckman
partner who specializes in food-related litigation, predicted the
ruling will lead to in more lawsuits and higher costs for organic
products.
"The purpose of the federal regulatory framework was to provide
conformity, including at the state level," Ms. Krasny said.

Plaintiffs in the case sued Herb Thyme Farms under the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, California's unfair-competition law and false-
advertising statutes.  They alleged that the company mixed
organically grown herbs with herbs grown conventionally, labeled
the resulting combination organic and then charged a premium for
the ingredients.

Herb Thyme Farms argued that the claims were pre-empted under the
1990 federal organics law, which includes a complaint mechanism
for consumers to challenge the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
designation of a product as organic.

"Appellant asks this court to permit a lay jury, applying a
'reasonable consumer' standard, to enjoin and hold respondent
liable for damages for doing exactly what the USDA, applying its
expertise and investigatory oversight, has authorized respondent
to do," Mr. Kemple wrote in Herb Thyme Farms' brief on the merits.
But the Supreme Court held that the federal pre-emption is limited
to issues of production and organic certification, not deception.

"As a matter of express pre-emption, we have no reason to conclude
Congress intended its federal remedies as not only a floor --
ensuring that, whatever else state law might provide for, some
teeth would back up the new federal regulation of organic labeling
-- but also a ceiling, with states prohibited from continuing to
augment these limited remedies," Werdegar wrote.  "On the subject
of state consumer-deception laws of general application, the text
of the Organic Foods Act offers only silence."

The case attracted a number of amicus curiae, including Attorney
General Kamala Harris for the plaintiff class and the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce for Herb Thyme Farms.


HERBALIFE LTD: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that hearing to
consider a motion to dismiss in the case, In re Herbalife, Ltd.
Securities Litigation (formerly captioned Awad v. Herbalife Ltd.,
et al.), was held on November 9, 2015.

On April 14, 2014, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleged that the Company and certain officers made
material misstatements concerning the Company's finances and
business practices, and contended that the Company is operating a
pyramid scheme. The initial complaint sought to represent a class
of investors that had purchased shares of the Company's common
stock between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014.

On July 30, 2014, the Court approved the appointment of different
shareholders as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of
counsel. On September 18, 2014, these lead plaintiffs filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws against the Company, and certain of its officers.
The Amended Complaint brings claims for unspecified damages under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleges that the
defendants made material misstatements that "fundamentally
misrepresented the nature, scope and legality of the Company's
business and operations to consumers and investors alike," and
further alleges that the Company is one of "the most sophisticated
pyramid schemes in history." The lead plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of all persons or entities that purchased shares of the
Company's common stock between February 23, 2011 and July 29,
2014.

On March 16, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
all claims in the Amended Complaint with leave to file an amended
complaint and dismissed one of the shareholders as lead plaintiff.
On May 8, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the
Company and one of its officers.

On July 28, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint with leave to file an amended
complaint by August 27, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the lead
plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint for Violation of the
Federal Securities Laws against the Company and one of its
officers. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all
persons or entities that purchased shares of the Company's common
stock between February 23, 2011 and December 19, 2012.

The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the third amended
complaint on September 28, 2015.  A hearing was scheduled for
November 9, 2015.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this purported class
action suit. The Company has not recognized a loss as it does not
believe a loss is probable. Further, the Company is currently
unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss.


HILMAR CHEESE: "Rice" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darvella Ann Rice v. Hilmar Cheese Co., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00337-J (N.D. Tex., November 23, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Hilmar Cheese Co., Inc. is engaged in the milk production business
and the making or processing of cheese and cheese by-products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip R. Russ, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP R. RUSS
      2700 S. Western, Suite 1200
      Amarillo, TX 79109
      Telephone: (806) 358-9293
      Facsimile: (806) 358-9296


HIRE DYNAMICS: Faces "Ragin" Suit Over FCRA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Stanley Ragin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Hire Dynamics, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04007-TCB-JFK
(N.D. Ga., November 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Hire Dynamics, LLC is a staffing and employment services company
for IT, Manufacturing, Office, Clerical and Call Center Talent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Weiner, Esq.
      Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
      THE WEINER LAW FIRM, LLC
      3525 Piedmont Road
      7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 254-0842
      Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
      E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
              js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


HOME DEPOT: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Balk at Data Breach Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that an
apparent settlement between Home Depot and MasterCard
International Inc. over a massive customer data breach last year
has prompted lawyers for financial institutions that are suing the
Atlanta-based home improvement chain for damages caused by hackers
to cry foul.

Counsel for the plaintiff banks and credit unions claim that, over
the Thanksgiving holiday, without their knowledge, agents of Home
Depot sent "highly misleading and coercive communications"
offering an apparent settlement to their clients and other
potential plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation.  The notices
were sent as the presiding judge was still considering whether to
allow Home Depot to communicate directly with potential class
members without prior screening either by plaintiffs' attorneys or
the court.

The notices announced a deal between Home Depot and MasterCard,
which is not a plaintiff in the multidistrict litigation.
Some notices required proposed class members to take action by
Dec. 2, "without providing even the most basic information
regarding the settlement terms," attorneys said in a motion filed
on Nov. 30.  Some notices said that a failure to act within the
time limit would result in an automatic enrollment in the
settlement, the plaintiffs' lawyers added.

"What is clear from the timing and substance (or lack thereof) of
the communications is that Home Depot, the other parties to the
settlement, and those acting in concert with them do not want to
make public the full details of the settlement and to provide
financial institutions the necessary information to make an
informed decision as to whether to participate in the settlement,"
the financial institutions' counsel contended.

They have asked U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. for an
immediate hearing so that Home Depot "can explain its actions,"
including "the scope and extent of the communications."  They also
asked the judge to limit further communications by Home Depot or
its agents with any potential class members.  The lawyers have
also suggested they may seek further relief, including a possible
preliminary injunction to bar Home Depot and anyone acting in
concert with the chain from implementing the settlement or
enforcing any releases that may have been secured as a result of
the notices.

Plaintiffs' counsel also have asked that Home Depot be required to
produce a copy of the settlement with MasterCard and any other
settlement agreements it may have reached with potential class
members, as well as all communications regarding the settlement
and a list of all those to whom those communications were sent.
By Nov. 26, Judge Thrash had not acted on the plaintiffs' motion.

Phyllis Sumner, a partner at King & Spalding and one of a team of
attorneys defending The Home Depot, referred the Daily Report to a
company spokesman.  Home Depot spokesman Stephen Holmes told the
Daily Report that Home Depot was not aware of the letters that
were sent to potential plaintiffs in the ongoing case and had not
asked anyone else to send out the communiques.

Ken Canfield of Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, co-lead
counsel for the financial institutions, declined to comment on the
settlement or the pending motion.

Last year, a string of banks, credit unions and customers sued
Home Depot, claiming that, collectively, they sustained millions
of dollars in damages as a result of the security breach, which
exposed the personal payment information of about 56 million
customers to computer hackers for at least five months.  The
complaints contend that a private data security firm retained by
Home Depot first notified company executives in July 2014 that
Home Depot's malware detection systems were out of date and its
customers' personal and financial data were vulnerable to
cyberattacks by hackers at its checkout terminals.  But the
company didn't upgrade its anti-virus software, the suits contend,
and never detected the malware in its system.

The Home Depot belatedly went public with the breach last year
after chain executives learned that customers' personal and
financial data had been posted for sale on a black market website.
The chain released a statement saying that the malware associated
with the data breach had been purged.  The company also announced
at the time that it had enhanced the encryption of payment data at
the point-of-sale in Home Depot's U.S. stores.

The suits claim the data breach exposed customers' names, credit
and debit card numbers, expiration dates, verification numbers and
the states and ZIP codes associated with every card transaction in
more than 2,000 stores.

The plaintiff banks and credit unions have claimed the data breach
generated millions of dollars in costs for refunding any
fraudulent charges that resulted, for stopping or blocking
payments, notifying customers of the breach, reissuing debit and
credit cards and increasing fraud-monitoring efforts.

This fall, Home Depot and the plaintiffs' lawyers argued over Home
Depot's request that the court not to oversee company
communications either with potential or absent class members.
Home Depot attorneys said that the law allows a defendant or a
nonparty to communicate with and to settle with potential class
members at any time without court approval before a class is
certified -- as long as those communications are neither
misleading nor coercive.  To limit those communications would
violate the corporation's First Amendment rights, Home Depot's
lawyers added.  Just before Thanksgiving, Home Depot filed a brief
asking for a separate court order that would have allowed the
chain or its representatives to contact banks with any settlement
offer reached separately under the terms of its contracts with the
credit card companies with which it did business.  Those contracts
included procedures that would reimburse the banks for certain
overhead expenses and fraudulent charges associated with data
breaches.


HOME DEPOT: Says Did Not Send Data Breach Settlement Notices
------------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that The Home
Depot on Dec. 7 fired back against allegations that it sent out
misleading notices to potential class members in litigation over
massive customer data breach.

The company claimed that lawyers for the financial institutions
suing the Atlanta-based home improvement chain have made
"significant factual misstatements and misrepresentations" about
Home Depot's role in the communications.

"Home Depot did not send or authorize and was not even aware of"
notices announcing a settlement with MasterCard International Inc.
that were sent to financial institutions that are either
plaintiffs or potential plaintiffs in the multidistrict
litigation, wrote lawyers at Atlanta's Alston & Bird defending
Home Depot.  They asked U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Thrash
Jr. to disregard a Nov. 30 motion by the financial institutions
for what Home Depot's lawyers claim is a "Draconian order" that
would limit how Home Depot communicates with financial
institutions and order significant disclosures about the apparent
settlement.

Home Depot lawyers also contended that the financial institutions'
motion was "replete with factual inaccuracies" and that the
plaintiff banks and credit unions "don't purport to have actual
support for the allegations that Home Depot was responsible in any
way" for the settlement notices, which were sent out over the
Thanksgiving holiday.  Home Depot's motion did not address whether
it has reached a settlement with MasterCard. But Home Depot
spokesman Steve Holmes confirmed that the home improvement chain
has reached "a tentative settlement" with MasterCard that he says
is contingent on its acceptance by a certain number of the
financial institutions.

In the Nov. 30 motion, the financial institutions' lawyers claimed
that, without their knowledge, agents of Home Depot sent "highly
misleading and coercive communications" offering an apparent
settlement both to their clients, who are parties in the
litigation, as well as other potential plaintiffs.  Those notices
were sent while the judge had under consideration a request by
Home Depot that would allow the chain's lawyers or other
representatives to communicate directly with potential class
members without prior screening of those communiques either by
plaintiffs' lawyers or by the court.

The notices announced that Home Depot and MasterCard had reached a
settlement in the data security breach litigation but provided
little detail about the settlement terms.  The notices, copies of
which are included in the court files, gave financial institutions
either until Dec. 2 or Dec. 7 to participate in the announced
settlement.  Some notices said that a failure to act within the
specified time limit would result in an automatic enrollment in
the settlement and a release of all claims associated with
financial damages incurred by the security breach.

The banks' lawyers demanded that Home Depot "explain its actions"
and asked Thrash to limit further communications by Home Depot or
its agents with any potential class members.  The lawyers also
suggested they may also seek an injunction to bar Home Depot and
anyone acting in concert with the chain from implementing the
settlement or enforcing any releases that may have been secured as
a result of the notices.  They also asked for a copy of the
MasterCard settlement and any other settlement agreements Home
Depot may have reached with potential class members, as well as
all communications regarding the settlement and a list of all
those to whom those communications were sent.  On Dec. 7, Thrash
had not yet acted on the plaintiffs' motion.

Last year, a string of banks, credit unions and customers sued
Home Depot, claiming that, collectively, they sustained millions
of dollars in damages as a result of the security breach, which
exposed the personal payment information of about 56 million
customers to computer hackers for at least five months.

On Dec. 7, Home Depot's counsel denied as "patently untrue"
assertions by the plaintiffs that Home Depot began sending out
notices "hours before the Thanksgiving holiday."  The notices
announcing that Home Depot and MasterCard had reached a settlement
stemming from the data breach were sent by North American Retail
Payments, Fiserve Card Services, and Vantive -- all credit card
payment processors.

Home Depot lawyers claimed that Home Depot "had no notice the
communications at issue were being sent" and that the company
"neither reviewed nor authorized the communications at issue"
which released Home Depot from liability.

Home Depot lawyers also said the notices "appear to have been
sent" on behalf of some potential class members in the litigation
to other potential class members, and that the payment processors
who sent the notices serve as middlemen between smaller banks
larger banks through which the smaller banks gain access to the
Visa and MasterCard networks.  "In other words, they are
communications from entities that are, or are acting on behalf of,
the very financial institutions lead plaintiffs' counsel purports
to represent," Home Depot lawyers contended.  "These entities are
adverse to Home Depot with respect to the data theft. . . . It is
impossible for Home Depot to be 'acting in concert' with them."

"The best the banks can claim is that the parties who sent the
communications were 'evidently acting in concert with Home Depot'
or 'evidently are working as agents' for Home Depot," the home
improvement chain's lawyers argued.  "Abject speculation is not
enough to secure the orders the banks want entered."

They also claimed that no evidence has been presented to the court
to back up claims that the notices were coercive or misleading.
"The banks' misstatements should not be rewarded with access to
documents to which they have no right," Home Depot lawyers argued.
The banks' motion, they concluded, "is a waste of time and
resources for both the court and Home Depot and should be
disregarded if not sanctioned."


IOWA: Sued Over Automated Traffic Enforcement Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------
Kathy A. Bolten, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that two
people who received speeding citations from automated traffic
enforcement cameras on Interstate Highway 235 in Des Moines have
filed a class action lawsuit asking that the devices be turned off
and penalties and fines be refunded to hundreds who have been
cited since March.

The lawsuit, recently filed in Polk County District Court, is the
latest salvo on Des Moines' interstate speed cameras that the Iowa
Department of Transportation in March ordered turned off.  State
officials, in the ruling, wrote that the cameras did not make the
highway safer.

Des Moines appealed the DOT decision; the case is making its way
through district court.

In the meantime, the automated traffic enforcement cameras
continue to operate on eastbound I-235 near Waveland Golf Course.

Reuven Weizberg, part of the national cast of "Lion King" that was
staged at the Des Moines Civic Center last spring, received three
speeding citations while he was in the city, according to the
class-action lawsuit.  An appeal to an administrative judge was
denied.

Waukee resident David Peter Veng-Pedersen, the second plaintiff
named in the lawsuit, also received a speeding citation last
spring.

In the lawsuit, Messrs. Weizberg and Veng-Pedersen allege that
their equal protection rights were violated because not every
registered owner of a vehicle the cameras capture speeding receive
citations.  Owners of semi-trailer trucks do not receive citations
nor do the owners of government vehicles, the lawsuit alleges.  In
addition, 40 percent of the images of vehicles caught speeding by
the cameras are discarded "for reasons that are unclear," the
lawsuit says.

Messrs. Weizberg and Veng-Pedersen, in the lawsuit, argue that
since the DOT ordered the automated traffic enforcement cameras
turned off on I-235 citations should not have been issued.  They
are asking that fines and penalties collected by the city of of
Des Moines from the interstate cameras be refunded.

Des Moines officials said they could not comment because they
hadn't yet read the lawsuit.  Between April 1 and Thursday,
41,030 citations have been issued through the four speed cameras
on I-235, according to city officials.

Officials from Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Muscatine have had a
long-running dispute with the DOT over who has authority to decide
where traffic enforcement cameras can be placed on or adjacent to
highways and how long the devices can operate.

In June, the three cities filed separate petitions for judicial
review in connection with the DOT's ruling that some traffic
enforcement cameras be turned off.  In August, the cases were
combined. A final decision has not yet been reached.

The enforcement cameras first were used in Iowa about 10 years
ago, and in ensuing years, have become more prevalent. City
officials say the devices, which record traffic violations using
video equipment and then send citations to vehicle owners, enhance
safety on roads.  Motorists and some politicians say the cameras
are a way to generate revenue for the jurisdictions that use them.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: March 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 13-cv-1620-JPO
ECF Case

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED COMMON
STOCK OF ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. ("ITT" OR THE "COMPANY")
(ticker symbol:ESI) BETWEEN APRIL 24, 2008 AND FEBRUARY 25, 2013,
BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD").

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a proposed Settlement has been
reached in this Action. [1] A hearing will be held with respect to
the Settlement on March 8, 2016, at 11:00 A.M. before the
Honorable J. Paul Oetken in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 706,
New York, New York.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things,
whether the proposed Settlement of the securities class action
claims asserted in this Action, pursuant to which ITT, on behalf
of all Defendants, will cause to be deposited into a Settlement
Fund the sum of sixteen million nine hundred sixty-two thousand
five hundred dollars($16,962,500.00) in exchange for the dismissal
of the Action with prejudice and a release of claims against the
Defendants and other Released Parties, should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of
the Class.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired ITT common
stock (ticker symbol:ESI) during the Class Period, you may be
entitled to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund if
you submit a Proof of Claim Form no later than March 22, 2016, and
if the information and documentation you provide in that Proof of
Claim Form establishes that you are entitled to a recovery.

This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters regarding
the Action and the Settlement.  A detailed notice (the "Notice")
describing the Action, the proposed Settlement, and the rights of
Class Members to appear in Court at the Final Approval Hearing, to
request to be excluded from the Class, and/or to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request by Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses, has been mailed to persons or entities known
to be potential Class Members.  You may obtain a copy of that
Notice, a Proof of Claim Form, or other information at
www.ITTSecuritiesSettlement.com or by writing to the following
address or calling the following telephone number.

ITT Securities Settlement PO Box 3058 Portland, OR  97208-3058
(877) 271-1547

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request by Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses,
or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting a written
objection in accordance with the procedures described in the
Notice.  The objection must be filed and served so that it is
received no later than February 16, 2016.  You also have the right
to exclude yourself from the Class by submitting a written request
for exclusion from the Class in accordance with the procedures
described in the Notice.  The request for exclusion must be
received no later than February 16, 2016.  If the Settlement is
approved by the Court, you will be bound by the Settlement and the
Court's Judgment, including the releases provided for in the
Settlement and Judgment, unless you submit a request to be
excluded.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed
Notice referenced above and a Proof of Claim Form, may be made to
Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiffs:

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Carol V. Gilden 190 South
LaSalle Street, Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 357-0370
Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

Dated:  December 14, 2015

By Order of the Court,


United States District
Court for the Southern
District of New York

[1] This Summary Notice incorporates by reference the definitions
in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 2,
2015 (the "Settlement"), and all capitalized terms used, but not
defined herein, shall have the same meanings as in the Settlement.

A copy of the Settlement can be obtained at:

          http://www.ITTSecuritiesSettlement.com


J&R SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Calleja" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Jeronimo Calleja, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. J&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a J&R NY
Supermarket, Susan Shung Nguyen, and Bobby Ng, Case No. 1:15-cv-
06702 (E.D.N.Y., November 23, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a supermarket located at 1406
Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York 11229.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


JUDGE TECHNICAL: Faces "Ognibene" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shana Ognibene, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Judge Technical Services, Inc. and The Judge Group,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-08219-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., November 23, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked over 40 in a work week.

The Defendants operates a professional services firm specializing
in technology, talent and learning solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      Julie Salwen, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (718) 799-9111
      Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com
              Julie.Salwen@optonline.net


LARY ARCHER: Faces "Kent" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Kent, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Lary Archer & Associates, Inc. and Lary Archer, Case No. 3:15-
cv-03784-D (N.D. Tex., November 23, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing a range of oil and
gas services to various oilfield installations throughout the
states of Texas and New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      J. Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: Info@L-B-Law.com


LE CORDON: Shuts Down Schools Following Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Lyn Pesce, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
all 16 Le Cordon Bleu cooking schools across the U.S. are shutting
down, its money-losing parent company Career Education Corporation
announced on Dec. 16.

The 115-year-old culinary brand is famous for teaching the
original celebrity chef in its Paris flagship in 1950.  The
cooking and hospitality institution eventually rose into a chain
of American for-profit schools from Atlanta to Austin that churned
out degrees in culinary arts, hospitality and management, along
with cooking classes.

But Le Cordon Bleu's degrees weren't up to scratch, according to
graduates that accused the school of misleading students about
their job prospects after earning an expensive degree.  Tuition
runs between $16,000 and $42,500 a year, according to Le Cordon
Bleu's 2014-2015 catalog.

The culinary empire first showed signs of collapse after settling
a 2013 class action lawsuit for $40 million led by former students
who alleged that Career Ed recruiters oversold their job prospects
after graduation.  Many complained that they made salaries of just
$12 an hour after earning degrees from the prestigious academy,
and worked in menial jobs such as line cooks and baristas that did
not require costly training.

The brand has also fallen under federal scrutiny under the Obama
administration's gainful employment rule.  The new statute, which
went into effect last July, cuts off federal funding from for-
profit schools like Le Cordon Bleu if students borrow money at
high rates, but earn peanuts after graduation.  The new rule
demands that student loan payments don't exceed 20% of a
graduate's income after taxes to protect students from being
buried in debt.  Yet a recent Senate report reveals Le Cordon Bleu
schools show unusually high rates of students withdrawing from the
associate program and defaulting on student loans.

"New federal regulations make it difficult to project the future
for career schools that have higher operating costs, such as
culinary schools that require expensive commercial kitchens and
ongoing food costs," said Career Education CEO Todd Nelson in a
statement.  "We will continue with our plan to refocus Career
Education's resources on predominantly online university
education."


LES SCHWAB: Faces "Sylvis" Suit Over ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Lauren Sylvis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Les Schwab Tire Centers, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02158-
SI (D. Or., November 17, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Les Schwab Tire Centers, Inc. is a tire retail chain operating in
the western United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve D. Larson, Esq.
      STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER
      209 SW Oak Street, 5th Floor
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 227-1600
      Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
      E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com


LIFELOCK INC: FTC Approves Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc., an industry leader in identity theft protection,
on Dec. 17 said that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved a
comprehensive settlement agreement that was originally announced
in October.  Once approved by the courts, the settlement will help
bring to a close outstanding litigation with both the FTC and
representatives of a national class of consumers relating to past
marketing representations and information security programs.

As a part of the settlement, LifeLock neither confirms nor denies
the allegations of the parties.

Under the settlement's terms, $100 million will be placed into the
registry of the court that is overseeing the FTC's lawsuit against
LifeLock, to be distributed as follows:

   -- $68 million is authorized to be transferred to the court
that is overseeing the class action filed against LifeLock, which
would be sufficient to fully fund the consumer redress
contemplated by the class action settlement.

   -- $32 million would remain in the registry of the court
overseeing the FTC's lawsuit.  All of that money is authorized
under the terms of the settlement to fund consumer redress ordered
by any state attorneys general, provided that certain conditions
are met.  If none of that money is used for that purpose, the
money would revert to the FTC.

In addition, legal and other administrative fees will bring the
total amount to $113 million, which has already been accrued and
was disclosed in our latest 10-Q.

The company made the following statement in connection with the
approval of the settlement by the FTC:

"The FTC's approval is a key component of a comprehensive
settlement designed to enable LifeLock to move forward with a
singular focus on protecting our members from threats to their
identity.  Our members are our highest priority and we are
gratified by their confidence in us, reflected in the performance
and continued growth of our business.

"The allegations raised by the FTC are related to advertisements
that we no longer run and policies that are no longer in place.
The settlement does not require us to change any of our current
products or practices.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that
LifeLock has ever had any of its customers' data stolen, and the
FTC did not allege otherwise.

"As part of our commitment to continual improvement, in recent
years we have made significant investments in our people, process
and systems throughout the company to address ever more complex
and pervasive identity threats.  We are pleased to put this matter
behind us and look forward to continuing to provide industry-
leading identity protection services to our members."

                           *     *     *

In 2010, LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock") entered into a consent decree
with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"). On July 21 2015, the
FTC initiated a contempt action alleging that LifeLock had
violated the consent decree. Federal Trade Commission v. LifeLock,
Inc., et al., No. CV-10-00530-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.).

On January 19, 2015 a putative class action, Napoleon Ebarle et
al. v. LifeLock, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-258 (N.D. Cal.), was filed
against LifeLock on behalf of all LifeLock members from September
1, 2010 to the present alleging that LifeLock misrepresented its
services in various ways and failed to deliver certain promised
services (the "Ebarle Class Action").

On October 28, 2015, LifeLock signed an offer of settlement that
it negotiated with FTC staff to present to the FTC to resolve the
contempt allegations. The offer remains subject to the FTC's
approval and entry by the court.  LifeLock said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that on
November 3, 2015, the Company signed an agreement to settle the
Ebarle Class Action and release all of the class's related claims.
The Ebarle Class Action settlement remains subject to court
approval. LifeLock has accrued $113 million in reserves, which it
anticipates will settle both matters.

                         About LifeLock

LifeLock, Inc. is a provider of proactive identity theft
protection services for consumers and consumer risk management
services for enterprises.  LifeLock's threat detection, proactive
identity alerts, and comprehensive remediation services help
provide peace of mind for consumers amid the growing threat of
identity theft.  Leveraging unique data, science and patented
technology from ID Analytics, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary,
LifeLock offers identity theft protection that goes significantly
beyond credit monitoring.  As part of its commitment to help fight
identity theft, LifeLock works to train law enforcement and
partners with a variety of non-profit organizations to help
consumers establish positive habits to combat this threat.


LUBBOCK: Sued Over Alleged Discriminatory Hiring Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that the Civil
Rights Division for the U.S. Department of Justice filed a
discrimination lawsuit against Lubbock, alleging the city showed a
pattern and practice of bias against women and Hispanics when it
used physical fitness tests and written examinations to screen
applicants for its police force.  In its Dec.2 filed complaint,
the DOJ alleges that the rate at which Hispanic applicants seeking
jobs on Lubbock's police force initially failed a written
examination was statistically significantly higher than the rate
at which white applicants initially failed the same test.  The
city's use of the exam to screen candidates therefore had an
adverse impact on Hispanic applicants, the complaint alleges.
Likewise, female applicants failed a physical fitness test that
Lubbock uses to screen applicants at a statistically significantly
higher rate than men, the complaint alleges.  Therefore, the
city's use of the physical fitness test as a screen had an adverse
impact on female applicants, the complaint states.  The DOJ seeks
an injunction barring Lubbock from using the exam and requiring it
to offer backpay and employment to Hispanic and female applicants
who were impacted. Mitch Satterwhite, an assistant city attorney
in Lubbock, did not return a call for comment.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Action Mulled Over Bamboo Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP is investigating class action lawsuits
involving bamboo and other flooring products manufactured by
Lumber Liquidators.  There have been reports that certain Lumber
Liquidators flooring is allegedly defective, and prone to
premature cracking, splitting, warping, and shrinking.
Allegations also include that Lumber Liquidators flooring contains
excessively high levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.  If
you or someone you know has purchased Lumber Liquidators' bamboo
and other flooring, contact Parker Waichman LLP today for a free,
no-obligation legal consultation.

Lumber Liquidators marketed its Morning Star Bamboo Flooring as
being "extremely durable" and free of defects for at least 30
years.


MAC'S CONVENIENCE: Temporary Foreign Workers File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Thom, writing for CKNW.com, reports that a group of
temporary foreign workers have filed a class-action lawsuit in
B.C. Supreme Court against Mac's Convenience Stores and three
recruitment agencies.

They allege they were promised work in Canada, but were left
homeless.

"It's heartbreaking; it's heartbreaking when you hear their
stories."

That, from Lawyer Carmela Allevato, who says several foreign
workers recruited in Dubai paid $8,000 and covered their own
transportation costs to come and work for Mac's Convenience stores
in Western Canada.

"When they came here, for many of them there was no work, or if
there was work, it was not in the location they were permitted to
work in under the Temporary Foreign Worker program.  The
conditions that they found themselves in were really
inappropriate.  Many of them ended up homeless, some of them were
put to work in places where they were not supposed to be and given
to understand that that was legal and it wasn't.  It's been very
difficult for these folks."

One worker claims in the lawsuit that he was forced to sleep on
the floor and had little food to eat after being sent to Kitimat.

Company denies wrongdoing

But one of the Surrey-based recruitment firms named in the suit,
Overseas Immigration Services, denies any wrongdoing.

Director Kuldeep Kumar Bansal claims the foreign workers demanded
to work in BC, when their work permits only stipulated specific
Mac's locations in Alberta.

"These workers, when they realized Alberta is not offering
permanent residence to workers once the rules changed, they say we
don't want to go to Alberta because we can't apply for permanent
residence.  But we can't hire you in British Columbia, because
your LMIA (Labour Market Impact Assessment), your working permit,
is for Alberta."

And he says even then, they've had trouble finding work because
they were inflexible.

"They will come for the training in British Columbia.  Some of the
foreign workers, maybe four or five out of 200, don't want to go
to the Interior, they want to stay in Vancouver.  Those are the
ones complaining, 'Oh, we don't have a job.' So if they don't want
to go to Kitimat or Smithers, that is not Mac's fault."

Mr. Bansal also claims Mac's did their own overseas recruiting,
and his company only did the documentation.

However, the company's website says they do much more than that:

"We assist you in selection, filing labor market opinion,
application process at Canadian Consulate abroad and getting YOUR
future employees ready to work for you once in Canada.  As we are
currently working with many types of clients from many diverse
industries we always have a selection of workers who are available
within shorter time frames."

None of the allegations has been proven in court and a statement
of defense has not been filed.


MAISON BOURBON: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that an
Orleans Parish woman says Maison Bourbon Jazz Club underpaid her
for overtime she worked at the club.

Megan Edwards filed a class-action lawsuit Dec. 8 in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Maison Bourbon
Jazz Club LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, Ms. Edwards was paid $2.13 an hour
plus tips, well below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
She was required to participate in a tip pool with co-workers, the
suit says, but the tip pool gives a portion of the tips to
ineligible workers, such as janitors, door personnel and managers.
The plaintiff also claims she was inadequately reimbursed for
overtime when she worked more than 40 hours a week.

Ms. Edwards seeks reimbursement for her unpaid wages, liquidated
damages and litigation costs.  She is represented by New Orleans
attorney Christopher L. Williams of Williams Litigation LLC.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:15-cv-06560


MASTEC INC: Defending "Wrigley" Lawsuit in S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
MasTec, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc.

On May 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"),
Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of
Florida, naming the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Jose R. Mas, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
George L. Pita, as defendants. On August 5, 2015, co-lead
plaintiffs were appointed, and an amended complaint was filed on
October 13, 2015.

The Lawsuit has been purportedly brought by a shareholder, both
individually and on behalf of a putative class of shareholders,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising from
alleged false or misleading statements contained in, or alleged
material omissions from, certain of the Company's filings with the
SEC and other statements, in each case with respect to accounting
matters that are the subject of the Audit Committee's independent
internal investigation. The amended complaint seeks damages
stemming from losses Plaintiffs claim to have suffered as a result
of purchasing Company securities at an allegedly inflated market
price.

The Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it; however, there can be no
assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense.


MICK WHITE: Faces "Pulido" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Pulido, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Mick White Renovations, LLC, J. & C. Floor Care, John
White, and Carlos Garcia, Case No. 1:15-cv-02398 (N.D. Ohio,
November 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mick White Renovations, LLC offers various hotel renovation
services, including design, construction, and project management.

Headquarters in Ecorse, Michigan, J. & C. Floor Care specializes
in floor covering but also offers general installation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
      Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
      COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
      The Hoyt Block Building -- Suite 400
      700 West St. Clair Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 781-7956
      Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
      E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com
              jfuchs@crklaw.com

         - and -

      Marni Willenson, Esq.
      WILLENSON LAW, LLC
      542 S. Dearborn St., Suite 610
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 508-5380
      Facsimile: (312) 508-5382
      E-mail: marni@willensonlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Teahan" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Teahan, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08206
(D.N.J., November 20, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates a financial service
company in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Sued in Mich. Over Alternator-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rush Truck Centers of Alabama, Inc., et al. v. Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-14096-MFL-RSW (E.D. Mich.,
November 20, 2015) is an action against manufacturers and
suppliers of Alternators and Starters globally and in the United
States.  According to the lawsuit, the Defendants engage in a
long-running conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in
the vehicle parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to
fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of Alternators and
Starters, which were sold to Truck and Equipment manufacturers in
the United States and elsewhere.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Alternators and
Starters throughout the United States and in other countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne A. Mack, Esq.
      J. Manly Parks, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS LLP
      30 S. 17th Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 979-1000
      Facsimile: (215) 979-1020
      E-mail: wamack@duanemorris.com
              jmparks@duanemorris.com


NESTLE INDIA: To Challenge SC Stay Order in Maggi Case
------------------------------------------------------
Business Standard reports that even as the fate of the country's
first class action suit appears uncertain after the Supreme
Court's intervention on Dec.16, Prabhsahay Kaur, the lawyer
representing the central government in the consumer court, says it
will not give up without a fight.

The SC has, for the time being, accepted Nestle India's plea to
stay proceedings in this suit at the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

She told Business Standard, "The SC order only affects the hearing
of the class action suit on January 7.  The Union of India will
appeal to the bench at the SC on January 13 to let the hearing at
the NCDRC take its own course."

The government is being represented by Attorney General Mukul
Rohtagi in the Supreme Court. He was not available for comment.
Sources in the know say the government will put up a strong
defence against the Dec. 17 order and counter Nestle's view that
the apex consumer court has no jurisdiction to hear the Rs 640-
crore class-action suit against it, when the Bombay High Court had
already pronounced a verdict in the matter.  The company contended
this amounted to judicial indiscipline.

Additionally, Nestle said the 16 more samples of Maggi to be
tested at a food inspection laboratory in Chennai should instead
be undertaken at that of the Central Food Technological Research
Institute at Mysuru.  This, unlike the Chennai lab, is accredited
to the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration
(NABL).

On December 10, the NCDRC had directed the government to undertake
the tests at the Chennai lab, which Nestle had vehemently
contested, saying the latter was not equipped to do tests that
determined the amount of lead in the product.

The SC bench of judges Dipak Misra and P C Pant had subsequently
accepted Nestle's plea and directed that reports of the test, in
addition to an earlier one ordered on October 15, be placed before
it.

"Effectively, the proceedings at the NCRDC have not been set aside
but powers to issue further orders have been restrained," said
Zakir Merchant, partner at law firm Khaitan & Co.

Agrees Sitesh Mukherjee, partner at law firm Trilegal, "The apex
court has not divested NCDRC of its jurisdiction in the matter but
there is an interim stay in the proceedings relating to the Nestle
Maggi dispute.  The issue of whether there is a case for a class
action lawsuit is still open."

Legal experts said the government was well within its powers to
take action under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
and file a class action suit, either in its individual capacity or
on behalf of complaining consumers.  However, the onus was on the
government to back its claims of any unfair trade practice.


NIMBLE STORAGE: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 17 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Nimble Storage, Inc. common stock during the period between May
27, 2015 and November 19, 2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from December 17, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or Mario Alba, Jr. of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at srudman@rgrdlaw.com or
malba@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/nimble/

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

The complaint charges Nimble Storage and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Nimble Storage provides flash-optimized storage platforms
that enable the consolidation of all workloads and eliminate
storage silos by providing enterprises with improvements in
application performance and storage capacity.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse material information regarding the Company's business and
prospects, including that Nimble Storage was being negatively
impacted by intense competition from well-entrenched, large
competitors who were slashing prices in order to maintain market
share, that Nimble Storage had made a conscious decision to focus
its sales and marketing efforts towards the large enterprises
market and to reduce sales efforts in the U.S. commercial market,
and that due to this change in sales strategy and the intense
price competition, Nimble Storage was losing sales in both sales
channels.  As a result of these false statements and/or omissions,
Nimble Storage stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period, reaching as high as $31.60 per share, and
enabling certain Company insiders to collectively sell more than
1.12 million shares of their personally held Nimble Storage common
stock at artificially inflated prices for gross proceeds in excess
of $31.4 million.

Then on November 19, 2015, Nimble Storage announced fiscal 2016
third quarter financial results, reporting total revenue of $80.7
million, non-GAAP gross margin of 66.9%, a non-GAAP operating loss
of $10.8 million, or negative 13% of revenue, and a GAAP net loss
of $28.6 million, or $0.36 per basic and diluted share.  The
defendants attributed the disappointing results to the shift in
the Company's "investment from commercial to enterprise business,"
which "impacted [the Company's] commercial revenue growth more
than . . .  anticipated," and its "enterprise investments . . .
taking longer to become fully productive."  On this news, the
price of Nimble Storage common stock fell $10.34 per share, or
51%, to close at $10.05 per share on November 20, 2015.

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

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


NORTEK INC: Says Product Liability Suits in Initial Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
Nortek, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that class action
lawsuits over product liability are in the initial stages.

Nortek Global HVAC LLC ("Nordyne"), the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, is the defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in
Florida, Harris, et al. v. Nordyne, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21884-
BB, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  In addition, Nortek, Inc., Nortek Global
HVAC LLC and Nortek Global HVAC Latin America, Inc. are the
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in Tennessee, Bauer,
et al. v. Nordyne, LLC et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01940, filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee.  These lawsuits allege that evaporator and condenser
coils in Nordyne's residential heating and cooling products are
susceptible to a type of potential corrosion of the copper tubing
in the units that can result in coil leaks and/or failure of the
units.  The Florida action was initiated on May 21, 2014 and seeks
compensatory damages associated with Nordyne's alleged wrongdoing,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Tennessee action was initiated on October 3, 2014 and seeks
damages associated with repairing, retrofitting and/or replacing
the allegedly defective products, the loss of value due to the
alleged defect, property damages associated with the alleged
defect, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

No arguments or ruling with respect to class action status have
occurred to date in either of these actions.

While these actions are in their initial stages, the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses against these complaints.  At
this time, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material
loss in such matters is remote and has not recognized a loss or
liability in these actions; however, it is possible that events
could occur that would change the likelihood of a material loss,
which could ultimately have a material impact on our business.
The Company will continue to assess the likelihood of a material
loss as the actions progress.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dilbert" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taushia N. Dilbert, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09172
(S.D.N.Y., November 20, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Northland Group, Inc. operates debt collection agency in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allison Diana Polesky, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LUPOLOVER, P.C.
      120 Sylvan Ave, Suite 300
      Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
      Telephone: (201) 461-0059
      Facsimile: (201) 608-7116
      E-mail: allison@lupoloverlaw.com


NU SKIN: Continues to Defend Suit Related to Negative Media
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. continues to defend a purported class
action lawsuit and derivative claim relating to negative media and
regulatory scrutiny regarding the Company's business in Mainland
China and the associated decline in the Company's stock price, the
Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

Beginning in January 2014, six purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah.  On May 1, 2014, the court consolidated the various
purported class actions, appointed State-Boston Retirement System
as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and appointed the law
firm Labaton Sucharow as lead counsel for the purported class in
the consolidated action. On June 30, 2014, a consolidated class
action complaint was filed.

On February 26, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the case. The consolidated class action complaint purports
to assert claims on behalf of certain of the Company's
stockholders under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against Nu Skin Enterprises, Ritch
N. Wood, and M. Truman Hunt and to assert claims under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. Wood
and Hunt. The consolidated class action complaint alleges that,
inter alia, the Company made materially false and misleading
statements regarding its sales operations in and financial results
derived from Mainland China, including purportedly operating a
pyramid scheme based on illegal multi-level marketing activities.
The Company believes that the claims asserted in the consolidated
class action complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself.


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kiran Kumar Nallagonda v. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-03562-JFM (D. Md., November 23, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. researches and develops biosurgery
solutions, focusing on products for wound care, cartilage repair,
and orthopedics, to harness the ability of cells and novel
constructs to promote the body's natural healing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan C. Lazerow, Esq.
      John F. Carlton, Esq.
      Seven Saint Paul Street, 13th Floor
      WHITEFORD TAYLOR PRESTON, LLP
      Baltimore, MD 21202-1636
      Telephone: (410) 347-8700
      Facsimile: (410) 223-4346
      E-mail: alazerow@wtplaw.com
              jcarlton@wtplaw.com

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      Yitzchak Soloveichik, Esq.
      Shimon Yiftach, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
      E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
              soloveichik@bgandg.com
              shimony@bgandg.com


OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Sued for Minimum Wage Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that an
employee is suing Outback Steakhouse in a class action lawsuit
after he claims it has failed to pay the legal minimum wage to
numerous employees, including himself.

As of Jan. 1, the minimum wage in West Virginia was raised to $8
per hour and employees who received tips may be paid as low as
$2.40 per hour, according to a complaint filed in Mercer Circuit
Court.

Stephen Sheets claims Outback did not adhere to West Virginia law
and has been paying its employees less than the legal minimum
wage.

Effective Jan. 1, an employer may receive a credit of 70 percent
of the hourly rate of the amount paid an employee who customarily
received gratuities, which would be $5.60.

An employer may meet West Virginia minimum wage law by paying
customarily tipped employees an hourly rate of $2.40 and receiving
a tip credit of $5.60, according to the suit.

Sheets claims as reflected by his pay statements, after Jan. 1,
the defendant lists his hourly pay rate as $7.25 and $2.13, which
is below the legal minimum wage and Outback has been paying
numerous West Virginia employees below the legal minimum wage.

Sheets is seeking class certification, compensatory and actual
damages and pre- and post-judgment interest. He is being
represented by John W. Barrett, Jonathan R. Marshall and Tony L.
Clackler II of Bailey & Glasser LLP.

The case is assigned to Circuit Judge Derek Swope.

Mercer Circuit Court case number: 15-C-364


PANASONIC: Jan. 22 Compressor Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Did you purchase hermetically sealed cooling compressors of less
than one horsepower ("Cooling Compressors") or products containing
Cooling Compressors (including household refrigerators or
freezers, but excluding air conditioners) between 2004 and 2008?

A Cooling Compressor is the component in many household and some
light commercial refrigerators and freezers that provides the
cooling function.  Class actions have been commenced in Canada
alleging price-fixing in the market for Cooling Compressors.

Settlements in the aggregate of $4,770,000 have been reached in
the class actions with the Panasonic, Embraco and Tecumseh
defendants, and with Danfoss Flensburg GmbH.  The settlements will
resolve the litigation.  The settlements are a compromise of
disputed claims and are not an admission of liability.

The settlements must be approved by the Ontario, British Columbia
and Quebec courts.  A joint hearing is scheduled for January 22,
2016 at 10:30 a.m. PST/1:30 EST.

At the joint hearing, the courts will be asked to approve a
protocol for distribution of the settlement funds (plus interest,
less approved expenses and counsel fees).

Settlement class members may express their views to the courts
about the proposed settlements and distribution of settlement
funds.  See www.classaction.ca/compressors for instructions.

Register to receive future notices at
www.classaction.ca/compressors

Keep copies of any records of purchases between 2004-2008.

For more information, visit www.classaction.ca/compressors, email
coolingcompressors@siskinds.com or call 1-800-461-6166 ext 2446


PARTY CITY HOLDCO: Rosen Law Firm Files Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Krassenstein, writing for Independent Reporter, reports that
The Rosen Law Firm has announced that they've filed a class action
lawsuit against Party City Holdco Inc., on behalf of investors who
purchased shares of the stock in pursuant to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued for the company's initial public
offering on April 16, 2015.

The law firm is asking anyone who purchased shares of the stock
pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus, to join the
action.


PC RICHARD: Illegally Collects Debt, "O'Shea" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen O'Shea, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. P.C. Richard & Son, LLC d/b/a P.C. Richard & Son, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09069 (S.D.N.Y., November 18, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

P.C. Richard & Son, LLC operates a chain of electronics and
appliances stores in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com


PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs' Expert's Testimony in Zoloft MDL Excluded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has ruled that plaintiffs' expert Dr. Nicholas
Jewell's testimony should be excluded from the Zoloft
multidistrict litigation.

According to U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania's opinion released late on Dec. 2,
Dr. Jewell opined that "maternal use of Zoloft during early
pregnancy is capable of causing, or contributing to cause,
cardiovascular birth defects."  However, Judge Rufe ruled that
Jewell's opinion was inadmissible because he used unreliable
science to reach his conclusions.

Dianne Nast, an attorney for the plaintiffs, did not return a call
seeking comment.

Judge Rufe said Dr. Jewell's opinion was based upon his review and
analysis of the medical literature, and his reanalysis of data
from published Zoloft studies.  The plaintiffs argued that
Dr. Jewell, a statistician, used well-accepted methods in arriving
at his conclusions, while drugmaker Pfizer argued that while the
methods he advocated may have been sound, he did not apply them in
his Zoloft opinions.

As a statistics expert in the case, Judge Rufe said Jewell would
have to explain why he believes that the positive associations
between mothers' use of Zoloft and cardiac birth defects, reported
in some studies, are accurate and not the result of statistical
flaws or biases and reconcile those studies that claimed there was
no increased risk of cardiac birth defects with his opinion.

According to Judge Rufe, Jewell "has deviated from or downplayed
certain well-established principles of his field, and has
inconsistently applied methods and standards to the data so as to
support his a priori opinion. It is improper for an expert to take
a results-driven approach to a question, molding his methodology
and selectively relying upon data so as to confirm his
preconceived opinion."

"As Pfizer pointed out to the court, Dr. Jewell's testimony
directly conflicts with the findings of a range of independent
expert organizations, such as the American Psychiatric
Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
and the American Heart Association, all of whom have found that
Zoloft's use during pregnancy is not associated with birth
defects," a spokesperson for Pfizer said in an email.


PFIZER INC: Recent Ruling May Jeopardize Zoloft Birth-Defect MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
in light of a federal judge's decision to bar testimony from a key
witness for the plaintiffs in the Zoloft birth-defect MDL, it is
unclear whether the plaintiffs' cases can move forward.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs'
general causation expert, Dr. Nicholas Jewell, a professor of
biostatistics at the University of California, Berkeley.

Judge Rufe's ruling on Dec. 2 came after the dismissal of hundreds
of non-cardiac birth defect cases in the litigation over the
summer -- halving the litigation in size.  Dr. Jewell was put
forth as the expert for the remaining, cardiac-related cases.  At
one point the MDL numbered around 600 cases, but with the
dismissal of Jewell, and the uncertainty of whether the plaintiffs
will be allowed to muster another expert, the future of the
litigation is in question.

According to Judge Rufe's opinion released late on Dec. 2,
Dr. Jewell opined that "maternal use of Zoloft during early
pregnancy is capable of causing, or contributing to cause,
cardiovascular birth defects."  However, Judge Rufe held that
Dr. Jewell's opinion was inadmissible because he used unreliable
science to reach his conclusions.

The lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, Dianne Nast of NastLaw and
Newport Beach, California-based Mark Robinson, did not return
calls seeking comment.

Judge Rufe said Dr. Jewell's opinion was based upon his review and
analysis of the medical literature, and his reanalysis of data
from published Zoloft studies.  The plaintiffs argued that
Dr. Jewell, a statistician, used well-accepted methods in arriving
at his conclusions, while drugmaker Pfizer argued that while the
methods he advocated may have been sound, he did not apply them in
his Zoloft opinions.

As a statistics expert, Judge Rufe said Dr. Jewell would have to
explain why he believes that the positive associations between
mothers' use of Zoloft and cardiac birth defects, reported in some
studies, are accurate and not the result of statistical flaws or
biases and reconcile those studies that claimed there was no
increased risk of cardiac birth defects with his opinion.

According to Judge Rufe, Dr. Jewell "has deviated from or
downplayed certain well-established principles of his field, and
has inconsistently applied methods and standards to the data so as
to support his a priori opinion.  It is improper for an expert to
take a results-driven approach to a question, molding his
methodology and selectively relying upon data so as to confirm his
preconceived opinion."

"As Pfizer pointed out to the court, Dr. Jewell's testimony
directly conflicts with the findings of a range of independent
expert organizations, such as the American Psychiatric
Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
and the American Heart Association, all of whom have found that
Zoloft's use during pregnancy is not associated with birth
defects," a spokesperson for Pfizer said in an email.

In June, the docket listed 550 total active cases, and over the
course of the summer, hundreds of non-cardiac cases were
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, bringing the current
number to 278, according to the MDL clerk's office.

Ms. Nast previously said the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the cases
and proceed in cardiac-only matters for greater efficiency.
Ms. Nast said cases can be refiled with the understanding that the
statute of limitations will not be running.  Ms. Nast also pointed
to Judge Rufe's decision to exclude the testimony of the
plaintiffs' non-cardiac birth injury expert, Dr. Anick Berard, as
a factor in the decision to dismiss the cases.

"I'm not saying we would have made a different decision if she had
passed muster with the court," Ms. Nast had said, because
efficiency was the primary concern.

As for whether the dismissed cases will be refiled individually,
Ms. Nast had said, "I think they would remain part of the MDL,
because they have the commonality that all the people took
Zoloft," despite the differing injuries.

As for Dr. Jewell's testimony, lawyers for Pfizer had long argued
that his methods weren't adequate.


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Conway" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Estella Conway, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, LTD., Case No. 5:15-cv-
02388 (C.D. Cal., November 19, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Phillips & Cohen Associates, LTD. operates a law firm in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. McNeile, Esq.
      Nancy Barron, Esq.
      Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
      KEMNITZER BARRON AND KRIEG LLP
      445 Bush Street 6th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 632-1900
      Facsimile: (415) 632-1901
      E-mail: adam@kbklegal.com
              nancy@kbklegal.com
              bryan@kbklegal.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kulama" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nakyanzi Kaluma, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
13880 (D. Mass., November 18, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC operates a debt collection firm
in Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES
      1100 Summer Street, Fl. 3
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
      E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


RBS CITIZENS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Reinig" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Reinig, Ken Gritz, and Bob Soda individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. RBS Citizens, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01541-AJS (W.D. Penn., November 23, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

RBS Citizens, N.A. operates bank branches under the name "Citizens
Bank" in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
      Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Highway N, Ste. 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
      E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
              rswartz@swartz-legal.com
              jboyette@swartz-legal.com


REDFORD, MI: Faces Garner Suit Over Rental Certificate Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
Garner Properties & Management, LLC v. Charter Township of Redford
and John Doe Code Officials, Case No. 2:15-cv-14100-MAG-APP (E.D.
Mich., November 23, 2015) is brought on behalf of a class of all
persons who own and rent residential real property in Redford and
have been fined for failing to have a rental certificate of
compliance for a rental property.

Charter Township of Redford is a municipal corporation located
within Wayne County in the State of Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
      Andrew T. Strahan, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC
      23380 Goddard Rd.
      Taylor, MI 48180
      Telephone: (734) 287-3664
      E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com
              andrew@aaroncoxlaw.com


RECKITT BENCKISER: Accused of Misleading Consumers Over Painkiller
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Gelineau, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
an Australian court ordered a British consumer goods company on
Dec. 14 to remove several versions of a popular painkiller from
stores in Australia after ruling that the company misled consumers
about the products' effectiveness.

The Federal Court ruled that British consumer goods company
Reckitt Benckiser deceived Australians by selling Nurofen
painkillers that were marketed to relieve specific ailments, such
as back pain, when all of the products contained an identical
amount of the same active ingredient, ibuprofen lysine.

Australia's consumer watchdog launched the court action in March,
arguing that consumers were being tricked into thinking that the
four products -- Nurofen Back Pain, Nurofen Period Pain, Nurofen
Migraine Pain and Nurofen Tension Headache  --  were designed to
treat a specific type of pain, when in fact, they were all the
same.

"None of the four products is any more or less effective than the
others in treating any of the particular symptoms," Justice James
Edelman wrote in his judgment.

Justice Edelman gave Reckitt Benckiser three months to remove the
products from Australian stores.  The company markets a variety of
health and household goods in Australia.

Reckitt Benckiser referred calls requesting comment to its Nurofen
unit, which said it would comply with the order and replace the
products with new packaging that clearly states the drugs are
equally effective at treating other forms of pain.

"The Nurofen specific-pain range was launched with an intention to
help consumers navigate their pain relief options, particularly
within the grocery environment where there is no health care
professional to assist decision making," Nurofen spokeswoman
Montse Pena said in a statement.  "Nurofen did not set out to
mislead consumers."

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which started
the court action, said the price of Nurofen's specific pain
products was nearly double that of Nurofen's standard ibuprofen
painkiller and other general pain relief products sold by
competitors.

"Truth in advertising and consumer issues in the health and
medical sectors are priority areas for the ACCC, to ensure that
consumers are given accurate information when making their
purchasing decisions," ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said in a statement.
"Any representations which are difficult for a consumer to test
will face greater scrutiny from the ACCC."

A separate court hearing will be held to determine any fines the
company may face.


RUSHMORE LOAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sanchez" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, Case No.
8:15-cv-02714-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla., November 20, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC is a residential loan
servicer and national wholesale residential mortgage loan
originator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com


SANFORD-FRITCH ISD: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Davis, and all others similarly situated v. Sanford-Fritch
ISD, Jim McClellan and Richard Hein, Case No. 2:15-cv-00338 (N.D.
Tex., November 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a Texas independent school district.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip R. Russ, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP R. RUSS
      2700 S. Western, Suite 1200
      Amarillo, TX 79109
      Tel: (806) 358-9293
      Fax: (806) 358-9296


SCHWARTZ SCHWARTZ: Illegally Collects Debt, "Iuliano" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Iuliano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Schwartz, Schwartz & Associates, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06711 (E.D.N.Y., November 23, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Schwartz, Schwartz & Associates is a mortgage document solutions
provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Barshay, Esq.
      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
      E-mail: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com
              csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


SLATER & GORDON: ACA Lawyers Mulls Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Papadakis, writing for the Australian Financial Review,
reports that Slater & Gordon may be getting a taste of its own
medicine.  Law firm ACA Lawyers said it is considering a class
action lawsuit against the embattled labour law firm on behalf of
investors who may have lost money when its share price fell 90 per
cent this year.

ACA Lawyers principal Bruce Clark said he was investigating a
shareholder class action against Slater & Gordon for potentially
misleading investors over a capital raising for the $890 million
acquisition of British-based Quindell's professional services
division in March and a cancelled profit forecast this year.

Separately, a small Western Sydney legal firm, Cox West Lawyers,
lodged an urgent claim against Slater & Gordon for the payment of
money because it says it fears the firm is insolvent.

Slater & Gordon, which is traded on the share market, did not
comment on the class action but a spokeswoman said the firm was
not "near insolvency" as apparently alleged by Cox West Lawyers'
legal representatives.

TERMINATED

She said one of the former principals of Cox West Lawyers, John
Cox, was recently terminated from Slater & Gordon.

She said the firm had no prior notice of the claim and was
therefore not represented in court.

"We regard the comments as highly inflammatory and designed to
advance the applicant's position," the spokeswoman said.

"As was outlined to Cox West Lawyers, Slater and Gordon is and
remains a financially viable organization able to meet its
financial obligations.

"It is simply not appropriate for us to provide commentary on
employment and acquisition agreement matters which are now before
the court."

Mr. Cox confirmed to AFR Weekend he was sacked on Dec. 16 and has
since engaged lawyers.

"Without notice a series of allegations were put to me at a
meeting.  I categorically rejected each and every allegation put
to me.  Notwithstanding this I was immediately terminated," he
said.  "I continue to strongly deny any wrongdoing.  I have
personally retained and instructed Harmers Workplace Lawyers to
formally commence proceedings on my behalf regarding my
termination.

"I note that the termination occurred at the time my company Cox
West Lawyers was in dispute with Slater & Gordon."

Slater & Gordon shocked investors on Dec. 17 by abandoning a
recently reaffirmed full-year forecast for 2016 of revenue in
excess of $1.15 billion.

The firm's chief executive, Andrew Grech, said on Dec. 17 it was
reviewing its approach to financial forecasting after worse than
expected results from its British legal service business
Quindells.

LITTLE CONFIDENCE

Mr. Clarke said shareholders could have little confidence in the
company's projections. Slater & Gordon's share price dropped
around 86 per cent from after it sold new shares to the public on
April 20 to the withdrawal of its forecast on Dec. 17, wiping $2
billion off shareholder value.

At the time of the capital raising the company said the
acquisition would improve earnings per share by 30 per cent in the
first year, Mr Clarke said.

"It is a publicly listed firm that should know better than most
the duties of companies in regard to governance and keeping
shareholders properly informed," he said.  "Slater & Gordon should
expect the same scrutiny as other publicly listed companies where
they have instituted proceedings on behalf of shareholders."

Lawyers for Cox West Lawyers, a small personal injuries and family
law firm that was absorbed by Slater & Gordon just over a year
ago, asked the NSW Supreme Court on Dec. 18 for an urgent payment
from Slater & Gordon.

QUICK DECISION

Cox West's barrister, Ivan Leong, asked for a decision before
Christmas.

"We wish to assert a contractual right to get an injunction to a
large sum of money paid into trust. We are fearful of the
defendant being insolvent," Mr Leong said.

"The defendant being insolvent?" NSW Supreme Court judge James
Stevenson asked.

"Slater & Go . . . well, I won't say the name," Mr Leong replied.

Justice Stevenson ordered them to explain why the matter needed to
be determined two days before Christmas and the general nature of
the request by December 22.

Slater & Gordon's shares have slumped 89 per cent in the past year
following investigations into accounting practices and the
performance of its Quindell's business.  The Australian Securities
and Investments Commission stepped up an investigation against the
embattled legal firm following its Dec. 17 earnings downgrade.


SOUTHERN ARCH: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Rene Orlando Lopez, and all others similarly situated v. Southern
Arch, LLC and Gary Hess, Case No. 2:15-cv-06302 (E.D. La.,
November 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a business of restoring windows, cabinets,
doors and floors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Tel: (504) 914-1048
      Fax: (504) 272-2956
      E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

          - and -

      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Tel: (504) 483-8008
      E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Trabalka" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Friedarika Trabalka, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., et al., Case No. 2:15-
cv-08211 (D.N.J., November 22, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. is a provider of accounts
receivable management and consumer contact service solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


SPESS OIL: Seeks Dismissal of Earthquake Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Justin Juozapavicius, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that two energy companies asked a judge on Dec. 9 to throw out a
lawsuit by an Oklahoma woman who claims she was injured in an
earthquake caused by the injection of wastewater deep into the
ground -- a long-used method to dispose of the chemical-laced
byproduct of oil and gas production.

The lawsuit by Prague resident Sandra Ladra alleges the companies
are liable because they operated wastewater disposal wells that
triggered the largest earthquake in state history, a 5.6-magnitude
temblor that hit in 2011.  Ms. Ladra, who claims the quake
crumbled her two-story fireplace and caused rocks to fall on her
legs and gash her knee, is among others who have similar lawsuits
pending elsewhere in the country.

Ms. Ladra is suing Oklahoma-based Spess Oil Co. and New Dominion
LLC, as well as 25 unidentified parties.  Her case was given new
life in June when the Oklahoma Supreme Court overturned a decision
by Lincoln County District Judge Cynthia Ferrell Ashwood, who had
dismissed the suit on the grounds that the court didn't have
jurisdiction in the matter.

Judge Ashwood, who also presided over the Dec. 9 hearing, took the
matter under advisement and did not issue an immediate ruling.

The companies want the lawsuit dismissed because they say
Ms. Ladra waited too long to file it.

Energy companies claim the litigation could cripple oil and gas
production in Oklahoma, where the economy is tied to the industry.
Regulation proponents say the lawsuits could result in safer
drilling practices.

Scientists have linked injection of wastewater to the sharp rise
in earthquakes in Oklahoma.  A recent study by the U.S. Geological
Survey traced wastewater injection methods to the 1920s in
Oklahoma and tied the rise in quakes in the past 100 years to
industrial activities, such as oil and natural gas production.
About 1.5 billion barrels of wastewater was disposed underground
in Oklahoma last year, according to statistics released by the
governor's office.

A swarm of earthquakes has recently rumbled through the north-
central swath of the state, one with a 4.7 magnitude.  In
response, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission's oil and gas
division has proposed ways for wastewater disposal well operators
in that area to halt or reduce volume.

Scott E. Poynter, Ladra's lead attorney, said the scientific
studies linking injection wells to earthquakes -- and a state
agency that recently said it's "very likely" the cause -- bolsters
her claim.

"When you look at the actual science and you look at the data, you
can't help but go, 'It's the injection wells, stupid.'  It's just
that obvious," Mr. Poynter said.  "Oklahoma shouldn't have more
earthquakes than anywhere on the planet, but it does."

Bob Gum, an attorney for New Dominion, said current wastewater
disposal methods are the most modern and efficient as possible.  A
lawyer for Spess Oil didn't return a message seeking comment.

Some industry representatives and oil and gas producers
acknowledge that some of the earthquakes in Oklahoma are caused by
human action, but warn against generalizing that all of them have
been triggered by their practices.

Chad Warmington, president of the Oklahoma Oil & Gas Association,
which represents many of the larger companies exploring in the
state, said the correlation needs further study and a way to
strike "a balance of injecting and producing without an increase
in seismic activity."

Kim Hatfield, president of Crawley Petroleum, which operates in
Oklahoma and Texas, said the ramifications of lawsuits such as
Ms. Ladra's could weaken the energy industry in Oklahoma and have
devastating economic consequences.

"Are you familiar with 'The Grapes of Wrath'? This would make that
look like a comedy," Ms. Hatfield said.  "That would be a self-
inflicted wound of tremendous magnitude for the state, and oil
companies will say, 'We're not going to drill in Oklahoma.'

"It would be a tragedy of just monumental proportions," he said.


STEPHENS & MICHAELS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dov Spitezki, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Stephens & Michaels Associates, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06629 (E.D.N.Y., November 18, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Stephens & Michaels Associates, LLC operates a debt collection
agency in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


STERLING GROUP: Removed "Barnett" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Rolanzo Barnett and other
similarly situated dishwashers v. Sterling Group Foods, Inc., et
al., Case No. CACE-15-019448, was removed from the 17th Judicial
Circuit for Broward County, Florida to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-62451-UU to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Sterling Group Foods, Inc. owns and operates a catering company in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
      Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
              jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Joshua Michael Entin, Esq.
      ENTIN & DELLA FERA, P.A.
      633 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 500
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 761-7201
      Facsimile: (954) 764-2443
      E-mail: joshentin@comcast.net


TAKATA CORP: Judge Allows Air Bag Racketeering Claims to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
vehicle owners can now begin collecting documents and taking
depositions to support their claims that Takata Corp. and Honda
Motor Co. conspired to hide the risks of allegedly faulty air bags
installed in their cars.

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno in Miami on Dec. 2 kept alive
federal racketeering claims the two companies had moved to
dismiss.

The 107 consumers and four auto recyclers who are plaintiffs in
the multidistrict litigation sued over Takata air bags that used
ammonium nitrate.  The buyers claimed they would not have bought
their cars if they knew the air bags might kill or injure them
with flying shrapnel, and the stigma attached to the air bags
diminished resale values.

The car owners also allege Takata and Honda secretly shared
information about air bag deployment injuries and misled
regulators about the number of vehicles with allegedly defective
air bags and the safety risks they posed.

Judge Moreno decided the plaintiffs established plausible claims
for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  A
successful civil RICO claim can mean a big windfall with the law
allowing triple damages.

The judge also denied Takata's motion to strike the putative
national class action as premature.  Takata argued the court could
not evaluate the nationwide claims under the law of one state, and
it would be inefficient to apply the laws of 30 states.

"This is a significant and positive step forward for our case and
our clients," said Peter Prieto, chair lead counsel for the
plaintiffs and a Podhurst Orseck partner in Miami.  "We are
pleased that the court denied dismissal of the federal RICO claims
and that we can now develop these claims through discovery."

Takata attorney David Bernick, a partner at Dechert in New York,
did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

American Honda Motor Co. spokesman Chris Martin said Judge
Moreno's decision to let the claims move forward was expected at
this early stage in the litigation.

"Honda believes that plaintiffs' claims against Honda are without
merit, but we are not surprised by the court's ruling on Dec. 3 on
the RICO claim," Mr. Martin said in a statement.

The company is confident the RICO claim against it will be
dismissed based on the evidence, including Takata internal
documents recently given to Honda and the plaintiffs, Mr. Martin
said.

"Honda looks forward to the opportunity to properly challenge
plaintiffs' claims on the full record during the later stages of
the litigation," he said.

The decision followed oral arguments Oct. 23. Moreno said other
orders would follow on issues argued the same day.  The hearing
dealt with defense motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' 453-page
second amended consolidated class action complaint, which includes
claims of fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and breach of
implied warranty against several automakers.

Mr. Prieto said the plaintiffs are hoping for a trial in April
2017. Manufacturers named in the lawsuits include BMW, Ford,
Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru and Toyota.

The economic loss claims by car owners are being heard separately
from personal injury claims.  Takata air bag explosions have been
blamed in seven deaths and nearly 100 injuries in the U.S.
Japan-based Takata announced in May that more than 34 million U.S.
vehicles would be recalled because of the air bags.  A list of
recalled vehicles can be found at safercar.gov.

Last month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
imposed the largest civil penalty in its history on Takata,
ordering the company to pay $200 million.  The agency also
required Takata to phase out the manufacture and sale of inflators
that use ammonium nitrate as a propellant.

"For years, Takata has built and sold defective products, refused
to acknowledge the defect and failed to provide full information
to NHTSA, its customers or the public," Transportation Secretary
Anthony Foxx said Nov. 3 when the penalty was announced.  "The
result of that delay and denial has harmed scores of consumers."
Firms representing the plaintiffs in the economic loss action are
Podhurst Orseck; Colson Hicks Eidson; Power Rogers & Smith; Boies,
Schiller & Flexner; Baron & Budd; Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein
Brody & Agnello; and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.
Defense firms are Dechert; Sidley Austin; Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod; Hogan Lovells; Lewis Tein; Sedgwick; Herzfeld &
Rubin; Kenny Nachwalter; Dykema Gossett; Alston & Bird; Seipp
Flick & Hosley; DLA Piper; Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney; and Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith.


TARGA RESOURCES: Deal in Atlas Unitholder Case Up for Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company is awaiting court approval of the settlement in the Atlas
Unitholder Litigation.

Between October and December 2014, five public unitholders of APL
(the "APL Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits
against APL, ATLS, APL GP, its managers, Targa, the Partnership,
the general partner and MLP Merger Sub (the "APL Lawsuit
Defendants"). These lawsuits are styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman Family
Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et
al., in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (the "Tulsa
Lawsuit"); (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (d) Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline
Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline
Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, though the Tulsa Lawsuit has since been
voluntarily dismissed. The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum
lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated
APL Lawsuit"). In October and November 2014, two public
unitholders of ATLS (the "ATLS Plaintiffs" and, together with the
APL Plaintiffs, the "Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs") filed putative
class action lawsuits against ATLS, ATLS GP, its managers, Targa
and GP Merger Sub (the "ATLS Lawsuit Defendants" and, together
with the APL Lawsuit Defendants, the "Atlas Lawsuit Defendants").
These lawsuits are styled (a) Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et
al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania and (b) Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al.,
in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
(the "ATLS Lawsuits"). The ATLS Lawsuits have been consolidated as
In re Atlas Energy, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-
019658, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit" and, together with
the Consolidated APL Lawsuit, the "Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits"),
though the Kane lawsuit has since been voluntarily dismissed.

The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs alleged a variety of causes of action
challenging the Atlas mergers. Generally, the APL Plaintiffs
alleged that (a) APL GP's managers have breached the covenant of
good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, the
Partnership, the general partner, MLP Merger Sub, APL, ATLS and
APL GP have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the
covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The APL Plaintiffs
further alleged that (a) the premium offered to APL's unitholders
was inadequate, (b) APL agreed to contractual terms that would
allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to
acquire APL, and (c) APL GP's managers favored their self-
interests over the interests of APL's unitholders. The APL
Plaintiffs in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit also alleged that the
registration statement filed on November 19, 2014 failed, among
other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning
(i) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated's analysis of the
Atlas mergers; (ii) APL and the Partnership's financial
projections; and (iii) the background of the Atlas mergers.
Generally, the ATLS Plaintiffs alleged that (a) ATLS GP's
directors have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their
fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, GP Merger Sub, and ATLS have aided
and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good
faith and/or fiduciary duties. The ATLS Plaintiffs further alleged
that (a) the premium offered to the ATLS unitholders was
inadequate, (b) ATLS agreed to contractual terms that would
allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to
acquire ATLS, (c) ATLS GP's directors favored their self-interests
over the interests of the ATLS unitholders and (d) the
registration statement failed to disclose allegedly material
details concerning, among other things, (i) Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.'s analyses of the Atlas mergers;
(ii) the Partnership, Targa, APL, and ATLS' financial projections;
and (iii) the background of the Atlas mergers.

Based on these allegations, the Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs sought to
enjoin the Atlas Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the Atlas mergers unless and until APL and ATLS
adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible
terms for their respective unitholders. The Atlas Lawsuit
Plaintiffs also sought rescission, damages, and attorneys' fees.

The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle
the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits on February 9, 2015. In general,
the settlements provide that in consideration for the dismissal of
the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits, ATLS and APL would provide
supplemental disclosures regarding the Atlas mergers in a filing
with the SEC on Form 8-K, which ATLS and APL did on February 11,
2015. The Atlas Lawsuit Defendants agreed to make such
supplemental disclosures solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk,
burden, and expense inherent in litigation and deny that any
supplemental disclosure was or is required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law. The parties to the Consolidated
Atlas Lawsuits have executed the settlement agreements and the
settlement notices to the putative class members have been
submitted to the Court for approval.


TARGET CORP: Settles Data Breach Litigation for $39 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Target Corp. has agreed to pay $39 million to settle
litigation brought by banks and credit unions over its 2013 data
breach.

The proposed agreement, which U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson in
Minnesota preliminarily approved on Wednesday, is the first class
action settlement involving financial institutions harmed by a
data breach.

"This settlement is a strong and important result for those
financial institutions that sustained losses as a result of the
Target data breach, providing compensation well beyond what the
card brand networks offered," wrote Charles "Bucky" Zimmerman --
charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- a founding partner of Zimmerman
Reed, and Karl Cambronne, a shareholder at Chestnut Cambronne,
both in Minneapolis.

Mr. Zimmerman and Cambronne are lead plaintiffs attorneys
representing the financial institutions.

"It also sets an important precedent that financial institutions
should not always have to bear the burden of extensive costs
related to merchant data breaches over which they have no
control," they wrote.

Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder wrote in an email: "We are pleased
that the process is continuing to move forward."

The settlement compensates financial institutions that issued
debit or credit cards compromised by the breach, which involved 40
million credit and debit cards during the 2013 holiday season.  On
Sept. 15, Judge Magnuson certified a class of financial
institutions in the case.

The deal excludes banks and credit unions that previously released
claims against Target as part of a separate $67 million deal
offered by Visa Inc.  In August, plaintiffs lawyers representing
the financial institutions intervened in that deal, claiming it
didn't adequately cover their clients' costs, which included
reissuing cards or reimbursing customers for fraudulent charges.

Lawyers for the financial institutions previously had challenged a
$19 million deal between Target and MasterCard Inc. that
ultimately unraveled.

Under the Dec. 2 deal, Target will pay more than $20 million
directly to class members and $19 million to cover MasterCard's
reimbursement program related to the breach.

Target agreed not to contest attorney fees of up to $20 million.
A final settlement hearing is scheduled for May 10.

The settlement would end the litigation over Target's breach.  In
March, the company paid $10 million to settle more than 140 class
actions filed by its customers.  On Nov. 17, Judge Magnuson gave
final approval to that deal, which included a separate payment of
$6.75 million for attorney fees.


TEAM HEALTH: Dismissal of Operative Complaint Sought
----------------------------------------------------
Team Health Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that defendants
have moved to dismiss the operative complaint in a shareholder
class action.

On August 14, 2015, a purported shareholder of IPC filed a
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Smukler v.
IPC Healthcare, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11392-CB), on behalf of a
purported class of  IPC shareholders. The lawsuit names IPC, each
of its current directors, the Company, and Sub as defendants. The
lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to take
appropriate steps to maximize the value of IPC to its
shareholders, failing to value IPC properly, and taking steps to
avoid competitive bidding by alternate potential acquirers. The
lawsuit also alleges that IPC, the Company, and Sub aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
individual defendants. The lawsuit seeks, among other things,
certification of the action as a class action; injunctive relief
enjoining the merger; an accounting of all damages purportedly
suffered by the plaintiff and the class including rescissory
damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class; and the fees and
costs associated with the litigation.

On August 18, 2015, an additional lawsuit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting similar claims and
allegations to those in the Smukler lawsuit and seeking similar
relief on behalf of the same putative class. Crescente v. Singer,
et al. (Case No. 11405-CB).

Additionally, on August 19, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California in Los Angeles County.
Khemthong v. IPC Healthcare Networks, Inc., et al. (No. BC
591953). The lawsuit asserted similar claims and allegations to
those in the Smukler lawsuit and sought similar relief on behalf
of the same putative class. On August 27, 2015, the plaintiff
filed a request for voluntary dismissal of the suit without
prejudice, and on August 28, 2015, the court entered an order
granting that request.

By Order dated September 11, 2015 (the Consolidation Order), the
Smukler and Crescente  actions were consolidated, and all further
litigation relating to or arising out of the merger were directed
to be consolidated with such actions under the caption In re IPC
Healthcare, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 11392-CB (the
"Consolidated Action").

On September 17, 2015, an action captioned Spencer v. IPC
Healthcare, Inc., C.A. No. 11516-CB, was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery. Under the Consolidation Order, such action is
required to be consolidated with the previously-filed actions. On
September 18, 2015, a Verified Consolidated Class Action Complaint
was filed in the Consolidated Action.  On October 2, 2015, the
defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint.


TEXAS: Health Agency Sued Over Medicaid Program
-----------------------------------------------
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and
Preventative Health Services, Inc., et al. v. Chris Traylor and
Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-01058-SS (W.D. Tex.,
November 23, 2015) seeks damages as a proximate result of the
Defendants' alleged termination of the Plaintiff's family planning
and preventive health services from the Medicaid program.

Chris Traylor is Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human
Services Commission (HHSC), and in that role, governs HHSC, which
is the state agency that administers Texas's Medicaid program.

Stuart W. Bowen, Jr. is Inspector General of HHSC, whose office --
the Office of Inspector General -- is a division within HHSC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas H. Watkins, Esq.
      HUSCH BLACKWELL, L.L.P
      111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 472-5456
      Facsimile: (512) 479-1101
      E-mail: Tom.Watkins@huschblackwell.com


         - and -

      Jennifer Sandman, Esq.
      PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA
      434 West 33rd Street
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 261-4584
      Facsimile: (212) 247-6811
      E-mail: Jennifer.Sandman@ppfa.org

         - and -

      Alice Clapman, Esq.
      Richard Muniz, Esq.
      PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA
      1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 973-4862 (Alice Clapman)
      Telephone: (202) 973-4997 (Richard Muniz)
      Facsimile: (202) 296-3480 (facsimile)
      E-mail: Alice.Clapman@ppfa.org
              Richard.Muniz@ppfa.org


TORRANCE COUNTY, NM: Class Action Mulled Over Alleged Extortion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Maxwell, writing for Mountain View Telegraph, report that
possibly the most loathed entity in Torrance County may have a
class-action lawsuit against it in the near future.

A GoFundMe page entitled "Stop Torrance County Corruption" has
been set up to pay for legal expenses "to stop (the Estancia
Valley Solid Waste Authority) and Torrance County from illegally
extorting money from property owners in unincorporated Torrance
County," a message on the GoFundMe page states.

"Currently approximately 1,200 residents, roughly 30 percent of
all home owners in unincorporated Torrance County homes have liens
placed against them for failing to pay for services they did not
want, need, use or even sign up for and now the Estancia Valley
Solid Waste Authority is making a grand attempt to make things
worse," a recent post to the GoFundMe page states.

Torrance County Manager Joy Ansley is aware of the page.

"It appears that they're trying to fund raise to file a class-
action lawsuit.  If that's the route they feel they need to take,
then good for them.  I hope it works out to their advantage,"
Ansley said via email.

The Facebook group page affiliated with the GoFundMe has posts
that state that a representative of the New Mexico Attorney
General's Office may be at the Solid Waste Ordinance public
hearing on Jan. 13.  NMAG Public Information Officer James
Hallinan stated via email that the NMAG will not have a
representative at that hearing.

EVSWA Manager Joseph Ellis had no comment since the page is in
reference to the current solid waste ordinance revisions and not
to the EVSWA itself.

The EVSWA is a quasi-governmental organization that is not
affiliated with the governmental function of Torrance County.

The GoFundMe page was started by Cathy Hart and was inspired by
the Facebook group of the same name that was set up by Cody
Brister.

"(Hart's) plan is in case we need legal assistance after the
public hearing," Mr. Brister said by phone.  "I wasn't going to
set up the GoFundMe until after the January public hearing."

Mr. Brister added that the Stop Torrance County Corruption group
is in the process of making and distributing flyers to generate
public support and interest in the public hearing.

"A member is also working on a mass mail-out," Mr. Brister said.

The group has raised $155 so far. The group would like to raise
$20,000 for the potential legal assistance.  The GoFundMe page can
be found here: www.gofundme.com/kmcxwghg

The group Stop Torrance County Corruption is currently working
towards achieving nonprofit status.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Allows Tip Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge on Dec. 2 allowed Uber Technologies Inc. passengers to
proceed on a class basis with claims that target the company's
tips policy.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of
California certified a class of UberTAXI passengers who received a
2012 email explaining that they would be charged an automatic 20
percent gratuity for their rides.  Plaintiffs claim that email led
them to believe the entire tip went to their drivers, when in
reality Uber kept half.

The ruling is a partial win for plaintiffs lawyers, who had sought
to certify a broader class of all passengers who booked an
UberTAXI ride between April 2012 and March 2013.  Plaintiffs,
represented by Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski; the Law Offices
of Hall Adams; and Myron M. Cherry & Associates, sued Uber last
year for alleged violations of the California Unfair Competition
Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.  They claim Uber
misrepresented its gratuity policy for UberTAXI, a service that
allowed passengers to use the Uber app to request a ride in a
traditional taxi and pay a metered fare.  The program was rolled
out in five cities during the class period.  In March 2013, Uber
stopped automatically including the 20 percent gratuity.

Uber's lawyers with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan had argued
that plaintiffs present individualized issues, including which
allegedly misleading statements they saw.  Judge Chen seemed to
agree, at least in part.

"Plaintiff's proposed class has a problem of predominance," he
wrote in his 26-page order, "namely the absence of proof that the
entire proposed class would have been exposed to the allegedly
misleading statement that the 20 percent automatic charge was for
gratuity only."

Judge Chen cured this defect by certifying a class made up only of
plaintiffs who received a specific June 2012 email about the
UberTAXI gratuity, discounting alleged misrepresentations made by
Uber in blog posts and on its website.

Earlier this year Chen certified a class of Uber drivers who claim
they were denied tips and that they should be classified as
employees and entitled to employee benefits.  Uber also faces
potential class actions over its background check policy, its
"safe rides" fee and a toll it charged passengers for airport
trips.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bench Trial Sought in Misclassification Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that after
securing a pair of favorable rulings -- and in the face of a
supercharged media campaign launched by Uber -- plaintiffs
challenging the company's business model are seeking to put on
their case without a jury.

Plaintiffs lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, who won class
certification for drivers suing over their status as independent
contractors and then got the class significantly expanded, moved
on Dec. 17 to dismiss an expense-reimbursement claim in an effort
to proceed to a bench trial.  The proposal, subject of a hearing
before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in California, drew a
vigorous objection from Uber Technologies Inc. lawyer Theodore
Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

"Plaintiffs counsel is afraid of a jury trial here in the Northern
District," Mr. Boutrous said, adding that assertions that a jury
could not be fair minded are "ridiculous" and "outrageous."

Uber was also playing defense at the hearing over the rollout of a
new driver arbitration agreement, a contract Judge Chen said
"raises grave concerns."  Ms. Liss-Riordan filed an emergency
motion to block enforcement of the agreement, which Uber recently
unveiled. Uber previously said the company wouldn't enforce the
agreement against drivers who are already part of Liss-Riordan's
certified class.

Despite his concerns, Judge Chen said he was unsure if he had the
authority to halt the agreement from taking effect.  Instead, he
said he would issue an order confirming that the new agreement
cannot be enforced against members of the certified class.  He
also directed Uber to refrain from communicating with class
members "with respect to anything that might affect the
prosecution of the case."  Judge Chen put off deciding on whether
there needs to be additional protection for plaintiffs in the
several other cases filed against the company.

The plaintiffs' bid to forgo a jury comes after Chen allowed
plaintiffs to pursue classwide reimbursement for driving expenses
under the California Labor Code.  After that ruling, Ms. Liss-
Riordan asked Judge Chen to rule on that issue under California's
Unfair Competition Law, which she says does not include a right to
jury trial.

"A bench trial will assure that there are clear factual findings
and conclusions in the record and can more easily allow for an
appeal of any adverse decisions in a way that would be more
difficult in a jury trial," Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote in the motion
filed just before the hearing.

She added that Uber's press push, including the company's
publicizing of hundreds of declarations by drivers who say they
like being independent contractors, may have prejudiced potential
jurors.

"This is simply another attempt we are making to obtain a bench
trial. It may work and it may not," Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote in an
email after the hearing.  "But either way, I am not afraid of a
jury. We are only saying that this legal issue [of worker status]
is properly decided by a court because there really aren't factual
disputes in this case -- the issue is simply how the law applies
to this fact situation."

Judge Chen put off ruling but expressed concerns.  "Manageable or
not, there is a right to a jury trial," he said.  "You cannot
unilaterally withdraw the right to a jury trial."

Judge Chen ordered Uber to respond to Ms. Liss-Riordan's motion.
The case, O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, is scheduled to go to
trial in summer 2016.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Says Not Liable in Rape Suits Against Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that in a suit
brought by two women who allege they were sexually assaulted by
Uber Technologies Inc. drivers, the company's lawyers are raising
a familiar defense.  In court papers filed late on Dec. 4, Uber
claims that it shouldn't be held liable for the drivers' actions
because "they were not employees of Uber," echoing previous
defenses the company has put forward in other suits.

The familiar refrain comes as part of Uber's early attempt to get
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of
California to toss a suit filed in October on behalf of two
Jane Doe plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs lawyers at Wigdor LLP and
Anderson & Poole maintain that the company should be held liable
for the conduct of Uber drivers in Boston and Charleston, South
Carolina.

In a motion to dismiss, Uber's lawyers at Clarence Dyer & Cohen
acknowledged that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern
District of California has ruled previously in a separate
employment suit that a jury should resolve the question of whether
Uber drivers are employees or contractors under California law.
But, the company's lawyers wrote, nothing in the earlier case
precludes Judge Illston from finding that plaintiffs in the sexual
assault matter failed to show an employer-employee relationship.
Clarence Dyer's Joshua Cohen -- jcohen@clarencedyer.com -- and
RoseMarie Maliekel argued that even if Judge Illston were to find
that Uber drivers are employees the company shouldn't be held
liable since "sudden and unexpected sexual assaults by employees
are outside the scope of an employee's duties and cannot support
employer liability."  Uber's lawyer cite a string of California
cases where judges have declined to hold employers liable for
sexual assaults involving a wide variety professionals: a deputy
sheriff, a teacher, a timeshare salesman, a security guard, a
priest and a school custodian.

"While no one should have to endure what the Doe plaintiffs
allege, Uber is not legally responsible for any injuries they
suffered," Mr. Cohen and Ms. Maliekel wrote.

Uber's lawyers further pointed out that the South Carolina driver
was not logged into the Uber app when the alleged assault took
place.  "If Uber and companies like it could be held liable for
acts committed by every driver who has registered to drive on the
relevant platform, particularly without regard for whether the
driver was using the platform at the time of the act, there would
be virtually no limit on the companies' potential liability,"
Mr. Cohen and Ms. Maliekel wrote.  In a move that's bound to
bemuse the company's rivals in the taxi industry, the company
cited another California case that found "a taxicab operator
cannot be held liable for the bad acts of a driver who commits
such acts after his shift has ended, even though he continues to
drive the taxi."

Uber's motion is set to be argued in February.  Both drivers named
in the suit face criminal prosecutions in their home states.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: FL DEO Says Drivers Are Independent Contractors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that Uber
drivers in Florida will be considered independent contractors
rather than employees, the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity determined on Dec. 3 in a victory for the app-based
ridesharing company.

The order reverses an earlier state decision and marks Florida's
stance in a debate facing government agencies and courts across
the country as Uber becomes ubiquitous.

"Technology is allowing hundreds of thousands of people to go into
business for themselves," DEO Executive Director Jesse Panuccio
wrote in his decision.  "Those in business for themselves may not
have the same guarantees and benefits of those in the employ of
others, but there are many other benefits of being your own boss.
. . . Technological advances are opening up that dream to many
more people, and we should not malign (or perhaps misclassify)
that trend as worker misclassification."

An independent contractor designation means the San Francisco-
based company can avoid paying drivers' unemployment benefits,
workers' compensation and other employee-related costs such as
hourly wages.

The classification is also central to the company's business
model, allowing drivers to set their own hours and use other
ridesharing apps such as Lyft.

"This decision recognizes that Uber's partners are independent
contractors who use Uber on their own terms," Uber said in a
statement.  "They control their use of the app, deciding when and
for how long they drive, and whether they drive at all.  Nearly 90
percent of drivers say the main reason they use Uber is because
they love being their own boss."

Uber has persuaded 11 other states to classify the company's
drivers as independent contractors: Arizona, California, Colorado,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah
and Virginia.

Labor and employment attorney Brett Schneider said the decision is
a victory for Florida businesses in general -- although employers
should be cautious about assuming the department's order would
apply the same way to their own workers.

"I don't know how far-reaching the implications of that order are
going to be, because Uber is such a unique animal," said the Weiss
Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman partner in Fort Lauderdale.

He said businesses that don't carefully consider their decision to
treat workers as independent contractors could find themselves on
the losing side of a wage-and-hour claim because they haven't kept
track of hours worked, for example.

"I always advise my clients, when in doubt, to classify as
employees rather than independent contractors because there's a
lot of risk" if the workers are misclassified, he said.

The department's decision was refreshing for Miami labor attorney
Michael Landen, who represents a company similar to Uber in an
employment dispute.

That's because the order focused on how the parties related to
each other on a day-to-day basis, rather than the argument that
Uber could not exist as a business without drivers.

"Uber is no more an employer to drivers than is an art gallery to
artists," Mr. Panuccio said in the order.

Mr. Landen, a Miami partner at Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen &
Levine, said he hopes the state will continue to examine practical
relationships between companies and workers, particularly as
technology changes the way businesses operate.

"What will become interesting is where Florida decides to go from
here and whether it decides it's going to be more progressive in
how it approaches this issue given the changing landscape," he
said.

The Florida ruling followed Uber's appeal of a state Revenue
Department decision in May to classify former Uber drivers
Darrin McGillis and Melissa Ewers as company employees, entitling
them to unemployment benefits after Uber cut them from the
service.

Mr. McGillis said he plans to appeal the decision in Uber's favor
to the First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee.

State law classifies workers based on a 10-part test that weighs
most heavily how much control a company can exert over a worker.
Uber exercises plenty of control over its drivers, Mr. McGillis
said.
"If you get a rating below 4.7 or 4.6 [out of 5], they'll
deactivate your app," he said.  "That's control.  That's fired.
If you're an independent contractor, you don't get fired because
somebody didn't like your work."

Uber also sets the rates its drivers are paid for each ride,
another reason Mr. McGillis argues drivers are employees.

"An independent contractor makes his rates," Mr. McGillis said.
"He says, 'I'm going to fix your sink.  Four hundred dollars,
that's my rate. Take it or leave it.' With Uber, you don't get
that choice."

Mr. McGillis believes each state's stance on the contractor-or-
employee issue comes down to politics, citing opposing decisions
in left-leaning West Coast states.

"If we had a Democratic governor and an appointed [DEO] director,
I think we would have a different decision," he said.

Mr. McGillis said he has pursued the case this far because he
plans to file a claim against Uber for damages covering the SUV he
bought specifically to be an Uber driver.  He's been putting off
the claim until he knows for sure whether he will be treated as an
employee or not.

"If they settle with me, I'm done" pursuing the worker
classification case, he said.

Mr. McGillis is represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten &
Liss-Riordan in Boston, a high-profile attorney who is leading a
California class action suit against Uber claiming
misclassification of workers.

Ms. Liss-Riordan's co-counsel are Noah Warman and Michael Gillman
of Sugarman & Susskind in Coral Gables.

Ms. Ewers was not represented at the Aug. 17 hearing on Uber's
appeal.

Uber was represented by Courtney Wilson of Littler Mendelson in
Miami.


UNITED STATES: Settles Rail Easement Class Action for $3.6MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Macagnone, writing for Law360, reports that a Federal
Claims Court judge gave the green light to a $3.6 million
settlement with a group of Tennessee landowners to compensate them
for several miles of railroad easements on Dec. 16, ending part of
a three-year suit over the rails-to-trails deal.

In her opinion on Dec. 17, Federal Claims Judge Nancy B. Firestone
recognized the settlement for "subclass 1" of landowners in Shelby
County, representing more than four miles of railway that has been
converted into trails.  Judge Firestone also cut down the class
counsel's original request for a contingency fee from 35 percent
to 30 percent of the award, saying it brought the award closer to
other such class actions.

"Here, unlike in other recent rails-to-trails class actions,
several of the plaintiffs objected to the size of class counsel's
fee request," Judge Firestone wrote.  "The court finds that the
subclass 1 plaintiffs' objections require the court to examine the
requested fees and, together with a review of the fees approved in
other cases, warrant decreasing the percentage at issue."

Of the total $3.6 million, more than $1 million is interest,
according to Judge Firestone's order.  The government also agreed
to pay an additional $265,862 in attorney fees and more than
$20,000 in litigation costs, bringing the total price tag up to
more than $3.9 million, according to the order.

Class counsel argued for the 35 percent contingency fee on top of
the statutory fees guaranteed by the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, saying the
contingency was disclosed in the class notice and not barred by
the statute.

Conversely the government argued the individual determinations for
each landowner ran against using the award as a common fund for
contingency, and urged the court not to grant contingency at all,
according to court documents.

The litigation followed the conversion of CSX Transportation Inc.
rail lines to recreational trail, after landowners complained the
action went beyond the railroad easement for their property.  In
all, landowners along more than six miles of railway joined the
suit since 2012, according to court documents.

Earlier this year, the government and landowners agreed to create
two subclasses, and the one representing the majority of the
landowners entered into the settlement approved on Dec. 16.  The
case brought by landowners representing the remaining two miles of
trail is still outstanding, according to court records.

The landowners are represented by Steven Matthew Wald --
Wald@swm.legal -- of Stewart Wald & McCulley LLC.

The government is represented by Kristine Sears Tardiff of the
Justice Department.

The case is Lambert et al. v. USA, case number is 1:12-cv-00395,
in the United States Court of Federal Claims.


UPONOR CORP: Court Approves Class Action Settlements
----------------------------------------------------
On June 10, 2015, Uponor Corporation announced that its U.S.
operative subsidiary company, Uponor, Inc., together with its
insurers and some of its key trade partners was involved in
settlement negotiations in two U.S. class action suits.  They
involved alleged failure risks of Uponor yellow brass fittings
sold in the USA. Court approvals of the final settlement terms
have now been granted in the form of two separate Class Action
Settlements, one of which involves Clark County, Nevada and the
other the rest of the USA.  The settlements were essentially
approved by the court in the form that was originally proposed by
the parties, thus making them final and binding on all parties.

According to the terms of the settlements, Uponor, Inc. will
provide building owners with an enhanced warranty to cover
potential fitting failures.  Uponor continues to have a high level
of confidence in the long-term performance of these products,
since they have an excellent track record.

Uponor, Inc.'s obligations under the terms of the settlements will
have no material financial impact on the 2015 consolidated results
of Uponor Corporation.


VASCO DATA: Faces "Rossbach" Class Action in N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------
VASCO Data Security International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that a putative class action complaint was filed on July 28,
2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security
International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming
VASCO and certain of its current executive officers as defendants
and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased VASCO securities between February
18, 2014 and July 21, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly
caused by the defendants' alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a
class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest
and attorneys' fees.

Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the
court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to
file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead
plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. The defendants
will then have sixty days to answer or otherwise respond to the
operative complaint. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation
cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the action
vigorously.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Defendant in 3 Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2015, that since August
26, 2015, the Company has been named as a defendant in purported
antitrust class action complaints filed by

     1) Microsystems Development Technologies, Inc., Nebraska
        Dynamics, Inc., MakersLED LLC, Chip-Tech, LTD., Michael
        Brooks, Top Floor Home Improvements, and Schuster
        Electronics, Inc., each in the United States District
        Court for the Northern District of California;

     2) Sean Allott in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice; and

     3) Daniel Klein in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The complaints allege restraints of trade in resistors by the
Company and other manufacturers, and seek injunctive relief and
unspecified joint and several treble damages. The Company intends
to defend vigorously against the complaints.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Morris, Nicolas Heiss, and Alexis Weil, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-14122-GER-APP (E.D. Mich.,
November 23, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged
installation of approximately 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles manufactured and sold and leased in the United States
since 2009, to switch engines to a cleaner mode during official
emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
      Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
      Tana Lin, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel Mensher, Esq.
      Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
              awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
              tlin@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
              rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Matthew Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Burden" Suit Alleges Clean Air Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Burden, Patricio Burillo, John Chapman, Samuel Clark,
Jeremy Coder, Coby Cohen, Paul-Matthieu Coste, Russell Cronquist,
Cheryl DeWorken, Jaime Dreikosen, Tim Eldridge, Qiang Feng, Jerome
Fohet, Nathan Forbes, Josh Golden, Michael Guilbault, Chisepe
Gwarada, Yoon Kyo Han, Peter Harper, Jonathan Huggett, Ryan Hurst,
Susan Keohan, Erik Mikkelsen, Alexander Polillo, Richard
Remington, Robert Rifkin, Todd Schwarz, Matthew Snyder, Douglas
Stewart, Nathan Stricker, Morton Kent Taylor, Andrew Walker,
Constance Wolfson, Penghui Xue, Roman Zvyagelsky, and all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. and
Porsche AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-09125 (C.D. Calif., November 24,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for manufacturing and
selling cars with defeat devices that generate higher levels of
emissions than certified to the EPA, and higher levels than state
and federal regulations allow.

Volkswagen violated the Clean Air Act and a host of state
regulations, breached its express and implied warranties,
defrauded its customers, and engaged in unfair competition under
state and federal law.

The Defendants manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and
warranted the vehicles with defeat devices under the Volkswagen,
Audi and Porsche names throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-7292
      Fax: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

      John B. Quinn, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 443 3000
      Fax: (213) 443 3100
      E-mail: johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Tornambe" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Tornambe, Bruce Allen, Paul Beard, Kendall Berlin, Enver
Botic, William Botkin, Chad Burk, Robert Campbell, Vicki Carder,
Jeffrey Carothers, Jeremy Conary, Christopher Conover, Silverio
Cortese, Devin Dierenfield, Brody Eller, Justin Ewing, Vincent
Gambino, William Giordano, Andrew Girard, Justin Giffith, Kathleen
Henderson, Stephen Highfill, Bryan Hinschberger, Michael Honey,
Neil Hornish, Jack Jogensen, Kyle Lawrence, James Maple, Richard
Martinez, Sean McDonald, Balinda Means, Gene P. Moore, Alma
Mustedanagic, Chris Northrup, William O'Neill, Donna Olson, Lee
Olson, Kunal Pariani, Janet Payne, Rachel Roberts, Walter
Schroeder, Donald Seal, Lawrence Smith, Jamie Sorensen, Willem
Suckow, Richard Sudol, Petra Tkacikova, Nicholas Tracy, Kenric
Walker, Craig Weaver, James Welch, and all others similarly-
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
02637 (S.D. Calif., November 24, 2015), bring this action to
remedy violations of law in connection with Defendant's
intentional sale of vehicles with equipment and/or software
designed to circumvent emission standards in violation of state
and federal laws.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant purposefully and
intentionally installed so-called defeat devices on approximately
500,000 Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche diesel vehicles from at least
model years 2009 to 2015 to evade clean air standards.

The Defendants manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and
warranted the vehicles with defeat devices under the Volkswagen,
Audi and Porsche names throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
      16870 W. Bernardo Drive, #400
      San Diego, CA 92128
      Tel: (858) 485-6535
      Fax: (858) 485-0608
      E-mail: natashanaraghi@amslawoffice.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Compensation Fund for Diesel Car Owners
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Isidore, writing for WPTZ.com, reports that Volkswagen will
set up a fund to compensate owners of its diesel cars that cheat
on emission tests, and it tapped Kenneth Feinberg to decide how
much each should receive.

Mr. Feinberg told CNNMoney that he has been promised a free hand
by Volkswagen in deciding how much each owner should be paid.  But
he said it is premature to discuss how much money each might
receive.

"I think we can have a claims program designed relatively quickly.
The emphasis is on 'relatively,'" he said.

Mr. Feinberg is a Washington lawyer who has made a career out of
figuring out compensation by companies that have admitted to
wrongdoing.  Most recently he awarded nearly $600 million in
payments to victims of the General Motors faulty ignition switch,
including money to the families of 124 people killed because of
the flaw.  He also awarded damages caused by the BP oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico caused by the explosion on the Deepwater
Horizon oil rig.  And he decided on compensation for victims of
the 9/11 terrorist attack.

"His extensive experience in handling such complex matters will
help to guide us as we move forward to make things right with our
customers," said Michael Horn, head of VW's U.S. operations.

VW said it hasn't yet been decided whether the program will be
just for U.S. owners of the affected cars or if it will expand to
owners in other countries.  There are about 500,000 cars on U.S.
roads who have cars affected by the problem and about 11 million
cars worldwide.

Volkswagen has admitted that it illegally installed software on
its diesel cars that allowed them to pass U.S. emissions tests
even though the vehicles were dumping up to 40 times the allowed
level of some pollutants when driven.  The company is still
working to come up with a fix of the problem that is acceptable to
U.S. environmental regulators.

How that fix might affect the car's performance and mileage could
figure into Mr. Feinberg's compensation formula.

It offered $500 in cash and $500 in discounts to U.S. owners of
the cars as a first step to compensate them.  Some owners objected
to the offer and many have stated they want VW to repurchase their
cars, a suggestion that VW rejected.

VW also faces a federal class action lawsuit by owners of the cars
seeking compensation.  But Mr. Feinberg said as in the case of the
GM compensation fund, the VW fund he will administer will be
separate from any lawsuit or court proceeding.

Several of the plaintiffs' attorneys in the federal class action
had nominated Mr. Feinberg to handle settlement negotiations on
behalf of VW.  The judge in the case has yet to pick someone to
fill that role.  Mr. Feinberg said he does not know if he would
still be considered for that position by the judge.

"I'm honored by the fact that so many people asked me to serve,"
he said.


WRIGHT TECHNOLOGY: Jury Awards $11MM in Hip Implant Case
--------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that in the
first of a series of product liability trials centered on a hip
implant device's apparent defects, a federal jury in Atlanta has
awarded a former ski instructor $11 million -- including $10
million in punitive damages -- for the failure of her hip
replacement.

The case on behalf of former Salt Lake City ski instructor Robyn
Christiansen is one of 440 cases consolidated as multi-district
litigation in federal court in Atlanta against Tennessee company
Wright Technology Inc., which manufactured the Conserve hip
implant system at issue in the trial.

As many as 2,000 liability cases against Wright Technology over
failed hip implants are in the consolidated litigation in Georgia
and in a California state court in Los Angeles.  U.S. District
Judge William Duffey Jr. has presided over the consolidated
federal cases in Atlanta since the federal Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation assigned them to the Northern District
of Georgia.

The Christiansen case was a "bellwether trial" -- generally a case
selected, with the court's approval, by lawyers for the parties in
mass litigation as a way of testing the strength of each side's
arguments.  It can often be used to set the stage for an eventual
settlement.

Mike McGlamry -- mmcglamry@pmkm.com -- a partner at Pope McGlamry
Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood, whose firm is co-lead counsel in
the Georgia and California cases, said that Christiansen's case
went to trial after efforts to mediate a settlement broke off in
December 2014. The case is one of 10 selected as bellwether trials
in the multidistrict litigation.  Mr. McGlamry and partner Kirk
Pope -- kirkpope@pmkm.com -- worked with Ray Boucher and a team of
attorneys from the Beverly Hills firm Kiesel, Boucher & Larson.

A second bellwether trial, slated for Los Angeles Superior Court,
could begin as early as March, Mr. McGlamry said.  The impact of
the verdict on the other Georgia cases remains unclear, he said.
Meanwhile, since 2012, medical manufacturers -- and surgeons --
largely have abandoned hip implant systems similar to Wright's
that were designed without buffers between metal components,
Mr. McGlamry explained.

At the end of a three-week trial and four days of deliberation, a
seven-person jury of four men and three women determined Nov. 24
that Wright Medical's hip replacement implant device was
"defectively designed" and "unreasonably dangerous" and that the
company made "negligent misrepresentations" about the device,
according to Mr. McGlamry and the jury verdict form.

Wright Technology's lead counsel, Dana Ash at Duane Morris in
Philadelphia, did not respond to requests for comment on the case
or whether Wright Technology will appeal.  But in a filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in September, the firm
stated it believed it had data "that supports the efficacy and
safety" of its design. In that filing, the company also
acknowledged that it is currently in litigation with its insurers
over the Conserve claims in California and in Tennessee.

Wright Technology sold its division that manufactured hip and knee
replacement devices in 2014 to a Chinese firm, Mr. McGlamry said.
This fall, Wright's remaining operations merged with a Belgian
company that also manufactures implant devices, according to the
SEC filing.

The flaw that led to the failure of Christensen's hip implant was
a metal-on-metal design that led to metal wear, according to
Mr. McGlamry and court records in the case.  As a result, the
implant shed metallic debris into the surrounding tissues, leading
to a condition known as metallosis, which began inflaming and
eventually poisoning the surrounding tissues, dissolving the bone
that anchored the implant, and ultimately causing the implant to
fail, according to the plaintiffs' pleadings and expert witnesses.

Mr. Christiansen, now 73, was a longtime ski instructor at Utah's
Alta ski resort, an avid hiker and physically active, McGlamry
said.  Wright Technology had marketed the device to orthopedic
surgeons, including Christiansen's, as especially designed for
physically active individuals.  Wright claimed its device would
give patients a greater range of mobility than other devices then
on the market and would last 20 to 30 years, the lawyer said.
Mr. Christiansen, he added, was "the perfect target" for Wright
Technology's marketing strategy.

In marketing the implant, Mr. Wright also sought to assuage
concerns about earlier unsuccessful hip implant devices that had
included a metal-on-metal design without a polyethelene liner to
prevent metal abrasion.  Mr. Christiansen's surgeon became the
first witness for his former patient, Mr. McGlamry said.

Mr. Christiansen's hip was replaced with the Conserve device in
2006.  In 2012, it failed, leading to additional surgery to remove
and then replace it, Mr. McGlamry said.

Mr. McGlamry said that Wright Technology's lawyers unsuccessfully
attempted to persuade the jury that the hip replacement implanted
in Mr. Christiansen was not defective but that "It was really the
doctor's fault, and the patient's fault."

Wright lawyers, he said, argued that Mr. Christiansen's surgeon
had not installed it properly, even though he had been a Wright
Technology consultant and, on the company's behalf, had trained
other surgeons as to how to implant the devices.  Mr. McGlamry
also said that Wright's lawyers argued that Mr. Christiansen's hip
replacement had failed because she was "too active" despite its
marketing to active people.

In August, Judge Duffey held that Christiansen's lawyers had shown
that Wright's representatives told her orthopedic surgeon that the
Conserve implant would "increase the range of motion, decrease
dislocation issues, result in lower wear, and be biocompatible,
all of which were presented as significant benefits for young and
active recipients as well as anyone possessing a 'high-demand
hip.'"  Wright representatives also assured Mr. Christiansen's
surgeon that the metals used in the Conserve device "would result
in less metal wear . . . and thus a lower risk of any metallosis
problem."

The surgeon's subsequent reliance on those representations, along
with allegations by Mr. Christiansen's lawyers that Wright
Technology representatives knew of the risks associated with
metallosis and allegedly failed to conduct tests on them and track
other information "supports that there is a genuine issue of
material fact regarding whether these representations were
misrepresentations, and whether they were made intentionally,
recklessly, or negligently," Judge Duffey held, and "must be
decided by a jury."

In that order, Judge Duffey also gave Christiansen's lawyers
permission to seek punitive damages.  Wright lawyers had argued
that the company included standard warnings with the Conserve
implant that provided sufficient information about potential risks
and that, as a result, punitive damages were not warranted.  But
Judge Duffey held that Christiansen "presented enough evidence to
establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether
[Wright Medical Technology] misrepresented or concealed material
information" from Christiansen's surgeon, thus leading to
Christiansen's injuries from the failed implant.

Wright's conduct, Judge Duffey continued in his order, "if proven
at trial, could lead a jury to conclude that they acted willfully
or recklessly in misrepresenting or concealing material
information regarding the risks of prescribing the Conserve Hip
Implant System in patients" such as Mr. Christiansen.

Wright's arguments "that the warning it provided with the product
was adequate, even if true, does not bar [Christianson] from
seeking punitive damages for her misrepresentation or concealment
claims," he concluded.


WYNDHAM HOTELS: Enters Into Hacking Case Settlement Deal with FTC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Fontana, writing for, ZDNet, reports that the Federal Trade
Commission and Wyndham Hotels and Resorts have agreed to settle a
case involving the company's security practices that led to the
exposure of credit card information for more than 600,000
consumers.

Wyndham will not face a fine and will not have to admit
wrongdoing, but the injunction requires Wyndham to submit to
oversight for the next 20 years.  Wyndham and the FTC both waived
their rights to an appeal.

The settlement comes three months after a U.S. appellate court
ruled the FTC can sue Wyndham over computer system hacks in 2008
and 2009.  The ruling validated the FTC's power to pursue legal
remedies from companies it deems to have inadequately invested in
computer security as judged by claims made via their privacy
policies.

At the time of the appellate court ruling, Electronic Privacy
Information Center attorney Alan Butler told Wired magazine, "This
is a huge victory for the FTC, but also for American consumers."

The court injunction was filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As part of the agreement, Wyndham must develop "a comprehensive
information security program that is reasonably designed to
protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of Cardholder
Data that it collects."  The company must also provide an annual
written assessments as to compliance with the Payment Card
Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS).

"This settlement marks the end of a significant case in the FTC's
efforts to protect consumers from the harm caused by unreasonable
data security," FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a statement.
"Not only will it provide important protection to consumers, but
the court rulings in the case have affirmed the vital role the FTC
plays in this important area."


* New Zealand Sees Spike in Class Actions Over Past Year
--------------------------------------------------------
Sophie East, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that business
leaders witness a rise in the number of class actions in
New Zealand over the past year, covering a range of industries
from kiwifruit to cladding.

It is a fair question.  With at least 10 class actions filed in
court, (and more being organized) New Zealand has already taken a
step in the direction of Australia.  There, data released by
international law firm King & Wood Mallesons earlier this year
shows more than A$950 million (NZ$1 billion) in total class action
settlement payments were made in the year to June 30 2015, and at
least 33 new class actions filed over that period.

Cases involve household names such as Billabong and Pizza Hut.

The report's authors describe the environment there as a 'perfect
storm' where considering a class action has become one of the
first responses to unexpected events, and an increasing number of
cases are combining with increasingly large settlements.

New Zealand may have been slow to develop class actions because of
the absence of personal injury cases.  Personal injury cases were
a feature in the early development of class action 'markets'
overseas, but our Accident Compensation Corporation removes the
right to sue in such cases.

However, with strong growth in other types of class actions
overseas, that won't remain the hurdle it once was.  In Australia,
the first securities class action (brought by investors), was
filed in 1999.

By 2009, shareholder class actions were the most common type of
class action.

If class actions continue to gain momentum in New Zealand then
those are the types of class actions we are likely to see, in
addition to class actions in areas such as insurance, the actions
of government agencies, and claims by consumers.

One of the key reasons for the recent rise of class actions
locally has been the entry of overseas-based litigation funders to
this market.  These funders are experienced at running class
actions: they have built their businesses around them.  They take
on the financial risk of funding a class action for a share in any
resulting damages award or settlement, and make a loss if they
don't achieve this.

Of the class actions currently before the courts, the majority are
funded by offshore litigation funders (either directly or through
New Zealand incorporated subsidiaries).  These funders' ongoing
interest in the New Zealand market will be determined by how much
they can make from the cases they fund here.  As there has not yet
been a successful recovery for a class action funder in New
Zealand, that remains a guessing game.

The smaller scale of engagement may prove a hurdle.  New Zealand
simply doesn't have as many people as the US or Australia.

The biggest securities class action in the US related to the
collapse of the energy and commodities company Enron and involved
some 1.5 million individuals and entities.  It resulted in a
US$7.2b settlement.

For overseas litigation funders to make sufficient profits in
New Zealand, they are likely to want either large numbers of
claimants or, if the group is not large in numbers, then the
individual claims should still add up to an amount which makes it
worth the funder's while.

Local litigation funders have also begun to emerge, such as the
announcement in October of a Chow brothers-backed start-up,
Tempest Litigation Funders.

Any continued increase in the supply of funding, through more
funders, may see more class action cases emerge.  Another relevant
factor is how class actions are handled by our courts.  Some argue
that class actions have been slow to emerge because we lack a set
of specific procedural rules to deal with them (unlike Australia
and the United States).

Our courts have to deal with class actions under the existing High
Court rules and this has resulted in a number of procedural
disputes on everything from how people become part of the class,
to cut-off periods for claims.

Much of this has been addressed in the ongoing class action
relating to the float of Feltex Carpets, and principles have been
developed that may assist parties to future class actions, even in
the absence of specific rules.  The approach of defendants is also
likely to have a significant impact.

There has been a trend towards settlement by corporate class
action defendants in Australia.  However, recent media reports in
Australia have highlighted that corporates are now much more
prepared to fight their corner where they believe claims have
little merit, rather than fuel the risk of future class actions.
The approach taken by New Zealand defendants in these early days
may well determine the path ahead.

So where does that leave us? With no guarantees either way.

Much will depend on the outcomes of the current cases, the supply
of funding and the appetite of New Zealanders for involvement.
Businesses and funders alike will be watching closely.


* Older Job Applicants Can sue Over Indirect Job Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reports that older job
applicants can sue over hiring practices that indirectly hurt them
instead of having to claim they were subject to intentional
discrimination, a divided federal appeals court panel has ruled in
a landmark decision.

At issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
was whether the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA) permitted job applicants to bring so-called disparate
impact claims.  A disparate impact claim is based on a facially
neutral practice that disproportionately hurts a protected group.
By contrast, a disparate treatment claim must be backed with proof
of intentional discrimination against a protected class.

In this case, the Eleventh Circuit panel focused on R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. employment guidelines that allegedly directed
recruiters to seek sales job applicants who were less than a few
years out of college -- and to avoid applicants with eight to 10
years of experience.

Job applicants for years have been allowed to use disparate impact
theories to make race and sex discrimination claims.  And in the
2005 case Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that current employees may bring a disparate impact
claim under the ADEA.  But it has not been clear whether job
applicants could bring such age discrimination claims under a
disparate impact theory.

Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Smith, a few circuits
had suggested the ADEA doesn't allow a disparate impact age
discrimination claim by a job applicant.  But writing for the
Eleventh Circuit majority, Judge Beverly Martin debated with
dissenting Senior U.S. District Judge C. Roger Vinson, visiting
from Florida, the importance of those opinions.  The judges also
clashed over whether language from the various opinions that
accompanied high court's 2005 plurality ruling supported or
undermined the plaintiff's position.

The winning appellate argument was made by P. Casey Pitts of
Altshuler Berzon in San Francisco, who called the Eleventh Circuit
ruling an important civil rights decision.  "Disparate impact
causes of action are fundamental to achieving the purposes of the
nation's anti-discrimination laws," he said.

Mr. Pitts said job applicant cases are rarer than other employment
discrimination cases, because job applicants find it more
difficult to know whether they've been a victim of discrimination
than an employee who is let go or is still on the job.  The
Eleventh Circuit ruling paves the way for the plaintiff to test
his theory that hiring guidelines used by R.J. Reynolds amounted
to age discrimination.

The plaintiff, Richard Villarreal, applied for a sales job with
R.J. Reynolds in 2007, when he was 49.  The company never
responded to his application.  According to the Villarreal's suit,
R.J. Reynolds uses recruiting services, who employ a set of
"resume review guidelines" for the company's regional sales
representative jobs.  The guidelines tell hiring managers to
target candidates who are "2-3 years out of college" but to "stay
away from" candidates with "8-10 years" of prior sales experience.
The age discrimination statute requires a person to file a charge
of discrimination within 180 days of the discriminatory act that
is the basis for the claim.  But Mr. Villarreal didn't submit his
claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission until about
two-and-a-half years after submitting his application with R.J.
Reynolds. (While the EEOC charge was pending, Villarreal applied
for sales positions with R.J. Reynolds five more times, and was
rejected each time.)

The EEOC eventually declined to take action, merely issuing
Villarreal a notice that he had a right to sue R.J. Reynolds.
Villarreal, who lives in Georgia, filed a collective action
lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds in the Northern District of Georgia
on behalf of a national group of applicants.

U.S. District Judge Richard Story dismissed Mr. Villarreal's
disparate impact claim, saying the ADEA didn't permit such a claim
by a job applicant.  The judge also dismissed as untimely all
claims related to hiring decisions made prior to Nov. 19, 2009 --
180 days before Villarreal filed his EEOC charge.  Mr. Villarreal
tried to amend his complaint to include allegations justifying his
late filing -- specifically, that he didn't know about R.J.
Reynolds' resume review guidelines until he spoke with lawyers at
Altshuler Berzon in April 2010 -- but Judge Story would not allow
it.

On Mr. Villarreal's appeal, Judge Martin formed a majority with
Judge Charles Wilson to reverse Story's ruling and reinstate the
lawsuit.  They ruled as a matter of first impression for the
Eleventh Circuit that the ADEA supports disparate impact claims
for job applicants.

Judge Martin wrote that the statute was unclear as to disparate
impact claims for job applicants.  The ADEA makes it unlawful for
an employer to "limit, segregate or classify his employees in any
way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status
as an employee because of such individual's age."

Because the law was unclear, she said, the court should defer to
the EEOC's reasonable, long-standing position that the ADEA allows
disparate impact claims for job applicants.


                            *********

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  * * *