CAR_Public/160104.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 4, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 1


                            Headlines


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
AMERICAN CORADIUS: "Davis" Suit Removed to Nebraska Dist. Ct.
AMERICAN NETWORK: Faces "Dix" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AOL INC: "Alston" Class Suit Removed to Maryland District Court
APPLE INC: Wins Android iMessage Class Action

ARAMARK SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Timely Pay Employees
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces Firemen's Suit Over Proposed NYCB Merger
AUSTRALIA: Live Cattle Export Ban Class Action Gains Momentum
BAKER HUGHES: "Gilbert" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Sherman Act Violation

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Gold Price Manipulation Class Action
BIMBO BAKERIES: Loses Bid to Enforce 2014 Settlement Agreement
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over Sales Tax Charge
BREEZE-EASTERN CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
BREWER CONTRACTING: "Babcock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

CANADA: Chinese-Only Strata Council Sued for Discrimination
CAPSTONE TURBINE: "Grooms" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
CHEVRON USA: "Thames" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
CITIBANK NA: Faces Fixed Income Suit in N.Y. Over Loan Policies
DIRECTV: Supreme Court Upholds Class Arbitration Waiver

DRAFTKINGS INC: "Stoddart" Suit Alleges Illinois Law Violation
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over "Tag Suggestions" Feature
FANDUEL INC: "Carbone" Suit Alleges Negligence and Fraud
FERGUSON, MO: Plaintiffs' Request for Injunctive Relief Tossed
FERRARA CANDY: Settles Racial Discrimination Class Action

GAHANNA: Income-Tax Refund Case to Proceed to Damages Hearing
GARAMIZ CORP: "Larios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GENERAL CHEMICAL: City of Duluth Joins Bid-Rigging Class Action
GENUINE TITLE: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Amended Complaint
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Motion to Compel Discovery Granted in Part

JAMES HARDIE: Commercial Unit Owners Join Cladding Class Action
JOE FRESH: Murder Charges Filed Against 41 Rana Plaza Defendants
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles "London Whale" Class Action for $150MM
JPMORGAN CHASE: Oregon to Get Share in $150MM Settlement
KALOBIOS PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in California

KALOBIOS PHARMA: Fires CEO Following Securities Class Action
LA COYA: "Ferreira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LAKE COMMUNITY PROPERTY: NJ Court Rules in Annual Dues Dispute
LAKES REGION: Reaches Out-of-Court Class Action Settlement
LEXISNEXIS: CCAF Seeks Rehearing of Settlement Case

LIFELOCK INC: Settles FTC Charges for $113 Million
LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Settlement Obtains Conditional Court Approval
LOUISIANA: Sued Over New Food Stamp Eligibility Requirements
MAC'S CONVENIENCE: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action
MONTEREY, CA: Female Inmate's Death in County Jail Raises Concerns

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Won't Fund $16 Million NIH CTE Study
NEUSTAR INC: $2.6MM Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
NEW YORK: Captain Promoted Despite Rikers Island Class Action
ORACLE INC: Settles FTC Deceptive Advertising Charges
PAGEDALE, MO: Faces Class Action Over Unreasonable Fines

PITTSBURGH, PA: Says Police Hiring Discrimination Claims Weak
POP WARNER: Injured Player's Claim Can Proceed, Faces Class Action
RITE AID: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
SAMSUNG CORP: April 14 Fairness Hearing in ODD Antitrust Case
SLATER & GORDON: Maurice Blackburn Files Shareholder Class Action

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Suits Over Leaking Well Site
SUPERCOM LTD: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
TEXAS: Foster Care System Unconstitutional, Judge Rules
THAI UNION: Price-Fixing Class Actions Consolidated in California
TRADER JOE'S: Judge Tosses Class Action Over "Soymilk" Label

TRADER JOE'S: Milk Producers Group Balks at Class Action Dismissal
TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Peremptory Writ Issued
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Supplemental Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: District Court Expands Class of Drivers
UNITED DEVELOPMENT: Faces Shareholder Class Action

USAA: John Goodson Faces Sanction Threat Over Class Action Abuse
VIRGIN AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Ticket "Drip Pricing"
VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Wolfenbarger" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation

* Debt Collectors Attempt to Exploit Legal Loophole, Report Says
* Supreme Court Delays Decision on Wisconsin DPPA Issue





                            *********


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Frankel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06730-ARR-VMS (E.D.N.Y., November 23, 2015) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. provides debt collection
services and contact center solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


AMERICAN CORADIUS: "Davis" Suit Removed to Nebraska Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Krystal Davis, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. American Coradius
International, LLC, et al., Case No. CI 15-01631, was removed from
the Sarpy County District Court to the U.S. District Court
District of Nebraska. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:15-cv-03143-JMG-CRZ to the proceeding.

The case asserts claims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

American Coradius International, LLC operates a financial services
company in Nebraska.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICES
      155 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 729-5288
      Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
      E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Michael D. Slodov, Esq.
      SESSIONS, FISHMAN LAW FIRM
      15 East Summit Street
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
      Telephone: (440) 318-1073
      Facsimile: (216) 259-0049
      E-mail: mslodov@sessions.legal

         - and -

      Robert L. Bals, Esq.
      SHIVELY, LANNIN LAW FIRM
      4400 South 86th Street, Suite 100
      Lincoln, NE 68526
      Telephone: (402) 488-5044
      E-mail: rbals@shivelylaw.com


AMERICAN NETWORK: Faces "Dix" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joey Dix, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
American Network Construction, LLC, and Edward Renzulli, Case No.
0:15-cv-62484-WJZ (S.D. Fla., November 24, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Fort
Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar R. Jones, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Hwy, Suite 404
      Boca Raton. Florida 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


AOL INC: "Alston" Class Suit Removed to Maryland District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Thomas Alston, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. AOL Inc., Case No.
CAL 15-25802, was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County Maryland to the U.S. District Court District of
Maryland (Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:15-cv-03592-RWT to the proceeding.

AOL Inc. operates a mass media corporation based in New York City
that develops, grows, and invests in brands and web sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Alston
      PRO SE
      10012 Cedarhollow Ln
      Largo, MD 20774

The Defendant is represented by:

      Thomas John McKee Jr., Esq.
      GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
      1750 Tysons Blvd Ste 1000
      McLean, VA 22102
      Telephone: (703) 749-1348
      Facsimile: (703) 749-1301
      E-mail: mckeet@gtlaw.com


APPLE INC: Wins Android iMessage Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Jim Edwards, writing for Business Insider Australia, reports that
Apple has won a complete victory in a lawsuit that claimed the
company wiretaps Android users by intercepting, and then failing
to deliver, texts sent from iPhones to Android phones.

A federal judge ruled to dismiss the case with a single-sentence
order.

Apple previously asked the judge to dismiss the suit after Apple
discovered that two of the three plaintiffs in the case had gotten
rid of their old iPhones after they filed the suit against Apple.
They are thus unable to demonstrate whether texts sent to their
phone numbers went to their Apple or Android devices, Apple
claimed.

One of the plaintiffs also previously asked that she be dismissed
as a "named plaintiff" in the case.  The judge also declined to
grant the case class-action status.

Originally, Bouakhay Joy Backhaut claimed her husband traded in
her old iPhone when buying her a new Android.  Her husband, Adam
Backhaut, and a friend, Kenneth Morris, were plaintiffs in the
case.

The three alleged that they switched from iPhones to Android
phones in 2012.  After that, texts sent to them from other iPhone
users were not delivered.  They were probably stuck in Apple's
iMessage system, which was notoriously unreliable at delivering
texts to Android phones until late 2014, when Apple introduced a
fix for the bug.  That constitutes a violation of the Federal Wire
Tap Act, the three claim.  Apple denied the allegations.

While the legal case came to nothing, between late 2012 and 2014
it was a huge technical issue for anyone who chose to switch from
iPhone to Android.  After publishing a series of stories about
glitches in iMessage, Business Insider received more than 600
emails from consumers complaining that Apple's iCloud system
refused to deliver texts if they moved their phone numbers to an
Android device.  Employees of Apple and various phone retailers
told Business Insider they believed that fixing the glitch had
been a low priority for Apple because customers who switched to
Android became so unhappy at not getting their messages that many
were forced to switch back.

Legally, however, all those allegations have now come to nothing.


ARAMARK SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Timely Pay Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria C. Plascencia, individually and on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Aramark Services, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 115-CV-288310 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 20, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay all wages due to terminated or separated employees in a
timely manner as required by California Labor Code.

Aramark Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is a
foodservice provider for businesses, educational institutions,
sports facilities, federal and state prisons, and health care
institutions within California and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
      Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      Kimberly D. Neilson, Esq.
      COUELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
              ikhoury@ckslaw.com
              msmger@ckslaw.com
              kneilson@ckslaw.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN
      18250 Ventura Blvd. David H. Yamasaki
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces Firemen's Suit Over Proposed NYCB Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Astoria Financial
Corporation, et al., Case No. 607612/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct.,
November 23, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public holders
of common stock of Astoria Financial Corporation, to enjoin the
sale of the Company to New York Community Bancorp, Inc. at a
grossly unfair price as a result of a materially unfair and
conflict-ridden process.

Astoria Financial Corporation operates as the holding company for
Astoria Bank that provides various financial products and services
to individuals and businesses in the United States.

New York Community Bancorp, Inc. operates as a holding company for
New York Community Bank and New York Commercial Bank and offers
banking products and financial services in New York, New Jersey,
Florida, Ohio, and Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      Michael G. Capeci, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
              mreich@rgrdlaw.com
              mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Gregory E. Del Gazio, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
      WESTERMAN BALL EDERER MILLER ZUCKER & SHARFSTEIN, LLP
      1201 RXR Plaza
      Uniondale, NY 11556
      Telephone: (516) 622-9200
      Facsimile: (516) 622-9212
      E-mail: jmiller@westermanllp.com


AUSTRALIA: Live Cattle Export Ban Class Action Gains Momentum
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Neales, writing for The Australian, reports that the case
against the Australian government over its much-criticized ban on
live cattle exports to Indonesia in 2011 is gathering strength, as
farmers and cattle companies prepare a huge damages claim against
the commonwealth.

Letters were sent by class-action lawyers Minter Ellison to rural
businesses, cattlemen or shippers adversely affected by the five-
week government export veto asking if they wished to sue the
federal government for compensation, or opt out of the joint claim
before the Federal Court.

Hundreds of businesses that relied on the live export trade from
northern Australia for their living, and whose incomes remained
depressed for up to three years after the government ban, could
automatically be party to the class action.

Minter Ellison lead lawyer Andrew Gill said the scale and breadth
of the class action and the potential magnitude of the damages
claim against the commonwealth was becoming clearer.

He expected as many as 400 cattle farming families to be part of
the damages suit, led by the Brett family, who raise cattle
specifically for the live export trade on their property near
Katherine.

"Everyone who was detrimentally affected (by the ban) is
automatically included, unless they wish to opt out," Mr. Gill
said.

"It's obviously your cattle producers and exporters but it could
also be the stock agent, or the Toyota dealer in town, if he can
show adverse impact."


BAKER HUGHES: "Gilbert" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Andre Gilbert, Chad Thomas, and all others similarly situated v.
Baker Hughes, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00334 (S.D. Tex., November
25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Baker Hughes is a large oilfield services company. It operates
globally.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Sherman Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago,
and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation;
Bank of America, N.A.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated; Barclays PLC; Barclays Bank PLC; Barclays Capital
Inc.; BNP Paribas, S.A.; BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; Citigroup,
Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Citigroup
Global Markets Limited; Credit Suisse AG; Credit Suisse Group AG;
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Credit Suisse International;
Deutsche Bank AG; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Goldman Sachs Bank USA; Goldman
Sachs Financial Markets, LP; Goldman Sachs International; ICAP
Capital Markets LLC; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities
PLC; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC; Royal Bank of Scotland
PLC; RBS Securities Inc.; Tradeweb Markets LLC; UBS AG; and UBS
Securities LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-09319 (S.D.N.Y., November 25,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for conspiracy to
restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons and
entities who, during the period of January 1, 2008, through the
present, entered into interest rate swaps transactions with
Defendants in the United States, brings this antitrust class
action for treble damages and injunctive relief.

The Defendants are major banks who act as "dealers" or "market
makers" in the IRS market (the "Dealer Defendants").

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010-1601
      Tel: (212) 849-7000
      Fax: (212) 849-7100
      E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com

          - and -

      J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 838-7797
      Fax: (212) 838-7745
      E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

      Joseph M. Burns, Esq.
      JACOBS BURNS ORLOVE & HERNANDEZ
      150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 327-3446
      Fax: (312) 580-7175
      E-mail: jburns@jbosh.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Gold Price Manipulation Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sotos LLP on Dec. 21 disclosed that a class action lawsuit seeking
$1 billion in damages on behalf of Canadian investors was launched
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The class action alleges that the defendants, including The Bank
of Nova Scotia, conspired to manipulate prices in the gold market
under the guise of the benchmark fixing process, known as the
London PM Fixing, for a ten-year period.

It is further alleged that the defendants manipulated the bid-ask
spreads of gold market instruments throughout the trading day in
order to enhance their profits at the expense of the class.  This
alleged conduct affected not only those investors who bought and
sold physical gold, but those who bought and sold gold-related
financial instruments.

The United States Department of Justice has an active and ongoing
investigation into the defendants' conduct.  The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission is also investigating the defendants' conduct.
Other law enforcement and regulatory authorities in the United
States, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom have active
investigations into the defendants' conduct in the gold market.

The case is on behalf of all persons in Canada who, between
January 1, 2004 and March 19, 2014, transacted in a gold market
instrument either directly or indirectly, including investors who
participated in an investment or equity fund, mutual fund, hedge
fund, pension fund or any other investment vehicle that transacted
in a gold market instrument.

A copy of the Notice of Action can be found at http://is.gd/tTzCEi

Potential class members can register at the website to obtain more
information as the case progresses.

The plaintiffs and the proposed class are being represented by
Sotos LLP, Koskie Minsky LLP and Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman.


BIMBO BAKERIES: Loses Bid to Enforce 2014 Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports
that a bakery company's motion to enforce a March 2014 settlement
regarding wage and overtime costs has been denied, and a related
breach of contract matter being heard in federal court in New
Jersey does not violate the terms of that same settlement.

In a Dec. 15 decision, Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said the
separate, individual claims brought by plaintiff Robert K. Dando
Jr. against Bimbo Bakeries USA in the District Court of New Jersey
do not conflict with the "Released Claims" provision of the 2014
settlement agreement.

In that prior case, a class action suit, Mr. Dando and several
other independent truck drivers sued Bimbo Bakeries, seeking
proper wage and overtime compensation as employees and not
independent contractors, and for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

"In short, the plaintiffs essentially argued that Bimbo Bakeries
exerted the type of control typically found in an employer-
employee relationship, while neglecting to compensate class
plaintiffs accordingly under the FLSA," Judge Goldberg said.

After that case was settled with the defendants, they executed
their right of first refusal on the settlement's distribution
agreement -- which Mr. Dando said was tantamount to "swindling"
him out of about $79,900.

Mr. Dando subsequently filed suit against the company, and the
litigation was removed to the District Court of New Jersey.  Bimbo
Bakeries countered with its belief this separate suit violated the
"Released Claims" stipulation in the prior case's settlement, and
filed a motion for summary judgment to that effect.

Judge Noel L. Hillman of the District Court of the New Jersey
denied that motion, finding Mr. Dando's separate suit did not have
an "identical factual predicate."

Judge Goldberg explained Mr. Dando did not sign the release form
in the March 2014 settlement agreement, nor did he collect the
$900 available to each claimant.

Three days before the settlement was approved, on March 2, 2014,
Mr. Dando said he was approached with an offer to purchase his
distribution rights to sell the defendant's products in a certain
geographic area, for the price of $289,900.

After Mr. Dando lowered the price down to $210,000, the defendant
utilized its right of first refusal to purchase the distribution
rights.  Mr. Dando said this action constituted breach of
contract, while at the same time stating this separate litigation
had no real connection or relational basis to the earlier class
action suit. Goldberg agreed.

"None of Dando's factual allegations have anything to do with his
status as an employee, the number of hours he worked for Bimbo
Bakeries, his rate of pay, his ability to sell competing products,
or his adherence to certain unwritten policies imposed by Bimbo
Bakeries' management," Judge Goldberg said.

In the end, Judge Goldberg concurred with Judge Hillman that the
cases do not share an "identical factual predicate" and denied the
defendants' motion for summary judgment, as well as their motion
to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement to bar the case
currently being heard in the District Court of New Jersey.

The plaintiff is represented by J. Edward McCain III and Zakia E.
Moore of the Law Office of J. Edward McCain III, in Philadelphia.

The defendant is represented by Steven R. Wall --
swall@morganlewis.com -- and Michael L. Banks --
mbanks@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis Bockius, also in
Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case
2:10-cv-03154


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over Sales Tax Charge
--------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that if
you like to hunt for sales at BJ's Wholesale Club Inc., a Miami
attorney is trying to put more change back in your pocket.

Steve Silverman of Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine
filed a class action complaint alleging the Westborough,
Massachusetts-based warehouse club overcharged Florida customers
on sales tax when they shopped in stores.

His client, Laura Bugliaro, bought a 55-inch Samsung TV last year
at a BJ's store in Cutler Bay.  The TV was discounted to $770 from
$1,400, but she was charged sales tax based on the full price,
according to her complaint.

"We think that that's clearly wrong," Mr. Silverman said of the
$98 sales tax charge.

The Florida Administrative Code states a retailer offering a
discount may tax only the discounted price, according to the
complaint.

The plaintiff alleges it's a "regular practice" for BJ's to
improperly collect sales tax on discounted items at its 31 stores
in Florida, and Silverman believes there could be tens of
thousands of affected BJ's club members.

The case filed in March and amended in July is proceeding to
discovery in the complex business litigation division before
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge John Thornton Jr.

Mr. Silverman said similar problems with BJ's have been reported
in other states, and the most manageable course was to file the
lawsuit as a state class action.

"We can always broaden it and seek more plaintiffs," he said.
In 2013, two Pennsylvania shoppers sued BJ's in Philadelphia
County Court after allegedly overpaying sales tax on items they
bought with coupons. That case is on hold while the customers
petition the state Department of Revenue.

BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. is represented by Craig Kalil --
ckalil@aballi.com -- of Aballi Milne Kalil in Miami and Jeffery
Dailey -- jdailey@akingump.com -- and Caroline Gardner of Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Philadelphia.  Mr. Kalil did not
respond to a request for comment by deadline.


BREEZE-EASTERN CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that Breeze-Eastern
Corp. and TransDigm Group Inc. were hit with a proposed
shareholder class action in Delaware Chancery Court on Dec. 22,
accusing TransDigm of severely undervaluing its rival aircraft
component maker in a pending $206 million acquisition offer.

With B-E's stock price having risen by 73 percent in the past 12
months on the back of strong financial results, the proposed
purchase price appears on its face to be "woefully inadequate,"
B-E shareholder Majed Souiedan claimed in his complaint.

Instead of using the company's published financial results to
determine an appropriate sale price and then offering the price
premium that traditionally comes along with such transactions, the
companies have instead used "invented" metrics intended to justify
the offer price that would wrongly force shareholders to sell at a
discount, he argued.

"The initial problem with the determination of the offer price is
that defendants used an idiosyncratic valuation scheme, and their
stated reasons for departing from the norm are both contradictory
and incomprehensible," Mr. Souiedan said.

B-E manufactures hoists and winches for helicopters, many of which
are based on proprietary designs.  They are used by major aircraft
manufacturers, as well as military buyers, who account for the
majority of its revenue.

In the disputed deal, proposed in November, TransDigm -- a holding
company for a range of aircraft parts makers -- would pay $19.61
per share for B-E through its subsidiary Hook Acquisition Sub
Inc., or about $206 million in total.

According to Mr. Souiedan, this price was already 6.6 percent
below the $21 per share B-E had traded at the day before the
offer, despite recent financial reports indicating that B-E has
"outstanding" future prospects.  The company's stock has continued
to trade above the offer price since, he noted.

The explanation for the lowball offer uses subjective and less
favorable projections that contradict those recent financial
reports, with the exception of one "garbled and incomprehensible"
section in one financial report that simultaneously indicates that
the company is expected to both follow and not follow its
historical revenue trends, Mr. Souiedan said.

These claimed justifications do not provide enough information for
stockholders to judge the appropriateness of the proposed offer
price, and the court should block the deal, at least until the
rationale behind the price can be adequately explained, said
Mr. Souiedan, seeking to represent a class of all shareholders.

Mr. Souiedan also names B-E CEO Brad Pedersen, Chairman Robert J.
Kelly and the rest of the company's board in the suit, accusing
them of breaching their fiduciary duty to shareholders.

Three of B-E's eight directors, including Kelly, have ties to one
of B-E's two major shareholders -- Tinicum Inc. and Wynnefield
Capital Inc. -- and Pedersen stands to reap more than $6 million
both from his stock in the company and a related "golden
parachute" if the deal goes through, Mr. Souiedan said, arguing
the directors were acting on behalf of themselves or their
employers, leaving minority shareholders to "fend for themselves."

While Tinicum and Wynnefeld have backed the deal, this is because
it allows them to liquidate their position quickly without heavily
reducing B-E's stock price, not because it is a fair deal,
according to Mr. Souiedan.  He noted that the company's third-
largest shareholder, VN Capital, has pushed back against the deal,
saying it undervalues the company, as have several market
analysts.

Mr. Soueidan is represented by Carmela P. Keener of Rosenthal
Monhait & Goddess PA and Harwood Feffer LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants for the suit wasn't
immediately available.   TransDigm is represented in the
underlying deal by Baker & Hostetler LLP and Breeze-Eastern by
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

The case is Soueidan et al. v. Breeze-Eastern Co. et al., case
number 11834, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.


BREWER CONTRACTING: "Babcock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Babcock, and all others similarly situated v. Brewer
Contracting, Inc. and Kenneth J. Brewer, Case No. 2:15-cv-01408
(E.D. Wis., November 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and/or
any such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin wage laws.

The Defendants perform residential and commercial remodeling
services in Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Hawks Quindel, S.C.
      222 East Erie, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Tel: (414) 271-8650
      Fax: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com


CANADA: Chinese-Only Strata Council Sued for Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Wood, writing for Richmond News, reports that a group of
Richmond homeowners has filed a complaint with the BC Human Rights
Tribunal after allegedly being discriminated against by a new
Chinese-speaking strata council.

Andreas Kargut, who filed the claim on behalf of several other
Wellington Court strata members, told the Richmond News a group of
Mandarin-speaking homeowners purposefully voted out non-Mandarin
speaking members from council.

Since then, the new council has moved to conduct all official
business, including council meetings, in Mandarin.

"Anyone they deemed who was non-Mandarin speaking, they ousted,"
said Mr. Kargut.

Wellington Court is a 54-unit townhouse development on Heather
Street near Garden City Park.

"For the most part, it was a very harmonious place to live," said
Mr. Kargut.

The new council was largely formed in 2014 after one Chinese
member gathered a large number of proxy ballots to vote out the
non-Mandarin speaking council members, contended Mr. Kargut.

A recent email to Kargut from the new strata president, Ed Mao,
states: "We have no intention of using English during the meeting
on December the 8th.  That's the most efficient way for the team
this year."

Mao could not be reached for comment.

Mr. Kargut said some strata members took issue with a paint job
that had cost overruns following the discovery of some rotting
wood beams in need of replacement.

He said the members started rumors that the non-Mandarin speakers
were stealing from the contingency fund.

The present council also fired its long-time property manager,
First Service Residential (via Colliers in a portfolio
acquisition), with 37 proxy ballots this summer.

"So now we have an all-Manadarin speaking council that fired our
property manager and brought on another company.

"I think they were searching for a property manager that was
cheaper," said Mr. Kargut, who attended the last meeting as an
observer.

"I wanted to see if they had the nerve to go ahead with (Mandarin
only)," he said.

"At the end, he asked if I had any questions, but how was I
supposed to ask any questions when I couldn't understand what was
going on for the past hour and a half?" noted Mr. Kargut.

Prior to the alleged discriminatory takeover, the past council had
offered official interpretation services for Mandarin speakers.
Wellington Court also already featured several bilingual outdoor
signs.

Mr. Kargut said the new council told him it would hire its own
interpreter for English speakers but not an official interpreter.
He suspects that decision had to do with costs.

Tony Gioventu, executive director of the Condominium Homeowners'
Association, told the Richmond News he's never seen a case like
this. While he's seen "three or four" instances in Richmond over
the past five years concerning language problems, all of them have
been resolved "quickly" with English-to-Mandarin translation
services, not the other way around.

There is nothing in the B.C. Strata Property Act that defines what
languages can be used in official strata meetings.  However,
Mr. Gioventu noted that official languages apply to legislative
procedures and the court systems.

"The big question is whether that would extend to a strata
corporation because it is bound by provincial legislation," said
Mr. Gioventu.

The News asked the Ministry Responsible for Housing for legal
clarification.

"The Strata Property Act does not specify what language strata
meetings should be conducted in or require interpretation
services.  A strata corporation may wish to get advice from a
lawyer on how best to meet the various language preferences of its
owners," the Ministry said, via email.

"It's a human rights issue in any case because English and French
are our official languages and these individuals are not capable
of communicating for the business of their strata underneath
provincial legislation.  So that's what opens the door," added
Mr. Gioventu.

He said the problem in Richmond may lie in the extreme
concentration of Mandarin speakers in the city.

"I don't know what the solution is.

"I go to some communities where everyone speaks Punjabi, and
there's only one person who doesn't speak Punjabi, and they're
very respectful and conduct their business in English.  But, even
there, there have been some serious misunderstandings about how
the law applies as a result of the interpretations," noted
Mr. Gioventu, who believes it is imperative to have official
translation services.

Presently, strata fees are under $200 per month, Mr. Kargut said,
but the fear amongst the outcast members is that the property will
not be maintained properly.

Mr. Kargut points to a cement slab at the sidewalk entrance to one
of the homes that has recently been raised.  It poses a tripping
hazard to visitors and is on common property.

"We'd usually have that fixed in no time, but it's just sitting
there now," he said.

Mr. Gioventu said immigrants from densely populated cities tend
not to understand the concept of common property and its required
maintenance.

"It's not just a Chinese thing.

"One of the challenges we have seen is there's a sense of
basically running your building to failure. You use it as best you
can, and then you sell it off because land is in such high
demand," he said.

The complaint has yet to be considered by the Tribunal.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: "Grooms" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin M. Grooms, and all others similarly situated v. Capstone
Turbine Corp., Darren R. Jamison, Edward I. Reich and Jayme
Brooks, Case No. 2:15-cv-09155 (C.D. Calif., November 25, 2015),
seeks damages against the Defendants for alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
defendants and their affiliates, who purchased the securities of
Capstone from July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015, inclusive.

Defendant Capstone develops, manufactures, markets and services
microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary
distributed power generation applications, including cogeneration,
renewable energy, natural resources, and critical power supply.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Capstone.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Tel: (310) 285-5330
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


CHEVRON USA: "Thames" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Brent Thames, Ronald Clanton, Kyle Misko, Travis Bragg, Adam
Rondall, Gerald Bailey, Steve Booker, Mark Ciesielski, Scott
Gregory, Kenneth Hooks, Robert Hudson, III, Glen Lawrence, Timothy
Spence, William Walters, Randall Weaver, David Wieniewitz, and all
others similarly situated v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00391 (S.D. Miss., November 25, 2015), seek to recover overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs and expenses
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant operates an oil refinery and is incorporated in
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Louis H. Watson, Jr., Esq.
      WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
      1880 Lakeland Drive, Suite G
      Jackson, MS 39216
      Tel: (601) 968-0000
      Fax: (601) 968-0010
      E-mail: louis@watsonnorris.com

          - and -

      Manion Anderson, Esq.
      MCHARD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      15 Milbranch Road
      Hattiesburg, MS 39402
      Tel: (601) 450-1715
      Fax: (601) 450-1719
      E-mail: manderson@mchardlaw.com


CITIBANK NA: Faces Fixed Income Suit in N.Y. Over Loan Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Income Shares, et al. v. Citibank N.A., Case No. 653891/2015
(N.Y., Super. Ct., November 24, 2015) is an action for damages as
a result of the Defendant's failure to discharge its duties and
obligations to beneficial certificateholders, specifically by,
ignoring pervasive and systemic deficiencies in the underlying
loan pools and the servicing of those loans and unreasonably
refused to take any action.

Citibank N.A. is a national banking association. It is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
      Timothy A. Delange, Esq.
      Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
      Brett M. Middleton, Esq.
      Niki L. Mendoza, Esq.
      Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 793-0070
      Facsimile: (858) 793-0323
      E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com
              timothyd@blbglaw.com
              benjaming@blbglaw.com
              brettm@blbglaw.com
              nikim@blbglaw.com
              lucasg@blbglaw.com


DIRECTV: Supreme Court Upholds Class Arbitration Waiver
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Crotty, Esq., and Michel Vanesse, Esq., of Parker Poe
Adams & Bernstein LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that
employers seeking to avoid costly and often hostile juries have
increasingly relied upon mandatory arbitration agreements with
employees. Under these provisions, the parties agree to submit any
disputes involving the employment relationship to arbitration
instead of using the judicial process.  In recent years, employers
have gone beyond these simple arbitration clauses, drafting
agreements that require employees to arbitrate any such disputes
as individuals instead of through class or collective action
proceedings.  These changes resulted from the waves of class
action employment discrimination, wage and hour, and other legal
actions filed over the past decade.

A number of state courts have proven resistant to class action
arbitration waivers, finding that such provisions violate state
law governing acceptable arbitration agreement provisions.
Plaintiffs argue that the costs involved in arbitrating small
claims make such actions impractical absent class representation.
The U.S. Supreme Court sent state courts a strong message by
rejecting California's holding that class arbitration waivers
violate state law.

DirecTV v. Imburgia was not an employment case, but dealt with a
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of DirecTV customers claiming
that the company's early termination fees violate California
consumer protection laws.  DirecTV's customer agreements contain a
mandatory arbitration provision including a class arbitration
waiver.  California state courts concluded that the agreement
specifically incorporated California law, which prohibits class
action arbitration waivers, therefore invalidating the entire
agreement and allowing the plaintiffs to proceed in court.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rejected this reasoning,
upholding both the arbitration agreement and the class arbitration
waiver.  The Court concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act
preempts California law regarding the enforceability of class
arbitration waivers.  Therefore, the incorporation of California
law into the DirecTV agreement had no impact on the validity of
the waiver provision.

In a string of decisions over the past decade, the Supreme Court
has consistently upheld the validity of mandatory arbitration
agreements invalidated by state courts and state laws.  The Court
has recognized that under the FAA, arbitration agreements hold a
favored position under the law, and it has repeatedly rejected use
of state contract law and commercial practices statutes to avoid
their application.  The Imburgia decision sends yet another
message to state courts and state legislatures that absent
extraordinary circumstances, mandatory arbitration agreements are
not subject to state law challenge.

This decision may embolden employers to increase their use of such
agreements.  Large employers subject to potentially expensive and
distracting class or collective action lawsuits may view such
agreements as the best way to assure individual resolution of
employment disputes.  The National Labor Relations Board has taken
the position that class arbitration waivers with employees violate
the NLRA, but this Supreme Court decision casts further doubt on
the eventual validity of that position.


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Stoddart" Suit Alleges Illinois Law Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Stoddart, and all others similarly situated v. DraftKings,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01307 (S.D. Ill., November 25, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for allegedly operating an illegal
online sports betting business in violation of the Illinois law.

DraftKings offers daily and weekly fantasy sports contests for
cash prizes in all of the five major sports as well as college
football and basketball. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation
with its headquarters and principal place of business located at
225 Franklin Street, 26th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. The
Defendant is not registered to do business within the State of
Illinois despite regularly engaging in commerce in the State of
Illinois with Illinois consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Byron, Esq.
      BYRON CARLSON PETRI & KALB, LLC
      411 St. Louis Street
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Tel: (618) 307-4054
      Fax: (618) 655-4004
      E-mail: CWB@BCPKLaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over "Tag Suggestions" Feature
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cale Weissman, writing for Tech.Mic, reports that using a 5-year-
old feature called "Tag Suggestions," the social network has built
an enormous database of faces.  Facebook uses advanced algorithms
to scan every photo you upload, identify your friends' faces and
connect them to their names.  When you hover over a photo and see
a name pop up, that's Tag Suggestions doing its job: detecting the
specific dimensions of your face and comparing the results to
photos you've already tagged.

Sometimes Facebook gets it wrong, though, and suggests the name of
someone else: a friend, a stranger, occasionally a celebrity.
It's because your biometric data is similar: Maybe your hair is of
similar length, or you wear similar glasses.

The storage and use of this data, by Facebook and other tech
companies, is at the heart of at least two class-action lawsuits
filed recently by concerned users and encouraged by privacy-minded
attorneys.  Their hope is to rein in unscrupulous data
collection -- and the users just might win.

If they do, tech companies stand to lose billions of dollars.
Companies like Facebook will have to dramatically change how they
handle the identification of people like you and me.

There's no federal law regulating the collection of biometric
data, so state legislators have taken up the cause.  In 2008, the
state of Illinois passed the Biometric Information Privacy Act, a
response to companies' increased use of biometric identifiers as a
way to identify customers.

It began in response to burgeoning programs that aimed to identify
people using biometrics.  One program, adopted by Shell, allowed
returning customers to pay for food using just their fingerprint.
Another program identified elementary students on the free lunch
program by scanning their irises.  The American Civil Liberties
Union of Illinois took up the cause to force companies to answer
when and how they could collect biometrics; thus BIPA was born.

The most important provision in BIPA was a requirement that
companies obtain direct, explicit consent from consumers whose
data they intend to collect.  The law went largely unnoticed when
adopted in 2008.

In the last year, however, renewed interest in biometric data
collection from Silicon Valley has focused attention on the once-
obscure state law.  There is currently no federal legislation over
this sort of data collection, and privacy activists have been
turning to BIPA.

To understand the scope of this debate, you have to look at how
companies like Facebook collect this personal data and why some
think these practices could be violating BIPA.

Over the years, the Tag Suggestions feature has received varied
attention, mostly from privacy advocates. Sen. Al Franken (D-
Minn.), for example, has made it one of his political missions to
pressure Facebook into reconsidering its facial-recognition
technology.

Tag Suggestions -- and the database of faces and identities
Facebook is compiling -- is the target once again.  According to a
lawsuit filed in August, Facebook is in violation of BIPA because
its users are never explicitly asked whether they wish to
participate.

"Facebook conceals that Tag Suggestions uses proprietary facial
recognition software to extract from user-uploaded photographs the
unique biometric identifiers (i.e., graphical representations of
facial features, also knows as facial geometry) associated with
people's faces and identify who they are," the plaintiffs allege.
The suit names three plaintiffs -- Carlo Licata, Adam Pezen, and
Nimesh Patel -- but these individuals are filing on behalf of an
entire class of Illinois citizens who use Facebook.  The cases are
still pending in court; Facebook submitted its motion to dismiss
in October.

For the majority of the United States, this action is not wholly
illegal -- but Illinois may be the exception. Now that BIPA has
entered the mix, "Facebook did not comply with this law,"
Joel Bernstein, whose law firm, Labaton Sucharow, represents the
plaintiffs in the previously mentioned Facebook case, told Mic.
Facebook, he explained, does not disclose why they are collecting
this data.  Moreover, users "did not give informed consent."

The words "informed consent" are crucial. When new users join
Facebook, they're automatically signed up for Tag Suggestions. But
according to BIPA, no private entity is allowed to collect user
biometric data unless it "informs the subject . . . in writing
that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being
collected or stored." For the lawyers and plaintiffs invoking this
law, these words directly implicate Facebook.

Facebook isn't the only company under fire. Last June, a Chicago-
based man named Brian Norberg filed a similar class-action
lawsuit, claiming that the online photo printing and publishing
company Shutterfly's use of facial recognition software violated
BIPA.  Mr. Norberg had found out that a friend of his had uploaded
a photo of Mr. Norberg into Shutterfly's database and included the
name of the plaintiff.  This meant Shutterfly's database housed
both a biometric fingerprint -- or "faceprint" -- of Mr. Norberg's
image as well as his identifying name.  If another picture of
Mr. Norberg was put into the company's system, it detected his
features and correctly identified the photos, appending his name.

Given that Mr. Norberg neither signed up for Shutterfly nor gave
explicit consent to the company to collect his data, Mr. Norberg's
lawyers believes that this practice is a direct violation of BIPA.

The plaintiffs in these and other cases claim they have the legal
standing to fight against the tech juggernauts.  This could cause
the companies to change how they handle customer data, and could
force the companies to fork over heaps of money to both the
plaintiffs and their counsel.

Jay Edelson, a Chicago-based class action lawyer who's been called
the "most hated man in Silicon Valley," told Mic that under BIPA,
plaintiffs could be entitled to collect damages as high as $5,000.
His firm, Edelson PC, is working with Labaton Sucharow on the
Facebook case.  Facebook, said Mr. Edelson, is a ubiquitous
service and many Illinoisans use it.  If the judges rule in favor
of the plaintiffs, the company would have to pay damages to every
Illinois user.

What the companies say: Both Facebook and Shutterfly dispute the
validity of each of these cases.  In a motion to dismiss filed in
October, Facebook makes two important counterpoints: that
Facebook's terms of service should fall under the jurisdiction of
California state law instead of Illinois, and that photographs are
excluded from the purview of BIPA altogether.

This latter claim is crucial because the wording of BIPA leaves it
up for interpretation. The bill reads:

"Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint,
voiceprint or scan of hand or face geometry.  Biometric
identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures,
photographs, human biological samples used for valid scientific
testing or screening, demographic data, tattoo descriptions, or
physical descriptions . . .

The plaintiffs claim Facebook's and Shutterfly's facial
recognition programs are in clear violation of BIPA's
stipulations.  The companies counter that photographs are
explicitly not considered biometric identifiers.

The issue comes down to whether analyzing a photograph of a person
is the equivalent of analyzing a person.  Judges have yet to rule
in either case -- and the outcomes of both will likely hinge on
this nuance.  Until then, the cases remain in limbo.

Mic contacted Facebook about its stance on BIPA.  A spokesperson
provided us with the following statement: "This lawsuit is without
merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously."  Shutterfly did
not respond to Mic's request for comment.

The business of class-action lawsuits is controversial at best.
On one hand, these cases represent the swaths of people dissenting
ingrained practices.  But the lawyers handling these cases are
often considered extortionists, finding loopholes to cash in on
valuable companies.  Mr. Edelson represents a new brand of
lawyers, aiming his cases directly at Silicon Valley.  The New
York Times described Mr. Edelson's understanding of his role as
"acting like a sort of private attorney general, forcing companies
to change their worst behaviors."  When a firm like his discovers
laws like BIPA, it pounces.

It's important to note what stands to be lost from this case.
According to one estimate, Illinois houses over 7 million Facebook
users.  That means damages could reach as much as $35 billion. Of
course, the most common track that tech companies follow when
they're facing class action lawsuits is to throw the book at the
plaintiffs trying to get the case thrown out of court, or settle
quietly.  Both Shutterfly and Facebook are working to get their
cases dismissed.  Even the lawyers involved admit that it's far
too early to see how judges will respond.

If these lawyers' interpretations of BIPA are correct, however, it
could mean a world of hurt for many Silicon Valley companies.
While BIPA is just one state's law, it has the potential to create
a huge ripple effect for how customer biometric data is handled.

"I would expect it to have a nationwide impact," Mr. Edelson said.
Bernstein said that if his suit proves successful, Facebook will
have to make a decision about whether "it wants to have two
different policies in the United States."

Data collection is undoubtedly the issue du jour for these
companies.  In recent years, questions have surfaced about what
companies handling personal data can and cannot do with the
information it collects.  This has expanded into a debate not only
about individual rights to privacy, but how different countries
handle changing data collection standards.  For instance, the
European Court of Justice recently ruled that that the U.S.
government doesn't give adequate protection of user data. This
ruling called into question the data-handling practices of big
U.S. companies like Google and Facebook as well as the now-known
snooping of the U.S. government.  The European Court of Justice
was clearly stating that Europeans should think twice about
trusting their personal data with non-European companies.  The
result will likely be a huge customer fallout for U.S. companies.

One of the main differences between the European ruling and the
cases using BIPA: perspective.  In the United States, potentially
invasive data practices have become standard for so many
companies.  To advocates like Mary Dixon, the legislative director
of the ACLU of Illinois, that's why BIPA was such a landmark law
and is proving to be an important piece of legislation now.  Her
organization helped draft, lobby and ultimately pass BIPA almost a
decade ago.  "You have to be ahead of the curve or the technology
becomes ubiquitous and it's difficult to impose regulations," she
told Mic.

Illinois isn't the only state.  Texas already has a similar law
that was passed in 2001; other states are pushing similar
legislation. Biometric privacy bills are reportedly pending in
both Alaska and Washington, and sources told Mic other state
advocates are drafting similar bills.

For now, lawyers like Messrs. Bernstein and Edelson must wait
until the courts begin to respond. Meanwhile, advocates like Dixon
hope their earlier work pays off for future generations.  While
BIPA may seem clear-cut in its wording, it is distinctly new
territory.

"This is not a statute that has been interpreted before,"
Mr. Edelson said.  "I think we're going to know a lot more in a
couple of years."


FANDUEL INC: "Carbone" Suit Alleges Negligence and Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
Giancarlo Carbone and Jeremy Huard, and all others similarly-
situated v. FanDuel, Inc. and DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01740 (D. Conn., November 25, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for alleged negligence, fraud and misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Bruce E. Newman, Esq.
      BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
      747 Stafford Avenue
      Bristol, CT 06010
      Tel: (860) 583-5200
      Fax: (860) 589-5780
      E-mail: bnewman@bpslawyers.com

          - and -

      Zak Jazlowiecki, Esq.
      JAZLOWIECKI & JAZLOWIECKI
      11 Lincoln Avenue
      P.O. Box 9333
      Forestville, CT 06010-9333
      Tel: (860) 589-8000
      Fax: (860) 585-1561


FERGUSON, MO: Plaintiffs' Request for Injunctive Relief Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge E. Richard Webber granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief in the
captioned case MICHAEL BROWN, SR., et al., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF
FERGUSON, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants, Case No.:  4:15CV00831
ERW, (E.D. Mo.)

Plaintiffs Michael Brown, Sr. and Lesley McSpadden initiated this
lawsuit by filing a Petition in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, State of Missouri on April 23, 2015.  Defendant City of
Ferguson, Defendant Thomas Jackson, and Defendant Darren Wilson
removed the Petition to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1441 and 1446. Also on May 26, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to
Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs' Petition claiming seven separate
grounds for dismissal.

In his Memorandum and Order dated December 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/DrwYf0from Leagle.com, Judge Webber granted in
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' request for injunctive
relief.  Judge Webber directed Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint which outlines and specifically delineates their claims
of violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment as a separate numbered count within twenty days of the
date of this order. The amended complaint shall not include any
additional factual allegations.

Judge Webber ruled that Plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive relief
is dismissed for lack of Article III Standing, as their first
claimed injury fails to allege an injury in fact required for
injunctive relief. Additionally, for the same reasons, Plaintiffs
cannot meet the Lyons Court's standard to seek injunctive relief
through their second claimed injury. Finally, allegations of
imminent harm from discriminatory police practices are
insufficient to gain federal relief in the form of an injunction.

Plaintiffs have alleged Defendant City authorized officers to act
in a discriminatory manner, but they have not established more
than a mere possibility they will again encounter police and face
discrimination, the Court said. Further, Plaintiffs do not allege
how the policies are facially discriminatory nor do they allege
the harm that would result from officers operating within the
confines of the Defendant City's policies. Instead, they allege
injury to African-American citizens of Defendant City, seeking an
injunction forcing the City government to comply with the law.
Courts have "repeatedly held that an asserted right to have the
Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing
alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court."

"This Court will not inject itself into the affairs of the state
government's administration of its own laws in the interest of
maintaining the appropriate balance between state and federal
authority in this area," Judge Webber held.

Anthony D. Gray, Esq. of Johnson Gray LLC Benjamin L. Crump, Esq.
Daryl D. Parks, Esq. and Jasmine O. Rand, Esq. of Parks and Crump,
LLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Michael Brown, Sr.

Peter J. Dunne, Esq. -- dunne@pspclaw.com -- and Robert T.
Plunkert, Esq. -- plunkert@pspclaw.com -- of Pitzer Snodgrass,
P.C. serve as counsel for Defendant Thomas Jackson


FERRARA CANDY: Settles Racial Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Chip Mitchell, writing for WBEZ91.5, reports that the Chicago-area
company that makes Lemonheads, Red Hots and Jaw Busters is
settling a class-action lawsuit that alleges racial
discrimination.

Ferrara Candy Company and two temporary-staffing firms that
supplied labor for its factory in Forest Park, a western suburb,
have agreed to pay $1.5 million to African American workers who
claim they were illegally denied the opportunity to work, federal
court records show.

The suit, brought in 2013, accuses Forest Park-based Remedial
Environmental Manpower, known as REM, and a disbanded Illinois
company called Labor Power of "complying with a discriminatory
request from Ferrara to steer African American laborers away from
Ferrara in favor of Latino laborers."

Under settlement terms presented to U.S. Judge John Z. Lee on
December 4, Ferrara will pay $1 million, Labor Power will pay
$450,000 and REM will pay $50,000. The companies, according to the
deal, are not admitting wrongdoing or liability.

At a Dec. 15 hearing, Judge Lee is scheduled to consider allowing
individual workers to receive up to $7,500.

"We estimate about 1,100 workers are eligible," plaintiffs
attorney Christopher Williams said.

A statement from Ferrara, headquartered in Oakbrook Terrace,
denies all wrongdoing.  "Ferrara treats its employees and
prospective employees with fairness, equality and respect," the
statement says. "We look forward to putting this matter behind
us."

Attorneys for the staffing firms did not respond to WBEZ requests
for comment.

Marc Bendick, a Virginia-based economist who worked for the
plaintiffs, says racial discrimination in temporary staffing is
widespread but hard to prove. "These settlements tend to be fairly
rare -- only a couple large ones every year around the country,"
Mr. Bendick said.

Ferrara formed in 2012 through a merger of Minnesota-based
Farley's and Sathers and Ferrara Pan Candy Company.  Its brands
include Atomic Fireballs, Black Forest, Bob's, Boston Baked Beans,
Brach's, Chuckles, Jujyfruits, Now and Later, and Trolli.  Ferrara
is majority-owned by Catterton Partners, a private-equity firm.

Ferrara's net sales for the year ending September 30 totaled
approximately $873 million, according to Moody's Investors
Service.

Community groups decried the alleged discrimination during
protests last year at both the Forest Park factory and Oakbrook
Terrace headquarters.


GAHANNA: Income-Tax Refund Case to Proceed to Damages Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Rinehart, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that a
recent Ohio Supreme Court action won't resolve a lawsuit that
could require Gahanna to pay $11 million in income-tax refunds.

Expect more appeals, both parties in the legal fight said.

The justices refused to hear Gahanna's appeal of a lower-court
ruling that a couple was denied full credit for the income tax
they paid to Columbus.

Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Kimberly Cocroft granted
summary judgment without a trial in favor of the plaintiffs,
Douglas and Karla LaBorde, in September 2014.  Judge Cocroft said
the case could proceed to a damages hearing as a class-action
suit.  She also declared that Gahanna and the Regional Income Tax
Agency, or RITA, which collects the tax for some Ohio cities, did
not have immunity.

Judge Cocroft's ruling was upheld by the county's Court of
Appeals, and the Supreme Court's refusal sends the case back to
her.  No hearing date has been set.

Gahanna now will appeal Judge Cocroft's interpretation of the
city's tax code, an issue the city did not appeal earlier, said
Brian Zets, who is a lawyer representing the city.

Under a provision in Ohio law, the city also will ask Judge
Cocroft to rule that it does not have to refund any overpayment,
Mr. Zets said.  Judge Cocroft didn't decide that question when she
heard the case; she said she would need more evidence.

Depending on how Judge Cocroft rules, a least one side will
appeal, said Mr. Zets and Rick Ashton, the LaBordes' attorney.

Mr. Ashton contended that the summary judgment is enough to
establish the city's and RITA's liability.

He said an estimated 12,000 to 13,000 taxpayers qualify in the
class-action suit.  The suit covers a period beginning in 2009 and
ending, depending on which side is asked, in either 2013 or 2014.

Mr. Ashton said $11 million is a conservative estimate of the
potential payout.

The LaBordes said that they lost hundreds of dollars each year
because of how their credit was calculated under the city tax code
and on RITA's tax form.  They argued that they should have been
given full credit for the tax they paid to Columbus and that they
owed Gahanna nothing.

Gahanna's tax rate is 1.5 percent; Columbus' is 2.5 percent.

Gahanna's tax code grants residents an 83.33 percent credit -- up
to what they would owe under the suburb's 1.5 percent tax.  So a
person with a $100,000 income would pay Columbus $2,500, and the
credit to Gahanna would be the full $1,500 owed there.

However, Gahanna taxpayers are required to figure their credit at
83.33 percent of the lesser of the workplace tax withheld
($2,500), or the amount earned times Gahanna's 1.5 percent rate
($1,500).

That left the $100,000 taxpayer with a credit of about $1,250 and
owing Gahanna $250.

Mr. Ashton said the city has since adjusted its tax code to match
the requirement on the RITA form, so Gahanna taxpayers always
still owe the city.

He said the suit challenges the specific Gahanna tax code and
probably won't affect taxpayers in other municipalities.

"As many cities as there are in Ohio, there are as many variances
in their tax laws," Mr. Ashton said.


GARAMIZ CORP: "Larios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Larios, John Doe, and all others similarly situated v.
Garamiz Corp. dba El Castillo and Robert Garcia, Case No. 1:15-cv-
06767 (E.D.N.Y., November 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate "El Castillo Restaurant" in
Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiffs are 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


GENERAL CHEMICAL: City of Duluth Joins Bid-Rigging Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Passi, writing for Duluth News Tribune, reports that the
city of Duluth has joined a class-action lawsuit alleging that it
was overcharged by suppliers who rigged bids and colluded among
themselves to fix the price of a commonly used water treatment
chemical.

Duluth became the third party to sign on to a complaint filed by
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., a Minneapolis-based law firm
that has accused the makers and purveyors of aluminum sulfate of
conspiring to artificially boost the price of their product, in
violation of federal antitrust laws.

The city buys thousands of gallons of liquid aluminum sulfate each
year to treat the water it draws from Lake Superior.  The
chemical, often referred to simply as alum, helps reduce the
turbidity of Duluth's water supply.  It acts to precipitate
suspended solids and organic matter so the materials fall out and
can be readily removed from the city's tapwater.

The price Duluth pays for alum has risen sharply since the late
1990s.  And there's no apparent explanation why that would happen
in a competitive market, City Attorney Gunnar Johnson said as he
explained the rationale for joining in a lawsuit alleging external
price manipulation.

Inside deals?

A criminal case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against
Frank A. Reichl, a former senior executive working in New Jersey
for General Chemical Corp., one of the nation's largest
manufacturers of aluminum sulfate, could shine light on what's
been driving prices higher.

In October, Mr. Reichl signed court papers agreeing to cooperate
with prosecutors and plead guilty to participating in a
"conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the sale and
marketing of liquid aluminum sulfate by agreeing to rig bids and
allocate customers for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the
price of, liquid aluminum sulfate sold to municipalities and pulp
and paper companies in the United States from at least as early as
1997 and continuing until approximately July 2010."

During about that same time frame, Duluth spent a total of more
than $1.2 million on purchases of aluminum sulfate, and the cost
of the chemical quadrupled.

A federal complaint filed by Lockridge Grindal Nauen notes the
price of alum rose even as demand for the chemical softened and
production costs remained stable or trended downward.

Joe Bruckner, an attorney and partner at Lockridge Grindal Nauen,
said alum can be considered a commodity "in that one
manufacturer's product is not materially different from another's,
as long as it meets certain specifications."

Ordinarily, he said, companies trading in a commodity should
compete on price and service. But Bruckner said his clients allege
that an agreement between players in the industry "short-circuited
that price competition," driving prices higher.

Mr. Bruckner said a fairly stable and mature market typically
shouldn't produce "a lot of peaks and valleys" or "spikes."

The class-action case Duluth has joined names Mr. Reichl and
General Chemical as defendants along with a laundry list of others
in the industry, including many as-yet-undisclosed players.

Divide and conquer

The federal complaint points to a criminal complaint against Mr.
Reichl that alleged he and his co-conspirators in the industry
carved up the market and agreed "to stay away from each other's
historical customers by not pursuing the business of those
customers."

The same criminal complaint also alleges that conspiring companies
routinely agreed to support incumbent businesses' relationships
with pre-existing alum customers by "submitting intentionally
losing or 'throw-away' bids or price quotations."

For alum purchases, Duluth has long been primarily a customer of
Thunder Bay Chemicals Ltd.  The company frequently emerged as the
lowest-cost supplier when the city of Duluth put contracts for
liquid aluminum sulfate out for bid.  Since January 1998, the same
company has supplied more than 75 percent of Duluth's alum needs.

While another three to five companies have routinely submitted
alum bids to the city of Duluth, they often have priced themselves
out of the picture.

For instance, in 2009, Thunder Bay Chemicals submitted a $161,850
winning bid to supply 150,000 gallons of aluminum sulfate to
Duluth.  The next-most-competitive bidder, General Chemical,
proposed a price about 22 percent higher.  And the least
competitive bid came from Harcros Chemicals Inc., which asked for
more than 2« times as much as Thunder Bay Chemicals.

Mr. Johnson characterized the bid spreads as "fishy."

Representatives of Thunder Bay Chemicals did not return calls from
the News Tribune seeking comment on the case.

In the dark

Until recent reports of alleged price-fixing emerged, Mr. Johnson
said the city of Duluth had no idea that it might be paying an
inflated price for the chemical.

"This is a commodity.  So we would expect the competitive bidding
process would get us the lowest price," Mr. Johnson said.  "We
have our purchasing processes, and that's what we followed."

But Mr. Johnson said that if back-room agreements tainted the
outcome, the city deserves recourse.

"If the city of Duluth overpaid, we want to get that money back,"
he said.

"If people were cheating, we didn't notice, just as countless
other communities failed to realize what now appears to have been
going on," Mr. Johnson said.

Little to lose

Even if the suit fails, Mr. Johnson noted that the city should
sustain no resulting financial loss.  As part of the agreement
with Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Duluth cannot be saddled with the
legal costs of the case.  Those costs will be covered by any
successful judgment or settlement.  In the event the suit fails,
however, the costs will be borne by Lockridge Grindal Nauen.

Duluth joins two other parties that already have signed onto the
same class-action suit: the city of Rochester and the Metropolitan
Council, which is the regional policy-making body, planning
agency, and provider of essential services for the Twin Cities
metropolitan area.

But Mr. Bruckner said his firm is in discussions with other cities
and private businesses that use alum.  He predicted more parties
will join the suit in the near future.

Mr. Bruckner said Duluth's participation bodes well for the case,
noting the weight that other communities probably will give to the
city's decision in determining their own courses of action.

Competing cases

Lockridge Grindal Nauen is far from alone in its efforts to pursue
a class-action case against alum suppliers.  Other similar
complaints are taking shape in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and likely
elsewhere.

"Typically in a case like this, once it makes the national news
that a conspiracy has been uncovered, it's common for similar
lawsuits to be filed in different courts around the country,
Mr. Bruckner said.

When multiple cases involving a common violation of federal
antitrust law are filed, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, made up of sitting federal judges, can choose the
venue it deems best suited to hear the matter.

"We filed a motion with the MDL Panel, saying all these cases are
essentially similar and they ought to be consolidated in one
court, and we think that Minnesota is the best court of the
various possibilities for the cases to be consolidated in,"
Bruckner said, noting that Minnesota's federal court system boasts
an excellent reputation for being both efficient and effective.

Mr. Bruckner said the panel is slated to consider the matter in
late January and will likely settle on a venue for the case in
February.  That's just the start of the process, however.

Mr. Bruckner said class-action cases like the one Duluth has
joined typically take "at least a few years to resolve."

Much to gain

If Duluth and other plaintiffs prevail in their case, determining
exactly how much any industry agreements drove up the price of
alum will be subject to litigation.

"What we and our expert economists are going to show, is that had
these producers competed, as they were supposed to, the price
would have been lower.  Had they competed on bids instead of
colluding on bids the price would have been a certain specified
amount lower.  That's what these customers, like the city of
Duluth and the other plaintiffs, should have paid. But instead,
they paid something higher than that.  And that difference is the
damages that the city of Duluth and all other members of this
class suffered as a result of this conduct," Mr. Bruckner said.

If a violation of federal antitrust laws is proven, the plaintiffs
could be entitled to collect three times the damages they suffered
as a result of the alleged collusion, plus any costs of bringing
the case, including legal fees.

In short, hundreds of millions of dollars could be on the line
nationwide.

Ongoing impact

The complaint calls for the court to examine damages sustained
between 1997 and 2010, when the alleged price-fixing arrangement
reportedly drew to a close.  But Mr. Bruckner said it could be
argued the effects of the alleged collusion appear to have
persisted in the recent pricing of alum.

"Even if the agreement did end in 2010, and that remains to be
seen, news of it didn't come out until recently," he said.  "Often
. . . when news of something like this comes out, we will see some
impact on the price. Usually the price will drop as a result.  We
haven't seen anything like that yet, but it's still early."

Mr. Bruckner said the court will need to consider: "What is the
trailing impact of an agreement like this?"

"Typically there's not a correction of pricing in the marketplace
all of a sudden," he said.

Duluth certainly hasn't seen alum prices moderate much yet, with
its most recent purchase in 2014 less than half a penny lower than
the highest per-gallon price the city ever paid for the chemical.

"Typically, even if an agreement truly does stop, and even if an
industry does again become competitive, there's some period of
time where the wrongful agreement still has an impact.  That will
be a subject of some debate between the economists that we work
with and no doubt the economists on the defendants' side,"
Mr. Bruckner said.


GENUINE TITLE: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Bennett ruled on various motions seeking
to dismiss the second amended complaint in the captioned case
EDWARD J. AND VICKI FANGMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENUINE TITLE,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.: RDB-14-0081, (D. Md.)

This purported class action lawsuit involves an alleged home
mortgage kickback scheme in which Defendant Genuine Title, LLC, by
itself and through sham companies, allegedly provided cash
payments and marketing materials to mortgage brokers who referred
their clients to Genuine Title for settlement services.

Plaintiffs Edward J. Fangman and Vicki Fangman, on behalf of
themselves and the alleged class, initially filed the suit against
Genuine Title in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland.
Subsequently, Genuine Title removed the case to the District
Court. Since that time, Plaintiffs have now amended their
Complaint three times, adding Plaintiffs and Defendants. The
Second Amended Complaint, filed by the Fangmans and 46 other
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the alleged class, is the
subject of 11 motions to dismiss pending before the District
Court.

Plaintiffs have pled RESPA violations. Additionally they claim
that, as a result of Defendants' kickback scheme, they "were
deprived of kickback free settlement services and process" and
that "but for" the kickback scheme, their settlement fees "would
have been much lower."

The Court said Plaintiffs have satisfied the "actual injury"
requirement for standing. Each named Defendant had a contractual
relationship with a Plaintiff, and each Plaintiff had a
contractual relationship with a Defendant. Accordingly,
Defendants' standing arguments fail.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated December 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/O9pKWyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bennett ruled that:

     -- West Town Bank & Trust's motion to dismiss the second
        amended complaint is granted in part, denied in part
        and stayed in part;

     -- Net Equity Financial's Motion to Dismiss the Second
        Amended Complaint is granted in part, denied in part,
        and stayed in part;

     -- Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s
        Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is granted
        in part and stayed in part;

     -- PNC Bank, N.A. and PNC Mortgage's Motion to Dismiss the
        Second Amended Complaint is granted in part, denied in
        part and stayed in part;

     -- Eagle National Bank's Motion to Dismiss the Second
        Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part;

     -- MetLife Bank, N.A. and MetLife Home Loans, LLC's Motion
        to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is granted in
        part, denied in part and stayed in part;

     -- Competitive Advantage Media Group, LLC and Dog Days
        Marketing, LLC's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
        Complaint is granted in part, denied in part and stayed
        in part;

     -- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss the Second
        Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part;

     -- Emery Federal Credit Union's Motion to Dismiss, or in
        the alternative to Sever and Transfer the Case is granted
        in part, denied in part and stayed in part;

     -- Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss the Second
        Amended Complaint is denied as moot;

     -- E Mortgage Management's Motion to Dismiss the Second
        Amended Complaint is granted in part, denied in part and
        stayed in part;

     -- the Joint Consent Motion Regarding Wells Fargo Home
        Mortgage, Inc. and Wells Fargo, N.A.'s Pending Motions is
        granted in part and denied in part; and

     -- the Joint Consent Motion Regarding JPMorgan Chase Bank,
        N.A.'s Pending Motions is granted in part and denied in
        part.

Michael Paul Smith, Esq. -- mpsmith@sgs-law.com -- and Sarah A
Zadrozny, Esq. -- szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- of Smith, Gildea &
Schmidt, LLC; Timothy Francis Maloney, Esq. -- tmaloney@jgllaw.com
-- and Veronica Byam Nannis, Esq. -- vnannis@jgllaw.com -- of
Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA serve as counsel for Plaintiff
Edward J. Fangman

David M Souders, Esq. -- souders@thewbkfirm.com -- Jeffrey Paul
Blackwood, Esq. -- blackwood@thewbkfirm.com -- and Michael Yaakov
Kieval, Esq. -- kieval@thewbkfirm.com -- of Weiner Brodsky Kider
PC serve as counsel for Defendant Emery Federal Credit Union


GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Motion to Compel Discovery Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers of the District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio granted in part Plaintiffs'
motion to compel discovery related to condenser coils in the
captioned case ROCCO SIRIANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOODMAN
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, L.P., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.:
2:14-cv-1131, (S.D. Ohio)

Plaintiffs bring this breach of warranty, products liability, and
consumer protection action against Defendants, alleging that the
evaporator coils and condenser coils found in Defendants' air
conditioners, air handlers and heat pumps have defects that cause
"premature corrosion and holes or cracks in the coils." The
Complaint alleges that Goodman Products' copper coils, as the
result of a design or manufacturing defect, are too thin and
prematurely corrode or crack causing refrigerant to leak through
the fissures; the defects are widespread, affecting as much as 80%
of the products sold; and Defendants knew about, but failed to
disclose, the defects.

Defendants deny these allegations.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery related to condenser
coils.

In her Opinion and Order dated December 9, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1YMDCWqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Deavers granted in
part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery related to
condenser coils.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits a
party to file a motion for an order compelling discovery if
another party fails to respond to discovery requests, provided
that the motion to compel includes a certification that the movant
has, in good faith, conferred or attempted to confer with the
party failing to respond to the requests. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(1). The Court is satisfied that this prerequisite to a
motion to compel has been met in this case. Plaintiffs' condenser
coil claims remain, the Court finds that the McVicar Stipulation
does not remove the disputed discovery requests from the scope of
discoverable information. The outer boundaries of permissible
discovery are quite broad in the federal courts, encompassing "any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case." Because
Plaintiffs' condenser coil claims remain, the Court finds that the
McVicar Stipulation does not remove the disputed discovery
requests from the scope of discoverable information.

The Court further noted that discovery sought by Plaintiffs is
directly related to their claims, which include assertions of
defects in the design and manufacture of Defendants' condenser
coils. It is highly unlikely that Plaintiffs could discover
similar information from another source or in another manner.
Defendants are, therefore, in a unique position with respect to
these documents. For instance, it appears to the Court that
Plaintiffs may first want to discover whether Defendants received
any complaints or warranty claims regarding the condenser coils
before discovering documents related to investigations, schematics
and the all-encompassing "all records summarizing, categorizing,
and/or documenting evaporator and/or condenser coil failures. . .
."  In the interim, the parties are directed to engage in further
cooperative dialogue in an effort to come to an agreement
regarding proportional discovery.  Defendants submit that
Plaintiffs' discovery requests are disproportionate "in the face
of the thin and largely inapplicable allegations regarding
condenser coils." By rule, discovery is available regarding any
"matter that is relevant to any party's claim." The Court has
already found Plaintiffs' condenser coil claims sufficient to
withstand Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. Defendants' efforts
to relitigate their Rule 12(b)(6) motion through this discovery
motion are not well-taken.

Jack Landskroner, Esq. and Drew T Legando, Esq. -- of Landskroner
Grieco Merriman, LLC; Glen L Abramson, Esq. -- gabramson@bm.net
-- Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- and Shanon J
Carson, Esq. -- scarson@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague, P.C.

Lisa A White, Esq. and Gregory F Coleman, Esq. --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- of Greg Coleman Law serve as counsel
for Plaintiff Rocco Siriano

Louis A Chaiten, Esq. -- lachaiten@jonesday.com -- Elizabeth G
Myers, Esq. -- egmyers@jonesday.com -- and Sharyl A Reisman, Esq.
-- sareisman@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day serve as counsel for
Defendant Goodman Manufacturing Co., L.P.


JAMES HARDIE: Commercial Unit Owners Join Cladding Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Harris, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that the owners
of 22 leaky commercial units are joining a lawsuit against
building materials maker James Hardie.

The group, whose properties are clad in Titanboard, are joining
other claimants who allege James Hardie's Titanboard or Harditex
has resulted in leaky homes and commercial buildings.

So far 80 owners of post-1987 Harditex or Titanboard properties
have joined the action, and another 80 to 100 are expected to join
shortly, the law firm involved, Parker & Associates, said.

The firm filed its first claim in August, alleging James Hardie
showed negligence and breached of the Fair Trading Act.

Since then the firm has been contacted by more than 550 property
owners.

Owners who thought they may be eligible to join the action were
being urged to act quickly.

Many of the buildings were built in the 1990s, meaning they could
run foul of a sort of "statute of limitations" on acts or
omissions that occurred further back than 15 years.

The deadline, if it applies, would be December 31.

Parker stressed the lawsuit was being funded by the claimants,
which meant they would receive all the potential damages if they
won their case.

"We have applied to the court to proceed as a class action and for
the final date on which other potential class members can opt in
to join the cladding action. That application will be heard next
year."

Separate claims had been filed for most plaintiffs as a
precaution.


JOE FRESH: Murder Charges Filed Against 41 Rana Plaza Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a court in Bangladesh's capital
accepted murder charges against 41 people including the owner of
the Rana Plaza building that collapsed in 2013, killing more than
1,100 people in the country's worst industrial disaster.

Most of the victims were garment factory workers who made clothing
for about 29 global brands, including Joe Fresh from Loblaw.

Investigators initially had said the accused would be charged with
culpable homicide, but they shifted to the more severe charges
after the investigation found that building owner Sohel Rana, his
staff and the management of the five garment factories had forced
workers to enter the building just before it collapsed even though
the workers feared doing so because major cracks had developed in
the structure a day earlier.

The maximum penalty for someone convicted of murder is a death
sentence, while the maximum punishment for culpable homicide is
seven years in jail.

The court of Senior Judicial Magistrate Md Al-Amin decided to go
ahead with the trial after accepting the murder charges filed by
police in June.

The police report called the deaths a "mass killing."  About 2,500
people were injured in the disaster.

Rana and the owners of the five garment factories are among the 41
defendants accused of murder.  While Rana is in jail and 16 others
are on bail, the magistrate issued arrest warrants against 24
others, said police prosecution wing officer Mohammad Asaduzzaman.
He said the police would take steps to arrest them.  The court
told police stations to submit updates on which arrests have been
made when the court next hears the case on Jan. 27.

In a separate case, the accused also facing charges of violating
safety rules in building Rana Plaza.  The original five-storey
building was meant for office space and retail stores, but more
floors were added illegally and transformed into factories.

The extremely low wages in Bangladesh led global brands and
retailers to choose its garment industry over factories in China
and other developing countries.

The building collapse triggered an uproar for reforms in a sector
that helps the country earn about $25 billion a year from exports,
mainly to the U.S. and Europe.

The owner of Joe Fresh, Canada's largest grocery, pharmacy
retailer, was among the first to commit financial support for
victims of the disaster.  However, a class action on behalf of
victims was filed in Canada against Loblaw and Joe Fresh in April.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles "London Whale" Class Action for $150MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that JPMorgan Chase &
Co has agreed to pay $150 million to resolve a securities fraud
lawsuit by investors suing the bank over its "London Whale"
trading scandal, which caused a $6.2 billion loss.

The settlement was disclosed in papers filed in federal court in
Manhattan and would resolve a class action lawsuit filed in the
wake of the scandal that emerged in 2012.

The lawsuit stemmed from oversight by JPMorgan's Chief Investment
Office of a synthetic credit portfolio that caused the $6.2
billion loss and was linked to traders in the bank's London office
including Bruno Iksil, the so-called London Whale.

Shareholders accused JPMorgan of knowingly hiding increased risks
at the Chief Investment Office, including on an April 13, 2012,
conference call when JPMorgan Chase & Co Chief Executive Officer
Jamie Dimon called reports about the synthetic portfolio a
"tempest in a teapot."

The settlement covers anyone who bought JPMorgan stock from
April 13 to May 21, 2012, a time when JPMorgan's share price fell
by roughly one-quarter and wiped out more than $40 billion of
market value.

The lawsuit was spearheaded by pension funds in the U.S. states of
Arkansas, Ohio and Oregon and in Sweden.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine in a statement on Dec. 21 said
the deal would help the state's Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System recover its losses and discourage future fraud.

"Misleading investors with wrong or incomplete information is
unacceptable and causes real damage," Mr. DeWine said.

A spokeswoman for JPMorgan did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

JPMorgan paid more than $1 billion and admitted wrongdoing to
settle U.S. and British probes into London Whale losses.

Former traders Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout have been
criminally charged in the United States with hiding losses linked
to Iksil, who has been cooperating with prosecutors.

The cases is In re: JPMorgan Chase & Co Securities Litigation,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-03852.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Oregon to Get Share in $150MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
KTVZ.COM reports that State Treasurer Ted Wheeler and Oregon
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced on Dec. 22 that Oregon
has helped to secure a $150 million settlement in a class action
lawsuit filed against JPMorgan Chase & Co. to compensate investors
for a financial scheme uncovered in 2012.

The so-called "London Whale" trading scandal impaired investors'
holdings including those of the Oregon Common School Fund and also
the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, which was appointed
to be a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, along with public pension
funds in Ohio and Arkansas.

"Financial firms need to play by the rules and, if they don't,
Oregon will take a stand on behalf of taxpayers, schools,
communities and retired public employees," said Mr. Wheeler, who
is a member of the Oregon Investment Council, which sets state
investment policy.  "This settlement will do more than repay
investors: It also sends a clear message that Oregon will continue
to hold corporations accountable."

The share of the settlement due to the Oregon pension fund and
common school fund has not yet been determined.  The settlement
class includes all persons who purchased JP Morgan common stock
between April 13, 2012 and May 21, 2012.  Thousands of individual
Oregonian investors also are potential members of the class.

The suit, filed in July 2012, alleged that JPMorgan Chase issued
false and misleading statements regarding its trading activity,
describing risky and speculative trading strategies merely as
"hedges" and "risk management" devices.  The trading losses
incurred by JPMorgan Chase caused the bank's stock value to
nosedive, causing substantial harm to investors.

The losses to Oregon public funds are estimated to be between
$846,192 and $1 million, depending when stock values are computed.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  All identified class members will be
notified of their status by a claims administrator appointed by
the court, and will receive additional information about filing a
claim.

The Oregon State Treasury protects public assets and saves
Oregonians money through its investment, banking, and debt
management functions.  State investment policies are set by the
Oregon Investment Council.  The State Treasury also promotes
public outreach and education to help Oregonians learn strategies
to save money, invest for college and make smart financial
choices.


KALOBIOS PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on Dec. 22 disclosed that on December 18,
2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is November 19, 2015 through December 17, 2015.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all KaloBios
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock
during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class.
You may move the Court no later than Tuesday, February 16, 2016 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.


KALOBIOS PHARMA: Fires CEO Following Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Vidya L Nathan, writing for Reuters, reports that drugmaker
KaloBios Pharmaceuticals Inc. said it fired Martin Shkreli as
chief executive on Dec. 17, the day he was arrested on charges of
a securities fraud.

Mr. Shkreli, who has become the poster child for the issue of
soaring prices for prescription medications, has already stepped
down as CEO of private drugmaker Turing Pharmaceuticals Inc, in
addition to resigning from KaloBios' board of directors.

Mr. Shkreli was recently arrested for engaging in what U.S.
prosecutors said was a Ponzi-like scheme at his former hedge fund
MSMB Capital Management and Retrophin Inc., a company he headed
before he took the helm of Turing Pharmaceuticals.

After buying a 60-year-old anti-infective drug often used by AIDS
patients earlier this year, Turing raised the price overnight to
$750 a tablet from $13.50.

The increase propelled Mr. Shkreli to the media spotlight:
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton pilloried him for gouging,
and he was pulled into congressional drug pricing investigations.

The government charges do not include activities at privately held
Turing.

Mr. Shkreli, who was arrested on Dec. 17 and released soon after
on a $5 million bond, said he has been the target of legal
authorities for his much-criticized drug-price hikes and his over-
the-top public persona, the Wall Street Journal reported on
Dec. 21.

"'Trying to find anything we could to stop him' was the attitude
of the government," Mr. Shkreli told the Journal in an interview,
saying he was arrested because of a social experiment and teasing
people over the Internet, deeming the arrest unjust.

An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment on the WSJ report.

In a separate incident, Mr. Shkreli lost control of his Twitter
account to hackers on Sunday, hours after he took to the
microblogging service to plead his innocence, said his spokesman,
Craig Stevens.

Mr. Shkreli tweeted late on Dec. 21 saying he had regained control
of his account.

KaloBios, which was planning to shut shop, named Mr. Shkreli as
its CEO on Nov. 20, after Mr. Shkreli and a consortium of
investors bought about 70 percent of the company's shares.

The drug developer said that Tony Chase, who was appointed to the
company's board along with Mr. Shkreli, had also resigned.

A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of KaloBios
shareholders in the United States district court in the Northern
District of California.

It alleged that Mr. Shkreli made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material information
about the company's business.


LA COYA: "Ferreira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Rogelio Ferreira, Angelina Pineda, Fidel Vargas, and all others
similarly situated v. La Coya LLC dba La Coya, John Lui and
Jessica Lui, Case No. CV-15-6766 (E.D.N.Y., November 25, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate "La Coya" restaurant located in
Forest Hills, New York.

The Plaintiffs are 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


LAKE COMMUNITY PROPERTY: NJ Court Rules in Annual Dues Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mitchel E. Ostrer of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division, affirmed in part and reversed in part the
trial court's order for payment of annual dues for the six-year
period in the appellate case captioned, LAKE COMMUNITY PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v.
MICHAEL F. ZEUGIN and KATHRYN ZEUGIN, Defendants-
Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Case No.: A-4426-13T4, (N.J. Super.
App. Div.).

The case involves the claim of a homeowners association, plaintiff
Lake Community Property Owners Association, for unpaid dues and
assessments charged to two property owners in the community,
defendants Michael F. Zeugin and Kathryn Zeugin.
After a bench trial, the trial court held that defendants were
liable for $60 in annual dues for the six-year period preceding
the filing of the Association's complaint. The court relied on a
provision in the 1968 deed between Blue Ridge Lakes, Inc., the
original developer of the community, and a predecessor in title.
The court rejected the Association's claim for additional dues and
assessments, which the Association asserted it was entitled to
impose based on a 1979 order, settling a class action law suit,
establishing the Association as a common interest community. The
court also rejected the Association's claim for late fees, and
substantially reduced its claim for attorney's fees. The
Association appeals and Defendants cross-appeal.

In his Opinion dated December 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/wxTrl8from Leagle.com, Judge Ostrer affirmed in part
and reversed in part the trial court's order that defendants were
liable for $60 in annual dues for the six-year period preceding
the filing of the Association's complaint, and remanded for
further proceedings.  The Court rejected Defendants'
interpretation that a property owner in the community could opt
out of membership, and thereby avoid liability for annual dues.
Rather, it is apparent that all owners are members, and all owners
are liable for dues.

According to the Appeals Court, in the initial transfer from the
developer, the grantee automatically applied for membership. The
deed at paragraph 12 states: "Grantee hereby applies for
membership therein which includes the members of his immediate
family." The paragraph goes on to provide: "All property owners
will be liable for the payment of the club dues, irrespective of
the use of the club, lakes or beaches. "Although defendants were
on notice of the existing community scheme, they were also
notified by the Association that some properties within the lake
community were exempt from certain membership obligations. The
Court of Appeals directed the trial court to determine whether an
"unusual equity" requires it to charge defendants with inquiry
notice of the 1979 Order. The Court of Appeals leaves it to the
lower court's discretion to determine the scope of any
supplemental proofs. Simply put, nothing in the deed or the chain
of title authorized greater than a $60 charge. As a consequence,
the Association was not authorized to maintain a lien against
defendants' property for more than the accumulated $60 annual
charges.

"We concur with the trial court that the Association could only
seek six years of charges, preceding the filing of its complaint.
But, as noted, assuming inquiry notice is not imposed, payment of
the fees ultimately awarded serve only as a condition of
defendants' use of the facilities. It does not serve as a lien on
the property. Therefore, the Court of Appeals is constrained to
reverse the court's entry of judgment against defendants for the
attorney's fees," Judge Ostrer said.

Richard T. Luzzi, Esq. of Oller & Luzzi, L.L.C. serves as counsel
for Appellant/Cross-Respondent

Linda Auger Peoples, Esq. -- lapesq@horlacherpeoples.com -- of
Horlacher & Peoples serves as counsel for Respondents/Cross-
Appellants


LAKES REGION: Reaches Out-of-Court Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Daymond Steer, writing for The Conway Daily Sun, reports that a
long-running class-action suit brought by Tamworth Village
residents against Lakes Region Water Co. Inc. of Moultonborough
was resolved recently in an out-of-court settlement.

"The water in Tamworth is now cleaner and safer," said the
plaintiffs' attorney, Chris Meier of Cooper Cargill Chant in North
Conway.

Lakes Region Water Co. purchased Tamworth Water Works in 1995. The
Water Works serves about 60 households and around the village of
Tamworth and supplies about 265 people.  The company continues to
serve the village to this day.

In 2004, a well that had been installed by Lakes Region Water was
due to be shut down because of elevated uranium levels.  However,
in August of 2007, state officials found the well was in service.
There is controversy about whether the well was reactivated in
2007 or if it had been connected the entire time.

In September 2007, the company shut down the well permanently, and
uranium levels receded.

In a 2009 plea deal with the Carroll County Attorney's Office,
Lakes Region Water pleaded guilty to knowingly attaching a well to
the Tamworth system that had unlawful levels of uranium and
knowingly maintaining a connection to an unapproved source between
Aug. 19-Sept. 7, 2007, in Tamworth.  One test in August 2007
showed uranium levels to be more than four times the legal limit.
For this, the company was fined $200,000, with half suspended.

In 2008, plaintiffs led by Jo Anne Rainville of Tamworth launched
a claim for breach of consumer protection and intentional tort for
medical monitoring against Lakes Region Water.  Sixty-four
plaintiffs were involved.

The case made it to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, but in 2012
the court found Lake Region Water exempt from the Consumer
Protection Act.  The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission,
however, did take action in a related case.

Mr. Meier explained that "because there was no member of the class
that has manifest damage or illness because of the water, we were
left with the medical monitoring claim, which is a new claim in
New Hampshire.

"We had experts from New York and Texas review the case and
exposures, and detail a medical monitoring regimen that would keep
the class members safe and detect any adverse effects from the
water," Mr. Meier said.

"The settlement was based upon the estimated cost for this medical
monitoring regimen."

Carroll County Superior Court Judge Charles Temple approved the
final settlement in October.  The settlement covers claims arising
from use of the Tamworth system between 2004 and 2007. The
settlement terms are confidential.

"Having heard from all parties interested at hearing, including
class members, the proposed settlement and its allocation of
payments is determined to be fair, reasonable and adequate, and is
therefore approved," wrote Temple.

The parties reached an agreement for the proposed settlement Sept.
30, according to a notice to class members of proposed class
settlement and hearing that Meier filed in Carroll County Superior
Court.

This document says the defendants agreed to provide a settlement
fund of $150,000.  After attorney fees and costs were taken out,
it left $80,055 to be disbursed to the plaintiffs.  Mr. Meier
wrote under the terms of the then-proposed agreement that each
class member would receive a minimum of $1,250.

Ms. Rainville is executive director of Tamworth Community Nurse
Association but led the lawsuit in her individual capacity.

She said her medical background put her in a position to be a lead
plaintiff.

Ms. Rainville remains concerned about the long-term health of
people who were exposed to the contaminated well water,
particularly  their kidney and liver functions.  She said the
settlement gives the plaintiffs "a sense of closure and a sense of
justice."

Mr. Meier said experts believe that any diseases directly related
to uranium would have come to light by now.

"The monitoring is to look at whether class members should take
extra steps to avoid issues that might affect kidney function and
add to their cumulative exposure to nephrotoxins," said Mr. Meier.

In general, the problem with latent illness is that the statute of
limitations can end before someone can exhibit symptoms of
disease.

Lakes Region Water didn't respond to a request for comment.
Paperwork filed by the company's attorney in its criminal case
record said that in response to the allegations, the company
restructured its leadership, began meeting regularly with the
Public Utility Commission and added staff among other
improvements.

The PUC fined Lakes Region Water but didn't provide redress to
victims, Meier said.

Mr. Meier said class actions are the only way consumers can go toe
to toe with large corporations, especially when the corporation is
internationally based and the cost of the lawyer would exceed an
individual's claim of damages.

"It is a great part of my practice to have this tool that
effectively allows us to represent regular people against large
corporations, and we can do so right here in our backyard," said
Mr. Meier.


LEXISNEXIS: CCAF Seeks Rehearing of Settlement Case
---------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm is asking a
federal appeals court to rehear a settlement case, arguing that a
deal -- one of two reached over the sale of personal data reports
to debt collectors -- is unfair to the class and that class
attorneys are seeking enormous fees.

On Dec. 18, the Center for Class Action Fairness, now a subunit of
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, asked the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to rehear the settlement case
against LexisNexis, a company known for providing computer-
assisted legal research and business research and risk management
services.

The Fourth Circuit initially ruled against CCAF in a Dec. 4
decision.

"The court's previous ruling created a circuit split concerning
injunctive-relief class action settlements, but if the court
rehears this case, the Fourth Circuit will have the opportunity to
repair the split," CCAF attorney Adam Schulman said on Dec. 18.
"In doing so, it would reaffirm that the class action mechanism is
supposed to serve class members, not attorneys or defendants."

He added, "To ensure a proper ruling and a fair settlement, we
implore the court to reexamine these issues."

CCAF argued the settlement was unfair to the class and that class
attorneys were seeking excessive fees -- more than $5 million, on
top of their fees from a related settlement.

The class action centered around LexisNexis Risk and Information
Analytics Group's sale of personal data reports to debt
collectors -- in particular, its Accurint reports.

The reports are used to locate people and assets, authenticate
identities and verify credentials.  The Accurint database contains
information on more than 200 million people, and millions of such
reports are sold each year.

The action claims that the defendants -- including LexisNexis Risk
& Information Analytics Group Inc., now LexisNexis Risk Solutions
FL Inc.; Seisint Inc., now LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc.;
and Reed Elsevier Inc. -- prepared and sold Accurint searches and
reports, that these reports were "consumer reports" under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, and that the defendants failed to follow
certain FCRA requirements that apply to consumer reports,
including handling disputes about the reports' contents and
providing consumers with full copies of reports about them.

A district court did not decide whether the reports were consumer
reports, or that either side was right or wrong. Instead, both
sides agreed to settle, thus resolving the case and providing
benefits to consumers.

Two settlements were proposed -- by the same group of lawyers.

Class counsel included Leonard Bennett of Consumer Litigation
Associates PC in Newport News, Va.; Dale Pittman of the Law Office
of Dale W. Pittman PC in Petersburg, Va.; Michael Caddell and
Cynthia Chapman of Caddell & Chapman in Houston, Texas; and James
Francis of Francis & Mailman PC in Philadelphia.

One deal, on behalf of 31,000 people, established a $13.5 million
settlement fund covering payments to class members, $3.375 million
in attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive awards totaling
$30,000 to the class representatives.

CCAF did not object to that settlement, but to another deal, on
behalf of 200 million people.

The second settlement established no fund, rather it put in place
a new regime for the next several years with regards to Lexis'
reports and paid the attorneys $5.5 million -- on top of their
fees from the other settlement -- and did not allow class members
to opt out.

Judge James R. Spencer of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia ruled on Sept. 5, 2014 that both proposed
settlements were a "fair, reasonable and adequate bargain" between
the defendants and the plaintiffs.

However, some class members objected to the settlements, and filed
a notice of appeal with the Fourth Circuit.

The objectors argued that Lexis violated the FCRA "willfully,"
making statutory damages of $100 and $1,000 available to all of
the class members.

The Fourth Circuit, in its ruling, found no error in the district
court's release of the statutory damages claims as part of the
settlement, and affirmed.

"Willfulness is a high standard, requiring knowing or reckless
disregard of the FCRA's requirements," the court wrote.

The objectors also took issue with certification of the settlement
class under Rule 23(b)(2), on the grounds that the monetary relief
sought was not incidental to injunctive or declaratory relief.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that the terms of the deal
made opt-out rights unnecessary.

CCAF argues the appellate court's decision sets an "unfortunate
precedent" for future class action cases.

"The Fifth, Seventh, Eleventh Circuits and even the Supreme Court
have all found differently -- injunctive relief is only
appropriate where class members' claims allow for injunctive
relief," Schulman said following the Fourth Circuit's ruling.

CCAF said the Dec. 18 petition for a rehearing was prompted by the
court's failure to follow governing Supreme Court law that
recognizes the "inherent potential" for abuses of the class action
settlement process.

"We fear this ruling will allow unscrupulous class counsel to
settle in ways that benefit themselves, while withholding the
remedies that Congress wanted class members to have," Schulman
said.


LIFELOCK INC: Settles FTC Charges for $113 Million
--------------------------------------------------
Austen Hufford, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
the Federal Trade Commission agreed to a $113 million settlement
with LifeLock Inc., alleging the company violated a previous 2010
settlement.

It is the largest monetary award obtained by the FTC to enforce a
previously agreed-upon settlement.  As part of the pact, LifeLock
neither confirmed nor denied the FTC's allegations.

The $113 million LifeLock will pay includes administrative and
legal fees. The FTC will get $32 million to pay for consumer
redress ordered by any U.S. state attorneys general.  According to
LifeLock, no redress claims from attorneys general have been
filled so far.  An additional $68 million will go toward claims in
a related class-action settlement that LifeLock has reached,
subject to court approval. In October, LifeLock said it set aside
$116 million to help pay for the potential settlement.

The regulatory body charged with protecting consumers claims
LifeLock ran misleading advertisements between 2012 and 2014.  The
FTC specifically had a problem with advertisements that claimed
LifeLock's services had the same safeguards as financial
institutions and that it would send alerts to clients as soon as
it suspected a client was a victim of identity theft.

The FTC also alleges that LifeLock failed to meet record-keeping
requirements from the 2010 settlement.

"The allegations raised by the FTC are related to advertisements
that we no longer run and policies that are no longer in place,"
LifeLock said in a statement.  "The settlement does not require us
to change any of our current products or practices."

In 2010, LifeLock paid $11 million to the FTC and $1 million to a
group of 35 U.S. attorneys general to settle charges that the
company had used false claims to promote its services in
advertisements.  The FTC at the time also said it had made false
statements about its own internal data policies.

In the settlement announced on Dec. 17, the FTC said LifeLock also
didn't properly establish internal policies to protect consumer
data from cyberattacks or leaks.  LifeLock said there is no
evidence that any data was ever stolen and that the FTC didn't
allege there was.

"This settlement demonstrates the commission's commitment to
enforcing the orders it has in place against companies, including
orders requiring reasonable security for consumer data," said FTC
Chairwoman Edith Ramirez.  "The fact that consumers paid LifeLock
for help in protecting their sensitive personal information makes
the charges in this case particularly troubling."

The settlement was approved by the FTC commission by a vote of
3-1.

The dissenting commissioner, Maureen Ohlhausen, specifically
called out the data-management charge as not having enough
evidence to support it.

"We agree with the dissenting commissioner," a lawyer representing
LifeLock, David Boies, said in an interview.  "We think this was a
FTC case that should not have been brought."


LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Settlement Obtains Conditional Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Sklar, writing for mynewsLA.com, reports that a judge on
Dec. 21 gave conditional approval to a proposed settlement that
calls for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to pay out
tens of millions of dollars in refunds to customers who were
billed inaccurate amounts during a problem-filled overhaul of the
utility's customer billing system.

Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said he supports the deal "in
principal," but wants changes to be made in the agreement to make
the refund claims process less complicated for DWP ratepayers,
according to attorney Gillian Wade, who represents a plaintiff
critical of the deal.

Judge Berle also would not commit to $13 million in attorneys'
fees that, under the current proposed agreement, would be given to
the lead attorney seven days after the deal's final approval,
according to Ms. Wade.

Judge Berle said he would decide after actual refund amounts --
rather than estimated figures -- have been calculated, the
attorney said.

Another hearing was set for Feb. 5 to consider preliminary
approval of the deal, Ms. Wade said.

LADWP officials said in a statement they are "pleased with Judge
Berle's decision to approve in principle the class action
settlement," which stems from the "failed implementation" of the
billing system.

City and DWP officials say they are continuing to seek damages
from Pricewaterhouse Coopers, which implemented the system in
2013.

Judge Berle described the settlement as "unique," "reasonable,
adequate and in the best interest of the settlement class,"
according to DWP officials.

Department officials added that "it makes good on a commitment we
made to our customers to review every account and make whole any
customer who was overcharged, regardless of how small the error."

"With this agreement, every customer who was affected will be
repaid 100 cents on the dollar," the statement said

"It also includes benchmarks and key performance indicators that
we fully intend to meet and report on to an independent monitor
appointed by the court on a quarterly basis for 18 months."

Those who were overcharged and still customers would get a credit,
while those who are no longer customers will receive a refund,
under the proposed settlement.

The refund or credit amounts will be reviewed by a third party,
and customers can dispute them by submitting a claim to an
"independent special master," DWP officials said.

This special master will make a recommendation to the court, and
if there is still disagreement, the customer can dispute the
amounts directly with the judge that oversaw the settlement.

Customers should receive information about their rights 90 days
from Monday, DWP officials said.

Mayor Eric Garcetti said the Dec. 21 ruling is "a big step towards
closing the chapter on overbilling at the LADWP."

"The settlement provides a transparent process to ensure that all
overcharged customers are refunded or credited for every dollar
they were wrongly charged," he said.

"As we continue to strengthen the performance of our public
utility and improve customer service, this settlement implements
reforms that will prevent this from happening again."

Judge Berle had delayed granting preliminary approval in two
previous hearings, after attorneys for some of the plaintiffs
raised objections to the way another attorney had drawn up the
terms with the DWP.

Consumer advocates also said they were concerned about the deal
because its terms give DWP officials too much power in deciding
how much they would refund or back-bill customers.

Utility officials say the deal, if accepted by the court, would
result in $44 million total in overcharges to be credited back to
customers and would give back "100 cents on the dollar to every
customer affected by our billing system problems."

They added that the settlement also gives customers a "thorough
and fair neutral process for resolving claims, including the
opportunity to have their claims heard directly by the court."

The most recent version of the settlement, which was filed in
court, includes all 12 revisions requested by Judge Berle,
according to DWP officials.

Those changes include putting in signature lines for class
plaintiff representatives, using six languages on the claims
forms, setting up an online claims submission system, and giving
clearer information about the kinds of claims ratepayers could
make.

Consumer advocates critical of the deal said before the Dec. 21
hearing that despite the recent revisions, the settlement terms
still would give DWP too much power to dictate the refund amount.

Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court called the revised
settlement "remarkably flawed," and the claims process it would
set up "confusing."

Court also lashed back at the DWP's statements, saying that the
attorney who crafted the settlement will get his $13 million in
fees as soon as the settlement deal goes through, while customers
may need to wait until 2017 or later to get their checks.


LOUISIANA: Sued Over New Food Stamp Eligibility Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Crisp, writing for The Advocate, reports that Gov.-elect
John Bel Edwards is moving to block a proposed change in food
stamp eligibility requirements that could kick thousands of
Louisiana residents off the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance
Program.

Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration in October announced that it
would not seek a federal waiver to allow low-income, able-bodied,
unemployed adults without dependents to continue receiving food
stamp benefits if they have not sought workforce training.

The change would have gone into effect Jan. 1, but Mr. Edwards,
who takes office Jan. 11, is asking the federal government and the
Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services to avoid any
interruption before he takes over.

"I will take the next year to work with DCFS and the Louisiana
Legislature to develop programs that offer workforce training and
assistance to those on SNAP benefits," Mr. Edwards said in a
statement.

Food stamp benefits average about $194 a month in Louisiana, but
SNAP is federally funded, so no state money would be saved through
the change.

A group in New Orleans filed a federal lawsuit seeking to stop the
new eligibility requirement.  Stand With Dignity, a grass-roots
group that's involved in the lawsuit, also has organized hunger
strikes and circulated petitions to raise attention.

In a statement on Dec. 21, Stand lead organizer Colette Tippy
praised Edwards' efforts to thwart what the group referred to as
"Jindal's starvation plan."

"We know that Gov.-elect Edwards cares about fighting poverty, and
his action today shows it.  Taking food out of people's mouths
doesn't create jobs, and it doesn't break down the barriers to
employment that low-income people and people of color face,"
Ms. Tippy said.

The group's class action suit, which was brought on behalf of
recipients who would lose benefits if the state didn't seek a
federal waiver, argues that the change is unconstitutional because
people were not given adequate notices.

"Without continued access to SNAP as mandated by due process and
federal law, these individuals face hunger and serious health
risk," the suit claims.

According to Mr. Edwards, the Department of Children and Family
Services estimates that 31,000 people faced the potential loss of
benefits Jan. 1 because they had not met the new requirement in
the past three months.  That figure originally was around 64,000
people, but more than half have since met the new requirement.

DCFS also told Mr. Edwards' transition team that the adults
affected would typically begin receiving their January electronic
deposits the week before he is sworn in.

DCFS didn't respond to emails and phone calls from The Advocate
seeking comment.

Louisiana is one of 31 states that can seek a federal work
requirement waiver because of its high unemployment rate.

But Jindal spokesman Mike Reed defended the administration's
decision not to seek another waiver when the previous one expired.

"The best way to break the cycle of poverty is for individuals to
get a job and get off of government assistance," he said in an
email. "Having a job is empowering.  This decision will mean more
able-bodied Louisianians will be dependent on the government and
discouraged from joining the workforce."

The department similarly defended the new employment requirement
when it was first announced this fall, with state Department of
Children and Family Services Secretary Suzy Sonnier calling the
change a "win-win."

"We believe that the more people work, the better for the state,
the better for the individual and their families," she said.

Under the new policy, food stamp recipients without children would
have to work at least 20 hours a week -- either in a paid job or
in a volunteer or non-paid capacity -- or be enrolled in a
federally approved job training program.  DCFS said it was working
with working with the Louisiana Workforce Commission to help
people find jobs and skills training.


MAC'S CONVENIENCE: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Diakiw, writing for Surrey North Delta Leader, reports that
Mac's Convenience Store in Canada is facing a class action.

He paid a firm $8,000 to arrange for a job at a Mac's Convenience
Store in Canada from his homeland of Dubai.

When he got here however, the job didn't exist and he ended up
living in homeless shelters.

Prakash Basyal's experience is just one of many and is at the
heart of a class action lawsuit being brought against Mac's and an
overseas immigration firm.

On Dec. 10, Basyal, Arthur Gortifacion Cajes, Edlyn Tesorero and
Bishnu Khadka filed action against Mac's Convenience Stores,
Overseas Immigration Services Inc., Overseas Career and Consulting
Services Ltd., and Trident Immigration Services.

The plaintiffs say the defendants are in breach of their
employment contracts, according to the Statement of Claim filed in
B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver.

None of the allegations made in the 43-page claim have been proven
in court, but provide the basis for the action against the firms.

A response to the statement has not been filed as of yet.

Carmela Allevato, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said she
found the stories she heard quite disturbing.

"It really touched my heart," she told The Leader on Dec. 18.
"(They) should have all the protections of the law and be able to
build a life here."

The Statement of Claim alleges Overseas Career Immigration
Services often held large recruitment fairs in the Middle East to
recruit foreign workers.

A linchpin of the initiative is the federal government's Temporary
Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), whereby immigrants are given work
visas when companies can't find local workers.

"Overseas charges workers approximately $8,000 to secure
employment in Canada," the statement says.  "Of that fee,
approximately $2,000 must be paid up front.  The remainder is paid
after the worker is supplied with (TFWP approvals) and an
employment contract with a Canadian employer."

In the cases being brought before the courts, that employer was
allegedly Mac's Convenience Stores.

Mr. Basyal was living in Dubai in 2012 when he was recruited at
one of Overseas' recruitment fairs.

He paid his $2,000 and was interviewed by Mac's.

He was given an employment contract that stipulated two years of
work at $11.40 an hour, with health care benefits as well.

"Mac's would not recoup the costs of his recruitment from
(Overseas)," the Statement of Claim says.

Mr. Basyal flew to Vancouver, where he was given a work permit
allowing him only to work at a Mac's store as a cashier.

A representative from Overseas "instructed Mr. Basyal to live in
an apartment with six to eight other workers in Surrey, British
Columbia," the Statement of Claim says.

The job at Mac's fell through, and Mr. Basyal was offered a job as
a farm laborer for a few months.  He refused.

He was then given a job at a bottle depot in Edmonton, where he
worked for a month without being paid.

The Canadian Border Services Agency found out about Mr. Basyal
working illegally in Edmonton and brought him to a homeless
shelter in that city.

He was then moved to a homeless shelter in Vancouver.

"Mr. Basyal suffered mental distress and hardship as a result of
the defendants' conduct," the Statement of Claim says.

The claim outlines the experience of several others, which are
quite similar to that of Mr. Basyal's.

Ms. Allevato says it's not the first class action lawsuit filed by
temporary foreign workers.

"We hope it will be the last one," Ms. Allevato said.  "We're
hoping with the new (federal) government, they'll overhaul the
whole program from the ground up."

As lawsuits can be expensive, it's unlikely Ms. Allevato's clients
will be able to pay for a lengthy court action.

"If at the end of the day we are successful, we get paid. If we're
unsuccessful, then we don't," she said.

It will take some time before the lawsuit reaches the courts, as
it still needs to be certified as a class action, she said.

Doug Hartl, a spokesman for Mac's Convenience Stores, referred to
a prepared statement.

"As a policy, we do not speculate on any legal actions in the
media," Mr. Hartl said.  "Should legal actions be initiated, we
will respond to the courts.

"I can say Mac's prides itself on being a good employer and does
not support fraudulent or exploitive work practices."


MONTEREY, CA: Female Inmate's Death in County Jail Raises Concerns
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelcey Adami, writing for The Californian, reports that loved
ones and attorneys want to know whether Marina resident
Larra Gillis received appropriate care after she was booked into
Monterey County Jail earlier in December and then died days after.

Around 7:10 a.m. on Dec. 4, California State University Police--
Monterey Bay police officers responded to a report of a woman
walking in and out of traffic on Reservation Road in Marina.

Officers responded and contacted Gillis, 47, who did not respond
to officers' directions and continued running into traffic, police
said.  She was restrained, placed in handcuffs and transported to
Monterey County Jail where she was booked on suspicion of being
under the influence of a controlled substance, obstructing police
and possession of marijuana.

It wasn't the first time Gillis had a run-in with the law, said
her common-law husband Donald Villareal, and on Saturday, Dec. 5,
he called the jail to get information on how to visit her.

He said he was told that she wasn't booked in yet.

Mr. Villareal called the jail daily over the next several days and
said jail staff told him that she was still detoxing from being
under the influence of methamphetamine.

But on Dec. 8, someone at a local hospital called his sister-in-
law and delivered the news that his wife had actually been taken
to a hospital's intensive care unit on Dec. 5, was in a coma and
had a 20 percent chance of living.

The news was "shocking" for Mr. Villareal, who had been with
Ms. Gillis for about 30 years after they first began dating while
in their teens.

Around 4:00 p.m. on Dec. 19, Ms. Gillis died after her organs
began to shut down, Mr. Villareal said.

Ms. Gillis leaves behind three of her own children, a 25-year-old
daughter, 19-year-old son and 13-year-old son, as well as others
she had helped raise with Mr. Villareal.

"She had her problems, but she would do anything for anybody,"
Mr. Villareal said.  "She was very helpful and everybody loved
her."

He believes she was held in a holding cell for 28 hours when she
should have been immediately taken to the hospital to detox.

Ms. Gillis' clothes were discarded when she went to the hospital
after she began bleeding and rolling in her own excrement at the
jail, Mr. Villareal added.  He said he understands that her
medical problems could have been caused by her drug use but is
concerned that she may not have received medical care that could
have saved her life.

"People at the hospital said she should have been brought in,
because then she wouldn't be in this condition," he said.

He also wants to know why family wasn't told for days that she had
gone to the hospital, and when family was notified, it was by
hospital staff.

"Bad things happen to a lot of people but this never should have
happened  . . . I'm not sure what happened, but something went
terribly wrong in that jail," Mr. Villareal said.

He hopes that any possible video footage from the jail may shed
light on the issue and plans on filing a complaint.

Monterey County Sheriff's Office Cmdr. John Thornberg said the
Monterey County Jail has detox facilities, and it depends on the
particular medical needs of an inmate on whether or not they are
taken to the hospital to detox or are treated at the jail's
facilities.

He confirmed that Gillis was brought to the jail on Dec. 4 and
then taken to the hospital on Dec. 5 for unspecified medical
reasons.  She was released from custody on Dec. 8 on her own
recognizance after a parole hold was dropped on a misdemeanor
charge, he said.

All inmates are medically evaluated at intake, Mr. Thornberg said,
and at some point after coming to the jail Gillis took a turn for
the worse.  Though Ms. Gillis was not in custody at the time of
her death, the case will be reviewed by MCSO officials.

"As with any major event that happens at the jail, we always take
a look to make sure protocol is being followed and if there's
anything that can be improved upon," Mr. Thornberg said.

The Monterey County Jail's care of inmates has been under scrutiny
for some time.  This year alone, three inmates have killed
themselves, and at least two others have died within custody, one
most recently on Nov. 30.

A 2014-15 civil grand jury report cited inmate health and safety
issues at the jail, and several of those same problems earlier led
to a $4.8 million class action lawsuit filed in 2013 in federal
district court by current and former inmates of Monterey County
Jail.

The suit, filed against Monterey County, the Sheriff's Office and
the jail's medical provider, California Forensics Medical Group,
Inc., alleged problems including insufficient custody staffing,
inadequate inmate classification system, dangerous jail facilities
that make it difficult to monitor inmates, overcrowding, and a
lack of staff training.

In January, the court granted class action status to the case, and
in April in a preliminary injunction, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul
Grewal ordered the jail to outline a remediation plan.

In May, the parties reached a tentative settlement of the case
that included additional county funding to correct most of the
substandard conditions alleged in the action, according to the
grand jury's report.

Ernest Galvan, an attorney with the law firm involved in the class
action suit, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, said Ms. Gillis'
case is very concerning regardless of whether or not she was in
custody at the time of her death.

"Everybody that has had custody of a person close to when they've
gotten this sick should look closely at how they handled the case
and not pass the buck to the hospital.  Maybe it's true in any
particular case that the situation got worse at the hospital, but
I think it's important for any jail, especially one with a
troubled history like Monterey County, not to be satisfied with
that answer but look at 'how did we handle that case?'" Mr. Galvan
said.  "'Did we work on keeping her condition from
deteriorating?'"

Orders from federal court in the class action lawsuit required the
jail to improve medical care, mental health care and detox at the
jail, Mr. Galvan noted.  Jail staff and attorneys have said that
the jail is in the midst of making improvements at the jail,
though Mr. Galvan would prefer that those changes happen faster.

Jail populations often do become ill for a variety of reasons, but
the jail needs to be better prepared to rapidly and appropriately
care for the inmates, he said.

"They need to be ready for that and able to respond quickly enough
where people don't get conditions that go out of control and where
people lose their lives," Mr. Galvan said.  "It's a very grave
concern at the Monterey County Jail on whether they are responding
fast enough."

The Monterey County Public Defender's Office and the American
Civil Liberties Union were also part of the lawsuit against the
jail, and Monterey County Public Defender Jim Egar said his office
is reviewing the Gillis case.

"The situations keep happening, including this most recent health
situation, and it causes me great concern as to whether any change
or the pace of change is adequate . . . I'm hopeful that the
situation will improve in the future but this certainly suggests
that there are still big problems there," he said.

The public defender's office has requested information on Gillis
from the jail, the Monterey County Sheriff's Office, the Monterey
County attorney's office, and the jail's medical provider.

"The first and foremost concern of the sheriff and county should
be the care of those people who are in its custody regardless of
the charges or hold that are on them . . . There have just been
too many suicides and detoxification-, overdose- and illness-
related deaths under the care being provided," Mr. Egar said.
"That's what caused us to initiate this case to begin with."


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Won't Fund $16 Million NIH CTE Study
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom Ley, writing for Deadspin, reports that in September 2012, the
NFL proudly announced that it would be making an "unrestricted
gift" of $30 million to the National Institutes of Health, the
purpose of which was to fund further research into football's
relationship to brain damage, and to hopefully discover a way to
diagnose CTE in living patients.  According to ESPN's Outside the
Lines, that gift was not so unrestricted after all, and the NFL
has backed away from funding a $16 million study because the
league doesn't like the respected doctor who will lead it.

Here's Outside the Lines:

When the NFL's "unrestricted" $30 million gift was announced in
2012, the NIH said the money came "with no strings attached;"
however, an NIH official clarified the gift terms two years later,
telling Outside the Lines that, in fact, the league retained veto
power over projects that it funds.

Sources told Outside the Lines that the league exercised that
power when it learned that Robert Stern, a professor of neurology
and neurosurgery at Boston University, would be the project's lead
researcher.  The league, sources said, raised concerns about
Stern's objectivity, despite an exhaustive vetting process that
included a "scientific merit review" and a separate evaluation by
a dozen high-level experts assembled by the NIH.

Mr. Stern has been critical of the NFL's handling of brain injury,
particularly the $765 million class-action settlement that the
league paid to retired players dealing with the effects of head
trauma.  Mr. Stern's criticism of the settlement was that many
deceased NFL players who were found to have had CTE wouldn't have
gotten any money from the settlement because they didn't exhibit
any of the specific symptoms that the settlement covered.

The NFL denies that it "pulled" any funding, which is doubtless
technically accurate -- Outside the Lines is reporting that the
league exercised veto power, not that it pulled already-committed
money -- but beside the point. Aside from the league making clear
through whatever precise means that its money isn't to be used to
fund studies run by doctors it doesn't approve of, the big thing
here is that the NFL apparently lied when it called the gift
"unrestricted."  For years, the league has pointed to this "no
strings attached" donation as evidence that it is serious about
discovering ways to diagnose and hopefully prevent CTE.  All that
talk from the commissioner's office appears to have been bullshit.

Meanwhile, the quack doctor who spent years trying to discredit
and downplay football's connection to brain trauma is still
drawing a paycheck from the league.


NEUSTAR INC: $2.6MM Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James C. Cacheris granted the Lead Plaintiff's
unopposed for motion for final approval of proposed class action
settlement and plan of allocation, and motion for attorneys' fees
and expenses in the captioned case IN RE NEUSTAR, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No.: 1:14cv885 (JCC/TRJ), (E.D. Va.).

The gross Settlement amount is $2,625,000.

This case involved allegations that Defendants NeuStar, Inc. and
several NeuStar executives made fraudulent statements or omissions
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The statements or
omissions related to NeuStar's competitiveness in the bidding
process for a lucrative Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
contract that NeuStar previously administered. Despite indications
that NeuStar might lose the bidding, Defendants allegedly made
public statements between April 18, 2013, and June 6, 2014,
reassuring investors of the competitiveness of NeuStar's bid. This
legal proceeding began shortly after the FCC inadvertently
disclosed that NeuStar would not win the contract.

Lead Plaintiff's predecessor filed this federal securities class
action on behalf of those who purchased NeuStar's publicly traded
common stock between April 19, 2013, and June 6, 2014. The Court
appointed the Indiana Public Retirement Systems as Lead Plaintiff
and approved selected counsel. Thereafter, the Court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Defendants' statements
were not actionable under the securities law, there was no loss
causation, and Defendants did not act with the requisite scienter.

Lead Plaintiff timely noticed an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, but the parties reached an
agreement in settlement before briefing their appellate arguments.
The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to
consider the proposed Settlement.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated December 8, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/2H0yiJfrom Leagle.com.

The court-appointed Claims Administrator distributed more than
44,000 packets notifying potential Class members of the Settlement
amount and terms. Additionally, the notices informed interested
parties how to object to the Settlement. After notice through the
thousands of packets, print publications, and broadcasts, only one
objection was received.

Class Counsel received expert advice from a Virginia Corporation,
Nathan Associates, Inc., to create the plan of allocation.  The
plan treats class members fairly by awarding a pro rata share to
every claimant. However, the plan also accounts for the fact that
not every class member suffered identical losses attributable to
Defendants' actions. Specifically, the plan identifies three dates
corresponding with Defendants' actions that likely affected the
amount of artificial inflation in NeuStar share prices at the time
of purchase. Specifically, Lead Plaintiff believes that the merits
of the claims against Defendants became stronger on October 30,
2013,4 because this was the "first date on which Defendants made
allegedly false and misleading statements after Neustar submitted
an unsolicited, revised best-and-final offer for the NPAC
contracts that was subsequently rejected." The planned allocation
"fairly treats class members by awarding a pro rata share to every
Authorized Claimant, but also sensibly makes interclass
distinctions based upon, inter alia, the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the class members' individual claims and the timing
of purchases of the securities at issue." Accordingly, the Court
finds the plan to be a fair, reasonable, and adequate allocation
of settlement proceeds and approves the plan of allocation.

The Court also approved the $498,750 requested in attorneys' fees.
The Court finds that the attorneys' fees -- equal to 19% of the
Settlement fund -- are a reasonable award in this case. The Court
finds this fee sufficient to incentivize qualified counsel to
expend the significant resources necessary to effectively litigate
meritorious cases. The Court finds the fee award of 19% of the
Settlement is fair and reasonable compensation for Class Counsel.

According to the Court, the case presented difficult factual and
legal problems for counsel, but proceeded through the stages of
litigation at a rapid pace. The potential for nonpayment became
even more apparent after the Court dismissed Lead Plaintiff's
amended complaint. Despite this risk of nonpayment, Class Counsel
worked nearly 2,100 hours and advanced or incurred almost $120,000
in expenses during the course of litigation and settlement to
secure a favorable result for the Class. Thus, beyond mere risk of
nonpayment, Class Counsel stood to lose substantial sunk costs if
this case ended with an unfavorable judgment on the merits.

Skilled counsel committed substantial resources to achieve a fair
result for the class, despite the legal and factual difficulties
that this case presented. Furthermore, the fees fall below those
commonly awarded in similar cases and prompted no objection from
class members. A lodestar cross-check confirms that this award
appropriately balances competing public policies by fairly
compensating counsel.

Class Counsel's claimed costs include expert fees, computer
research fees, transportation expenses, mediation fees, and
various expenses for document printing, filing, and delivery. The
bulk of these expenses arise from almost $80,000 paid to Class
Counsel's loss causation and damages expert, who opined on issues
of market efficiency, loss causation, and damages during
settlement mediation and negotiation and helped structure the plan
of allocation. The expenses appear to be reasonable, given the
case's complexity, the time and effort required, and the fact that
no class member objected to the notice disclosing a potential
expense request of $200,000.

Elizabeth Anne Aniskevich, Esq. -- eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com -
- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC serves as counsel for
Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated

John Marcus McNichols, Esq. -- jmcnichols@wc.com -- of Williams &
Connolly LLP serves as counsel for Defendant Neustar, Inc.


NEW YORK: Captain Promoted Despite Rikers Island Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuven Blau and Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily
News, report that city jail honchos promoted a captain even though
he is under investigation for his role in a violent encounter
where officers forced a recalcitrant inmate to make a court
appearance.

Adeboye Fadina was in charge of a heavily armored probe team that
yanked inmate, Terrance Warden, 32, out of bed during the physical
confrontation in June, video obtained by the Daily News shows.
The footage provides an inside view of the jail rarely seen by the
public.

Mr. Warden had refused to go to Queens criminal court multiple
times, sparking the showdown, jail sources said.

The intense handheld footage was shot inside the Vernon C. Bain
Center and shows Mr. Fadina, a white-shirt jail captain, briefly
placing his hand on Mr. Warden's throat and blasting him in the
face at least twice with pepper spray at close range.

The June incident remains under investigation, according to a
department spokeswoman.

"DOC is seeking to uncover the full details of this incident,"
said Eve Kessler.

Meanwhile, Mr. Fadina was promoted from captain to assistant
deputy warden Oct. 14, records show.

Several of Mr. Fadina's colleagues said the former captain and the
other officers followed the department's strict protocol.

"He did nothing wrong," a colleague said, referring to Mr. Fadina.

Mr. Fadina was one of many defendants in the class action that
resulted in the federally mandated overhaul of Rikers Island.
Inmate Sonny Ortiz alleged that correction officers had slammed
his head into a wall, hit him with batons, thrown him in a shower
and poured scalding water on his naked body on Sept. 5, 2011.
Mr. Fadina allegedly demanded Ortiz sign a bogus statement
declaring that all his injuries were the result of a brawl with an
inmate.

The claims were dismissed as a result of the city's $150,000
settlement with Ortiz.

In a separate suit, Rikers inmate Gabriel Garcia charged that on
Oct. 2, 2011 Mr. Fadina punched him the face twice for no reason
in the bathroom of the Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center.
Mr. Garcia had to undergo surgery for fractures to his face.  That
suit was settled in 2013 for $130,000.

Mr. Fadina did not respond to requests for comment.

His confrontation with Mr. Warden is not unusual, according to
insiders.

So-called cell extractions -- which the city began tracking in
September as part of the federally-mandated reform of Rikers --
occur roughly once every three days, DOC statistics show.

Jail sources say that number woefully under-represents the
challenge of getting inmates to comply.

Inmate advocates contend more needs to be done to coax
recalcitrant inmates to appear in court without violence.

"I see no effort to de-escalate the situation," said Glenn Martin,
president Just Leadership USA, a criminal justice reform
organization.

"It seemed like a physical altercation was the only method that
the officers were interested in employing," he added.

Mr. Martin and other inmate advocates are urging the city to
shutdown Rikers Island and move inmates to new facilities in
different boroughs.

"Rikers is a place mired in punishment," he said.  "Anything that
resembles disobedience is met with brute force."

Jails Commissioner Joseph Ponte is working to overhaul the
department.

He has revamped officer training to emphasize de-escalation,
requiring new officers take an 8-hour course on working with the
mentally ill.

The department has also developed crisis intervention teams to
talk down angry inmates instead of using force.  But they were not
in place when the incident happened.

Mr. Warden is now serving a six-year prison sentence for second-
degree assault.  His lawyer did not respond to requests for
comment.


ORACLE INC: Settles FTC Deceptive Advertising Charges
-----------------------------------------------------
Krebson Security reports that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
announced it reached settlements with software giant Oracle and
identity protection firm LifeLock over separate charges of
allegedly deceiving users and customers about security.  LifeLock
agreed to pay $100 million for violating a 2010 promise to cease
deceptive advertising practices. Oracle's legal troubles with the
FTC stem from its failure to fully remove older, less secure
versions of Java when consumers installed the latest Java
software.

The FTC sued Oracle over years of failing to remove older, more
vulnerable versions of Java SE when consumers updated their
systems to the newest Java software.  Java is installed on more
than 850 million computers, but only recently (in Aug. 2014) did
the company change its updater software to reliably remove older
versions of Java during the installation process.

According to the FTC's complaint, since acquiring Java in 2010,
Oracle was aware of significant security issues affecting older
versions of Java SE.  The FTC charges that Oracle was aware of the
insufficiency of its update process.

"Internal documents stated that the 'Java update mechanism is not
aggressive enough or simply not working,' and that a large number
of hacking incidents were targeting prior versions of Java SE's
software still installed on consumers' computers," the FTC said
"The security issues allowed hackers' to craft malware that could
allow access to consumers' usernames and passwords for financial
accounts, and allow hackers to acquire other sensitive personal
information through phishing attacks."

Few sites require Java to display content anymore, and most
regular users can likely do without the program given the
incessant security holes introduced by the program and its record
of being abused by malicious software to infect millions of
systems.


PAGEDALE, MO: Faces Class Action Over Unreasonable Fines
--------------------------------------------------------
MissouriWatchdog.org reports that in Pagedale, Missouri, residents
have been ticketed and fined by the town's police force for
violations that don't even begin to make rational sense.

One resident, Valerie Whitner, has been fined for having chipped
paint on the outside of her home and for not attaching a screen
door to her back door.  She's been told by city officials she must
replace her rain gutters, her siding and put up storm windows.
They also told her to mend her fence, cut her lawn and seal up
cracks in her home's foundation.

Ms. Whitner's plight -- she owes the city more than $2,400 in
violations -- made it into the New York Times in November and now
she's one of a handful of city residents who are part of a lawsuit
that challenges the nannies in Pagedale.

"Every morning I wake up worried that I'll get another ticket,"
Ms. Whitner said in a statement provided by the Institute for
Justice, a nonprofit law firm helping with the lawsuit.

Another plaintiff in the class action suit is Mildred Bryant, an
84-year-old grandmother who has received citations from the city
for having mismatched curtains and failing to have blinds in every
window.  She's been told to repaint her porch too, according to
the lawsuit filed in November.

All towns have some silly rules on the books, but Pagedale sets
the bar at a new level.  It's against the law for residents to
have a basketball hoop, plastic pool or doghouse in their front
yards. Satellite dishes are illegal.  So are barbeque grills
(though the town does graciously make an exception to that ban on
"national holidays").

Uncut grass, overgrown gardens and fallen tree limbs are likely to
result in a ticket.

It's even illegal for children to play in the street.

In other words, city officials in Pagedale see themselves as the
nation's most ridiculous homeowners' association.

Except a homeowners' association can't punish you the same way
Pagedale can.  Get caught violating the rules three times and you
could end up in jail for three months.

Vincent Blount, a retired Marine and another plaintiff in the
lawsuit, was once thrown in jail because he did not have enough
money to pay the fines Pagedale officials were levying against
him. How, exactly, was he supposed to make that money while
sitting in jail?

Even if you want to pay the city, it can be difficult.  The
Pagedale Municipal Court is in session just twice per month.  The
town does not let residents plead "not guilty" or otherwise
contest violations unless they go to court -- though you can plead
guilty and pay the fine via mail.

Not surprisingly, Pagedale, which has about 3,300 residents, makes
a lot of money off all those fines.  In 2014, the city issued
2,255 non-traffic related tickets.  Revenue from non-traffic
tickets made up more than 17 percent of the city's budget that
year.

The Institute for Justice contends that Pagedale is running a
"policing for profit" scheme and is asking the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to rule the
practice unconstitutional.

"This case demonstrates that property rights are fundamentally
civil rights," said Institute for Justice senior attorney William
Mauer, who is lead counsel in the lawsuit.  "Pagedale treats its
residents like walking, talking ATMs, making withdrawals by
issuing tickets for ridiculous things that no city has a right to
dictate."

An attorney for the city says officials aren't trying to make
money off the housing code violations.

"It's got nothing to do with driving up revenue, and it's got
everything to do with making the properties code compliant and
safe," attorney Sam Alton told the New York Times.

Believe him if you will, but Pagedale doesn't seem to be a
completely isolated case.  A study conducted by Better Together
St. Louis, a regional nonprofit working to improve civic
governments, found that towns in St. Louis County (excluding the
city of St. Louis itself) collected more than $45 million in fines
from residents during 2013.

That's more than one-third of all the fines collected by all
municipalities in the entire state that year. Those municipalities
account for about 10 percent of the state's total population.

"This is life in Pagedale," says Ms. Whitner.


PITTSBURGH, PA: Says Police Hiring Discrimination Claims Weak
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh's Action News 4 reports that attorneys for the city of
Pittsburgh filed a response to the lawsuit filed by The ACLU.

The attorneys say claims by James Foster and the other four lead
plaintiffs were "extremely weak."

Mr. Foster was one of five black applicants who sued in 2012 with
the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, claiming that
screening practices resulted in fewer than 4 percent of recruits
being black in a city whose population is 26 percent black.

The city paid nearly $1.6 million to settle the lawsuit earlier
this year, but denied intentional bias.  Screening changes
resulted in a recruiting class -- including Mr. Foster -- that was
25 percent black.

The ACLU sued in August 2012, claiming that only 23 of 530
officers hired since 2001 have been black and arguing that a
selection process, whose final step was a "Chief's Roundtable" of
top police bureau officials, discriminated against blacks and
favored friends of those already on the force.  During much of
that time, the city's police chief was black, as were several
commanders.

Although only five plaintiffs sued, the ACLU asked a federal judge
to declare the case a class-action on behalf of about 300
candidates it claims were wrongly passed over.

About 17 percent of city police officers were black when the
lawsuit was filed and that's dropped to 13 percent even though the
city and ACLU jointly hired an expert to begin studying the issue
in 2013.  Chief Cameron McLay, who is white, has begun reforms
designed to entice more black applicants.

The ACLU lawsuit said Foster, who first applied to the Pittsburgh
police in 2008, was No. 3 on a final list of officers but was
passed over by at least 32 white applicants who ranked lower on
the list.

But city attorneys filed a response to that lawsuit saying claims
by Mr. Foster and the other four lead plaintiffs were "extremely
weak."

Mr. Foster had three warrants for failing to respond to citations,
spotty work records and a "poor" driving record with at least nine
citations that "placed his likelihood of success on the job below
the other candidates," the city said then.

Another plaintiff who applied in 2009 was No. 11 on the final list
but wasn't selected, though 49 hiring offers were made.

But that plaintiff acknowledged a "long history of illicit drug
use and dealing" including smoking marijuana between 800 and 1,000
times and arranging drug deals from 1996 to 2004, city attorneys
said.  That "rendered him less desirable for the position of
Police Officer Recruit than applicants with whom he was compared,"
city attorneys wrote.

The settlement includes up to $600,000 in attorneys' fees and
$985,000 for roughly 360 black candidates rejected from 2008 to
2014.  It doesn't include $250,000 paid to a consulting firm
helping the city's ongoing efforts to revise its hiring practices.


POP WARNER: Injured Player's Claim Can Proceed, Faces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Farrey, writing for ABC7, reports that in a case with
potential national implications, a California judge has ruled that
a teenage football player who was paralyzed by an on-field hit can
proceed to trial against the Pop Warner organization and the
coaches he alleges encouraged him to tackle in a dangerous, head-
first manner.

The decision represents a blow to Pop Warner, which had argued
that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the mother of
Donnovan Hill signed a pre-participation waiver acknowledging that
football is a sport that could cause serious injuries.  Los
Angeles Superior Court Judge Frederick Shaller rejected that
defense, writing that the waiver does not cover gross negligence.

Judge Shaller set a court date for Dec. 22, when Pop Warner and
the coaches will have the opportunity to challenge the summary
judgment ruling, which clears the way for the lawsuit to head to
trial in April.

The coaches face a claim of gross negligence for allegedly
teaching Hill to tackle with his head.  On his Lakewood, Calif.,
team, Hill, then 13, used that technique in the Southern
California championship game in 2011, as he did in other games. He
is now a quadriplegic, with minimal use of his arms.

Judge Shaller also declined to absolve of responsibility the
national office of Pop Warner, which touts itself as committed to
safety but allowed Hill to be coached by volunteers with no
training in the organization's preferred technique.  Then-head
coach Sal Hernandez, a barber, told Outside the Lines in 2013 that
he completed the required training, but in a deposition he later
admitted he never took the online modules.  None of the
administrators at the local, regional or national level noticed or
took action against him.

"What's striking is how little Pop Warner does behind the scenes
to meet its promises," said Rob Carey, lawyer for Hill and his
mother, Crystal Dixon.  "They're hosting a combat sport with
little kids, and not doing anything they say they're doing to
protect them. Nobody's enforcing the safety rules, nobody's
checking on safety certification, and there's no process in place
to identify inefficiencies in safety training.  There are no
penalties for non-compliance, and no structure to resolve
problems.  That's all on Pop Warner national.  That's what they're
supposed to do, provide systems that protect children."

Lawyers representing Pop Warner and the coaches did not respond to
requests for comment.  In filings, they argue that Mr. Hill must
show the coaches meant to cause the injuries or that their conduct
was reckless.

Doug Abrams, a University of Missouri law professor, said the
ruling is significant in that it holds a national youth sport
organization accountable for a failure of process in protecting
against serious injury at the community level.

"It should have the effect of encouraging more coaches to get
trained," he said.  "We don't live in the 1970s anymore,
particularly in a sport like football where you have concussions.
Cases like this are going to make governing bodies more attuned to
promoting certification classes and refresher courses and
providing greater oversight than what Pop Warner showed here.
Sometimes it takes something like this to wake people up."

Mr. Abrams said the ruling will encourage Pop Warner to settle the
suit.  But Mr. Carey said the organization is "vastly
underinsured," with just $2 million on its liability policy.
Mr. Hill could ask for more than $10 million at trial because of
his long-term medical care needs, Mr. Carey said, adding that if
he wins a large jury award, Mr. Hill could potentially receive all
assets of the national office of Pop Warner, the nation's oldest
youth sports organization.

"Unless Pop Warner can figure out a funding mechanism, that'll be
Donnovan's only remedy," he said.

Judge Shaller's ruling adds to the troubles for Pop Warner, which
has been beset by falling participation and legal challenges on
multiple fronts.  In February, a Wisconsin family whose son
committed suicide at age 25 and was later found to have Chronic
Traumatic Encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease, sued Pop
Warner for allegedly failing to warn players about, and protect
them from, the dangers of head trauma.

Pop Warner also faces a class-action claim by Mr. Hill's mother,
Dixon, on behalf of all parents in California who signed their
child up for Pop Warner teams.  Dixon claims Pop Warner made false
statements about the relative safety of the sport.  Mr. Carey said
the organization hurt itself further by claiming on its website
that, even after Mr. Hill was hurt, it has never had a
catastrophic head or neck injury.  Asked in his September 2015
deposition why his organization did that, Pop Warner executive
director Jon Butler said, "There's no good answer other than you
don't want to advertise the negative."

Pop Warner offers football and cheer programs for 325,000 youth
ages 5 to 16, but rising legal costs and loss of membership fees
are taking their toll on the organization.  Since 2011, revenues
have fallen from $5.7 million to $4.1 million, with annual profits
turning to growing deficits, according to its federal 990 reports.
The organization lost $127,886 in 2013, the most recent year on
file.


RITE AID: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 22 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of shareholders of
Rite Aid Corporation on October 27, 2015, in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Rite Aid by Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from December 22, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

The complaint charges Rite Aid, its Board of Directors, Walgreens
and certain affiliates of Walgreens with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Rite Aid is a retail drugstore
chain that sells prescription drugs and a range of other
merchandise referred to as "front-end products."

On October 27, 2015, Rite Aid and Walgreens jointly announced that
they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to
which Walgreens will purchase Rite Aid for $9.00 per share in
cash.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at $17.2 billion.

The complaint alleges that in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, on November 23, 2015, defendants filed a materially
false and misleading preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A
with the SEC in violation of Secs. 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934
Act.  The Proxy, which recommends that Rite Aid shareholders vote
in favor the Proposed Transaction, fails to disclose material
information regarding the negotiation and approval of the Proposed
Transaction and deprives the Company's shareholders of their right
to cast an informed vote on the deal.  According to the complaint,
the Proxy fails to disclose the following material information,
which renders the statements in the Proxy materially false and/or
misleading: (a) the terms of a certain alternate bidder's
indications of interest; (b) the nature of the Board's financial
advisor's conflict of interest; (c) management's financial
forecast; (d) management's alternate forecast; (e) discussions
regarding financial benefits to the Board and Rite Aid management;
(f) discussions regarding management's equity rollovers; and (g)
material metrics and assumptions underlying the financial
advisor's valuation analysis.  Without this material information,
the Company's shareholders cannot make an informed decision on how
to vote their shares or whether to seek appraisal.

Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive and equitable relief on
behalf of holders of Rite Aid stock on October 27, 2015.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

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


SAMSUNG CORP: April 14 Fairness Hearing in ODD Antitrust Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlements in the captioned case IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: DIRECT PURCHASER
CLASS ACTIONS, Case No.: 3:10-md-02143 RS, MDL No. 2143, (N.D.
Cal.)

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlements with the following groups of
defendants:

     (1) BenQ Corp. and BenQ America Corp.;

     (2) Pioneer Corp.; Pioneer North America, Inc; Pioneer
         Electronics (USA) Inc.; and Pioneer High Fidelity Taiwan
         Co., Ltd.;

     (3) Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.; Lite-On It Corp.;
         Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corp.; and Philips
         & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc.;

     (4) Quanta Storage Inc. and Quanta Storage America, Inc.;

     (5) Sony Corp.; Sony Optiarc, Inc.; Sony Optiarc America,
         Inc.; Sony NEC Optiarc Inc.; and Sony Electronics, Inc.;

     (6) TEAC Corp. and TEAC America, Inc.; and

     (7) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics
         America, Inc.; Toshiba Corp.; Toshiba America
         Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba Samsung Storage
         Technology Corp.; and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology
         Korea Corp.

In his Revised Order dated December 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/dwoGFofrom Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement. The Court finds that the settlements fall within the
range of possible final approval and that there is a sufficient
basis for notifying the settlement class and for setting a
Fairness Hearing. The Court further finds that the prerequisites
to certifying a settlement class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 are
satisfied for settlement purposes in that: (a) there are hundreds
of geographically dispersed settlement class members, making
joinder of all members impracticable; (b) there are questions of
law and fact common to the settlement class which predominate over
individual issues; (c) the claims or defenses of the settlement
class plaintiffs are typical of the claims or defenses of the
settlement class; (d) the plaintiffs will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the settlement class, and have retained
counsel experienced in antitrust class action litigation who have,
and will continue to, adequately represent the settlement class;
and (e) a settlement class resolution is superior to individual
settlements.

The Court appoints the Plaintiffs named in the Third Consolidated
Direct Purchaser Class Action Complaint, filed April 17, 2013, as
Representative Plaintiffs of the settlement class. The Court
appoints the law firm of Saveri & Saveri, Inc. to serve as Class
Counsel for the settlement class. Plaintiffs' claims administrator
shall provide notice of the class settlements. The claims
administrator shall provide direct notice of the settlements to
all members of the settlement class on or before January 7, 2016.
Such notice shall be sent either by first class U.S. mail (postage
prepaid) or by electronic mail. The claims administrator shall
publish the Short Form Notice in the national edition of the Wall
Street Journal on or before January 7, 2016. The claims
administrator shall also cause a copy of the Long-Form Notice and
Settlement Agreements to be posted on the internet website
www.odddirectpurchaserantitrustsettlement.com on or before January
7, 2016. Each settlement class member shall have the right to be
excluded from the settlement class by mailing a request for
exclusion to the claims administrator no later than February 22,
2016. Requests for exclusion must be in writing and set forth the
name and address of the person or entity, who wishes to be
excluded, as well as all trade names or business names and
addresses used by such person or entity, and must be signed by the
class member seeking exclusion.

No later than March 7, 2016, Class Counsel shall file with the
Court a list of all persons or entities who have timely requested
exclusion from the settlement class as provided in the settlement
agreements.  Each settlement class member who has not timely
excluded itself from the settlements shall have the right to
object to (1) the settlements, and/or (2) the plan of allocation
by filing written objections with the Court no later than February
22, 2016, copies of which shall be served on all counsel listed in
the class notice. Failure to timely file and serve written
objections will preclude a class member from objecting to any or
all of the settlements. Each settlement class member as provided
above shall have the right to appear at the Fairness Hearing by
filing a Notice of Intention to Appear no later than February 22,
2016, copies of which shall be served on all counsel listed in the
class notice.

The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing on April 14, 2016 at
1:30 p.m. The Fairness Hearing will be conducted to determine the
following: a. Whether each proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be granted final approval; b.
Whether final judgment should be entered dismissing the claims of
the settlement class against Settling Defendants; c. Approval of
the plan of allocation; and d. Such other matters as the Court may
deem appropriate. All briefs, memoranda and papers in support of
final approval of the settlements shall be filed no later March
24, 2016.

On or before February 18, 2016, DPPs shall file their motion for
attorney's fees, expenses, and incentive awards (Fee Motion). DPPs
shall post the file-stamped version of the Fee Motion on the class
website within one day of its filing. Class members shall have
until March 10, 2016 to file any written objections to the Fee
Motion. A hearing on the Fee Motion shall be held on April 14,
2016 at 1:30 p.m. Each class member shall have until March 7, 2016
to submit a claim, either by mailing a completed claim form to
Plaintiffs' claims administrator or by filling out an online claim
form on the class website. Claims submitted in connection with the
HLDS, Panasonic, and NEC settlements will automatically be
included in this second round of claim submission. Class Counsel
shall have until March 24, 2016 to file a response to any
objections to the Fee Motion as well as a report on claims
submitted.

Dianne M. Nast, Esq. -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- of NastLaw LLC and
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. -- rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- of
Finkelstein Thompson LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Rokas
Beresniovas

Evan J Werbel, Esq. -- evan.werbel@bakerbotts.com -- of Baker
Botts LLP serves as counsel for Defendant Philips Electronics
North America Corporation


SLATER & GORDON: Maurice Blackburn Files Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert and Nassim Khadem, writing for The Sydney Morning
Herald, report that struggling law firm Slater and Gordon is now
facing a class action by rival Maurice Blackburn.

Maurice Blackburn released a statement on Dec. 23 saying that it
was "opening registrations to aggrieved shareholders wanting to
pursue a class action".

Slater & Gordon's shares have fallen around 90 per cent in the
past 12 months, after a series of questions about its accounting
practices and the performance of its British legal services
business, Quindell, which it acquired in March for $1.3 billion.

Slater & Gordon has been subject to major investigations by
regulators in Australia and Britain.

Maurice Blackburn said in a statement: "The decision has been made
after long and serious consideration of the series of events that
have plagued [Slater & Gordon] this year."

The class action will be open to people who purchased shares
between April 1 and December 16.  Shareholders who purchased
during that period but have since sold out are allowed to
participate as per usual class action practice.

Analysts recently suggested Slater & Gordon could undertake an
emergency capital raising and cull its dividends to keep its
bankers at bay after its planned write-down of goodwill.
Slater & Gordon noted the recent media statements regarding law
firms announcing investigations into the viability of shareholder
class actions in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange
"The company has not been notified of any legal proceedings," the
statement read.  "Slater and Gordon will continue to monitor the
situation and update the market if necessary." The law firm also
confirmed it would not represent itself if the class action did go
ahead.

Maurice Blackburn principal Jacob Varghese told a press conference
on Dec. 23 Slater & Gordon had lost $1.8 billion in shareholder
value over the past year and there were thousands of aggrieved
shareholders.

"On five occasions this year shareholders have been shocked by bad
news about the company that has led to immediate falls in the
share price," Mr. Varghese said.

"That happens once it's a tragedy, that happens twice it's a
farce, that happens three, four and five times and you've got to
start asking serious questions about the quality of governance and
the internal accounting systems," Mr. Varghese said.

The focus of the class action will be whether the company had
grounds to issue its 2016 full year guidance on August 28 and its
decision to reaffirm the guidance most recently as November 30.

The company suffered another share price fall on December 17 when
it decided to walk away from its earnings guidance.  The class
action will also look at the Quindell acquisition and the
company's accounting practices.

Mr. Varghese noted the irony of Maurice Blackburn launching a
class action against Slater & Gordon which it competes with in the
class action space.

"In terms of Slater & Gordon main practice they are a law firm
that works for plaintiffs and that is something we should all have
respect for because we're all in the same boat," Mr. Varghese
said.

"But Slater & Gordon runs a very different business to Maurice
Blackburn they're a listed company and as a listed company they
have obligations to shareholders to keep them in their confidence
to tell them how the business is going because important decisions
are made to allocate capital on the basis of an assumption that
the market is fair and the companies participating are
transparent," Mr. Varghese added.

Slater & Gordon and other market participants have put some of the
blame on the law firm's share price fall on a battle between the
company and short sellers who have been profiting by betting on
the company's share price falling.

Mr. Varghese said Maurice Blackburn would investigate the role
short sellers have played in the falls in Slater & Gordon's share
price.

"But that's not the nub of any issue that will be in a shareholder
class action.  The shareholder class action will be about the
timeliness about the release of information," Mr. Varghese said.

Meanwhile, ACA Lawyers is also in the preliminary stages of
preparing a class action though it is yet to formally launch an
action.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Suits Over Leaking Well Site
-------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Wilcox, writing for Los Angeles Daily News, reports
that a Los Angeles law firm has filed suits against Southern
California Gas Co. and its parent Sempra Energy on behalf of three
families who say they have been sickened by the leaking well site
in the company's Aliso Canyon storage facility above their homes.

The suits were filed on Dec. 18 in Los Angeles Superior Court by
attorney Matthew McNicholas of McNicholas & McNicholas, who is
representing the families of Denny Tan, Prianka Martinov and
Viktorija Karcauskas.

The well has been leaking since Oct. 23 and an estimated 1,200
tons of methane is now spewing into the atmosphere each day.

The well has been "leaking noxious odors, hazardous gases,
chemicals pollutants and contaminants due to a massive well
failure and blowout.  However, SoCalGas failed to inform residents
of neighboring communities of the disastrous gas leak in a timely
manner, putting the health and well-being of thousands of families
in jeopardy," the firm said in a statement about the suits.

They three suits allege "negligence, strict liability of ultra-
hazardous activity, private nuisance, inverse condemnation and
trespass," the filing claims.

"SoCalGas did not maintain their facility properly, leading to
issues involving the health and safety of residents and the
community at large," Mr. McNicholas said.  "They created the
conditions allowing the well to fail, causing children and
families to suffer."

The Tan family alleges that they were regularly exposed to the
toxic gases permeating the Porter Ranch community and experiencing
the" putrid smell" of mercaptans inside and outside their home.

"In addition, the consistent exposure to hazardous gas has put
their children's health at risk, since their school is located
dangerously close to the Aliso Canyon facility.  They are being
relocated," Mr. McNicholas said.

The Martinov family alleges that their consistent exposure to
"these dangerous chemicals and contaminants" have caused anxiety,
panic attacks, depression and other health concerns for the
members of the household.

The family has relocated due to the health and safety concerns.

The Karcauskas family suit alleges they have suffered personal and
property injuries including polluted land and air in and around
their property, decreased property values and adverse health
effects.

The three families are seeking punitive damages and demanding a
jury trial.

Dollar amounts will not be calculated until after the leak is
stopped and the well killed, Mr. McNicholas said.

"That's when the picture will start to become clear and what are
the long-term ramifications," he said.

These three suits are the latest to be filed against the company.
A class-action suit has been filed on behalf of the Save Porter
Ranch group, and Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has also
sued the company.

Mr. McNicholas said the firm may end up representing about 30
Porter Ranch families.

SoCalGas, in an email response on Dec. 21, said "We are deeply
sorry for the frustration" but "cannot comment on pending
litigation.

"We are continuing to do everything we can to support families who
have been affected and address their concerns, including
relocating families should they wish and providing air filters for
people's homes.  We have also established a claims process for
those who feel they may have suffered harm or injury. And our top
priority remains stopping this leak as quickly and safely as
possible.

"While the odor added to the leaking gas can cause symptoms for
some, the gas is not toxic and county health officials have said
the leak does not pose a long-term health risk.  The South Coast
Air Quality Management District is also constantly monitoring the
air in the area, and to date none of the samples have returned any
findings that pose a health risk."


SUPERCOM LTD: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Dec. 21
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaint alleges that officers and directors of SuperCom Ltd.
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between June 1, 2015
and November 27, 2015, by making materially false and misleading
statements about SuperCom's business prospects.  SuperCom provides
traditional and digital identity solutions to governments, and
private and public organizations worldwide.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/supercom-ltd

SuperCom Accused of Artificially Inflating the Price of its
Securities

According to the complaint, in 2013, SuperCom attempted to attract
more international investment to requalify for a new listing on
the NASDAQ Capital Market after being delisted for failing to
comply with listing requirements in 2009.  As a part of this
effort, Arie Trabelsi, SuperCom's Chief Executive Officer, stated,
"Our aim is to better realize the true value of our company by
increasing our transparency and communication levels with our
existing shareholders and new investors."  Unfortunately for
investors, SuperCom fell short of its goal.  Instead, it allegedly
implemented a scheme to raise capital from the U.S. capital
markets at fraud-inflated prices.  To further its scheme, the
company reported its first quarter 2015 results, claiming it had
continued to advance its long-term growth strategy and was
increasingly excited about its pipeline of opportunities.  As
intended, the price of SuperCom shares surged on these statements,
closing up approximately 12% at $12.09 per share on June 1, 2015.

Things took a negative turn when the company received a letter
from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30,
2015, challenging certain errors in its 2014 annual financial
report.  SuperCom finally disclosed its preliminary third quarter
2015 results for the period ended September 30, 2015 on
November 30, 2015, two months after the end of that quarter,
acknowledging that it significantly missed its own revenue target.
It disclosed that it only expected third quarter revenues to come
in at $5.5-6.1 million, less than half of the $13.38 million the
company had led the investment community to expect.  It further
disclosed that it was unable to recognize more than $10 million of
revenues that were expected this year due to delays associated
with foreign government customers, and admitted it would not see
the $10 million until 2016, if ever.  On this news, SuperCom stock
plummeted by more than $3 per share, or 40%, to close at $4.60 per
share on November 30, 2015.

SuperCom Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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


TEXAS: Foster Care System Unconstitutional, Judge Rules
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Whittaker, writing for the Austin Chronicle, reports that
in yet another indication that Texas conservatives are full of hot
air when they claim they care for Texas kids, a federal judge has
declared that the state's foster care system is "broken."  In a
ruling issued on Dec. 17, Judge Janis Jack found that there were
too few case workers handling too many cases, and children left
too long in the substitute care system without either being
returned to their parent or found a permanent home.  As a result,
she found that the children's 14th Amendment rights had been
violated. Speaking for New York-based advocacy group Children's
Rights Inc., which brought the suit on behalf of 12,000 children
in permanent foster care in Texas, co-counsel Paul Yetter said,
"This is a wake-up call to the state that it cannot continue to
violate the rights of children."

Judge Jack's ruling was in response to a 2011 class action suit,
which argued that chronic mismanagement and understaffing at the
Department of Family Protective Services had put children at risk
of abuse and neglect.  She found that the plaintiffs faced
"unreasonable risk of harm" as wards of the state.  Rather than
blaming staff, Judge Jack put the spotlight on the state's failure
to reduce the excessive caseloads; additionally, she called out
the state for failure to oversee group homes, failing to
investigate allegations of abuse or neglect, and an inadequate
selection of places to put kids.  This meant they were often
placed in inappropriate and unsupervised environments, hundreds of
miles from friends and family.

Judge Jack announced that, within 30 days of the ruling, she will
appoint a special master to develop a program of reform for the
agency.  This will include examining exactly how short staffed the
agency is, and investigating failures to protect kids in group
homes.  The report will be delivered within 180 days of the
appointment.


THAI UNION: Price-Fixing Class Actions Consolidated in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class
action lawsuits filed against the three largest producers of
packaged seafood products in the United States will be
consolidated in a California federal court.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued its
transfer order Dec. 9.

The five-member panel selected the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California to handle the lawsuits, saying the
federal court will serve "the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation."

"These actions share factual questions arising out of an alleged
conspiracy by defendants -- the three largest producers of
packaged seafood products in the U.S. with an alleged collective
market share of more than 70 percent -- to fix prices of packaged
seafood products," wrote Sarah Vance, chief judge of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and chair of
the MDL panel.

The alleged anticompetitive conduct by the companies -- including
Thai Union, owner of brand Chicken of the Sea; Bumble Bee; and
Starkist -- is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by
the U.S. Department of Justice, the panel noted.

"The actions assert overlapping putative nationwide classes of
direct or indirect purchasers of packaged seafood products, and
all actions assert violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,"
Vance wrote in the three-page order.

"Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class
certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel and the judiciary."

According to the MDL panel's order, the litigation consists of
nine actions pending in three districts. The panel said it has
been notified of 44 related actions pending in four districts.

Vance said in the panel's order that the Southern District of
California was the most "convenient."

"The vast majority of the related actions already are pending in
this district, most before Judge Janis L. Sammartino, who has
related the cases before her," the panel chair wrote. "Moreover,
three defendants are headquartered in this district and,
therefore, relevant documents and witnesses are likely to be found
there."

Judge Sammartino will oversee the MDL, according to the order.

Just ahead of the panel's order, both Thai Union and Bumble Bee
announced they would abandon their plans to merge after the DOJ
informed the companies it had "serious concerns" that the proposed
transaction would hurt competition.

"Consumers are better off without this deal," Assistant Attorney
General Bill Baer of the department's Antitrust Division said in a
statement.  "Our investigation convinced us -- and the parties
knew or should have known from the get go -- that the market is
not functioning competitively today, and further consolidation
would only make things worse."

Thai Union's proposed acquisition of Bumble Bee would have
combined the second and third largest sellers of shelf-stable tuna
in the U.S. in a market long dominated by three major brands, as
well as combined the first and second largest domestic sellers of
other shelf-stable seafood products.


TRADER JOE'S: Judge Tosses Class Action Over "Soymilk" Label
------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Goff, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit against Trader Joe's
that alleged products were mislabeled or certain ingredients were
not disclosed on the label.

In Gitson v. Trader Joe's Company, U.S. District Judge Vince
Chhabria, of the Northern District of California, determined that
packaging for plant-based drinks, like "soymilk," was not
misleading. He issued his ruling Dec. 1.

The plaintiffs, who are represented by Pratt & Associates in San
Jose, Calif., and Clifford Law Offices in Chicago, alleged "that
these products were misbranded and misleadingly labeled in
violation of consumer protection laws. Specifically with respect
to the 'soymilk' products," said Melanie Natasha Howard, an
attorney with Michelman & Robinson.

The judge stated that the plaintiffs could not pursue their claims
regarding soymilk, because the use of that term "is neither false,
nor misleading, nor is it improperly represented as cow's milk,"
Howard said.

"The Court utilized a 'reasonable consumer' standard, noting that
'[t]he reasonable consumer (indeed, even the least sophisticated
consumer) does not think soymilk comes from a cow.  To the
contrary, people drink soymilk in lieu of cows' milk,'" she added.

Other claims made alleging there were undisclosed additives in
Trader Joe's products will continue.  Judge Chhabria ruled against
the company's motion to dismiss those.


TRADER JOE'S: Milk Producers Group Balks at Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vimbai Chikomo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
national milk producers group is disappointed with a federal
judge's recent decision to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against
Trader Joe's over its use of the term "soymilk."

On Dec. 1, Judge Vince Chhabria granted a motion to dismiss the
complaint filed against Trader Joe's by Amy Gitson, alleging that
Trader Joe's use of the term "soymilk" on products that do not
contain cow's milk violated several California consumer protection
laws.

In his decision, Judge Chhabria stated that "it is implausible
that the use of the word 'soymilk' misleads any consumer into
believing the product comes from a cow."

For years the National Milk Producers Federation has encouraged
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to take a tougher stance on
the use of the word "milk" on labels describing products that
contain the plant-based imitation of cow's milk.

President and CEO of National Milk Producers Federation
Jim Mulhern weighed in on the judge's decision to dismiss the
claim without prejudice.

"Given the lack of action from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration in enforcing existing standards of identity, the
court's decision is disappointing but not surprising," Mr. Mulhern
said.

"The economic deception practiced by marketers of fake milk has
been going on for some time.  Despite a federal standard of
identity which requires the presence of real milk in products
purporting to be milk, FDA has not enforced the standard of
identity with respect to these imitation products."

Soymilk, a plant-based beverage made from grinding soaked soy
beans in water, first entered the U.S. market in 1979, and became
heavily marketed and consumed as a healthy alternative to cow's
milk, and other animal-based milk.

The judge stated that because soymilk is widely known to be an
alternative to cow's milk, a reasonable consumer would not assume
that two distinct products would have the same nutritional value.

According to the complaint, Ms. Gitson alleged that the word
"soymilk" misled consumers to either believe that the products
actually contained cow's milk, or that the products provided
nutritional content similar to cow's milk, and that a "soymilk"
product "purports to be or is represented as" a food that has been
given a "standard of identity" by FDA regulations.

Judge Chhabria held that although milk is a food that the FDA has
standardized, the fact that the FDA has standardized milk "does
not categorically preclude a company from giving any food product
a name that includes the word 'milk'."

The judge found that Trader Joe's did not attempt to pass off
products describes as "soymilk" as the food that the FDA has
standardized as milk.

"Unfortunately, consumers who purchase these products thinking
they are nutritionally equivalent to real milk may only come to
find that they frequently don't have the same levels of protein,
vitamins, calcium and other nutrients found in real cow's milk.
The judge's decision does not help correct that situation,"
Mr. Mulhern said.

In its motion to dismiss the claims based on undisclosed additives
in products the plaintiffs had not purchased, Trader Joe's'
request was granted in part and denied in part.  Judge Chhabria
ruled that the plaintiffs' would be allowed to proceed with the
claim only with respect to the additives the plaintiffs complained
about in the purchased products. Those products were tocopherols,
sodium citrate, and citric acid.


TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Peremptory Writ Issued
----------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a peremptory writ of mandamus
directing the trial court to grant TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss in the captioned case Donald L. ROBERTS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; Ralph G.
Quinsey; Steven J. Sharp; Charles Scott Gibson; David Ho; Nicolas
Kauser; Roderick Nelson; Walden C. Rhines; and Willis C. Young,
Defendants-Relators, and RF MICRO DEVICES, INC., Defendant. Marina
LAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. Steven J. SHARP; Ralph G. Quinsey;
Charles Scott Gibson; David Ho; Nicolas Kauser; Roderick Nelson;
Walden C. Rhines; Willis C. Young; and TriQuint Semiconductor,
Inc., Defendants-Relators, and RF MICRO DEVICES, INC.; Rocky
Merger Sub, Inc.; Trident Merger Sub, Inc.; and Rocky Holding,
Inc., Defendants, No.: SC S062642, (Or.)

TriQuint is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Hillsboro,
Oregon. TriQuint designs and manufactures radio frequency products
used in a number of high-technology industries.

Late in February 2014, TriQuint's board of directors amended the
company's bylaws to designate the Delaware Court of Chancery as
the exclusive forum for resolving internal corporate disputes,
including shareholder derivative suits. The board adopted the
bylaw pursuant to TriQuint's certificate of incorporation, which
allows the board of directors to "adopt, amend, or repeal" the
company's bylaws unilaterally.

Two days after the board adopted the forum-selection bylaw,
TriQuint announced plans to merge with RF Micro Devices, Inc. Each
corporation's board of directors unanimously approved the merger.
Some of TriQuint's shareholders objected to the merger, however.
They filed two shareholder derivative suits in Oregon and three
similar suits in Delaware.

Roberts, acting as the representative of a proposed class of
TriQuint's shareholders, filed a derivative suit in Multnomah
County Circuit Court shortly after the board approved the merger.
The complaint alleged that TriQuint's directors had breached their
fiduciary duties to the corporation by approving the merger and
that TriQuint had aided and abetted the breach. Specifically, the
complaint alleged that the merger benefited TriQuint's board
members by giving them lucrative board positions in the new
corporation in exchange for selling TriQuint stock at below-market
prices. Lam filed a second, similar class action the following
month in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

The suits filed by Roberts and Lam (plaintiffs) were consolidated.
Three other TriQuint shareholders filed derivative class action
suits in the Delaware Chancery Court, alleging a breach of
fiduciary duty on the part of TriQuint's directors in connection
with the merger.

TriQuint moved to dismiss those suits filed in Multnomah County on
the ground that its corporate bylaws establish Delaware as the
exclusive forum for shareholder derivative suits. The trial court
denied TriQuint's motion to dismiss, and the state Supreme Court
allowed TriQuint's petition for an alternative writ of mandamus.

In his Order dated December 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/VZBX8Nfrom Leagle.com, Justice Rives Kistler ordered
the issuance of peremptory writ of mandamus directing the trial
court to grant TriQuint's motion to dismiss.  Enforcing the forum-
selection bylaw in this instance is not "unfair or unreasonable"
under Oregon law, Judge Kistler said. The trial court, while
correctly determining that the forum-selection bylaw is facially
valid as a matter of Delaware law, erroneously concluded that
enforcing the bylaw would run afoul of Oregon public policy.
TriQuint's forum-selection bylaw does not prevent its shareholders
from challenging the merger. It only provides where they may do
so. Not only does the forum-selection bylaw keep TriQuint's assets
from being diluted by a multiplicity of suits in various states,
but Delaware, the state in which TriQuint is incorporated, is the
"most obviously reasonable forum. The primary reason that
plaintiffs have identified that it would be unreasonable to give
effect to TriQuint's bylaw is that doing so would effectively deny
the shareholders' statutory right to modify or amend the bylaws.

The Supreme Court held that the Delaware courts have concluded, in
an analogous context, that a shareholder's inability to exercise
that statutory right does not provide a basis for refusing to give
effect to a forum-selection bylaw. In any event, Oregon has no
interest in giving greater effect to a Delaware corporation
shareholder's right to modify or repeal board-adopted bylaws than
Delaware would. When purchasing stock in a Delaware corporation,
shareholders buy into a legal framework that allows corporate
directors to unilaterally amend the corporation's bylaws and gives
the shareholders the right to repeal those bylaws. Comity and
respect for Delaware's corporate law lead us to conclude that, in
the absence of compelling public policies to the contrary, the
Supreme Court should not interfere with that framework or attempt
to regulate the relationship between TriQuint's directors and its
shareholders. Plaintiffs have not argued that they lack the
financial resources to litigate their derivative claims in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, nor have they identified any basis for
saying that it would be seriously inconvenient for them to do so.
Moreover, the Delaware courts are well-equipped to resolve intra-
corporate disputes involving Delaware corporations.

Finally, no evidence in the record demonstrates that requiring
plaintiffs to pursue their claims in Delaware will infringe their
substantive rights, only that they will lose the ability to select
the forum in which to exercise those rights. TriQuint, on the
other hand, has the authority to "protect against" the "potential
for duplicative law suits in multiple jurisdictions over single
events" by channeling those suits to a single forum. To that end,
TriQuint has chosen to direct such suits to its state of
incorporation, the "most obviously reasonable forum" in which to
litigate intra-corporate disputes. Plaintiffs have not been
deprived of their right to challenge the merger, only the ability
to challenge the merger in a forum other than Delaware.

Sarah J. Crooks, Esq. -- scrooks@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins
Coie LLP serves as counsel for Defendants-Relators

Scott A. Shorr, Esq. -- sshorr@stollberne.com -- of Stoll Stoll
Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C. serves as counsel for Plaintiffs-
adverse parties


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Supplemental Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class certification in the
captioned case DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.: 13-cv-03826-EMC,
(N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Douglas O'Connor, Thomas Colopy Matthew Manahan, and
Elie Gurfinkel are current or former drivers who have performed
services for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.  Earlier this year,
Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of approximately 160,000 other
"UberBlack, UberX, and UberSUV drivers who have driven for Uber in
the state of California at any time since August 16, 2009."
Plaintiffs contend that they and all 160,000 putative class
members are Uber's employees, as opposed to its independent
contractors, and thus are eligible for various protections
codified for employees in the California Labor Code. Specifically,
Plaintiffs brought claims for: (1) expense reimbursement under
California Labor Code section 2802 and (2) converted tips under
California Labor Code section 351.
Plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion for class certification.

In his Order dated December 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/18eRoSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chen granted in part
and denied in part Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class
certification. The Court hereby certifies a subclass of the
following individuals to pursue their Tips Claim and Expense
Reimbursement Claim: "All UberBlack, UberX, and UberSUV drivers
who have driven for Uber in the state of California at any time
since August 16, 2009, and meet all the following requirements:
(1) who signed up to drive directly with Uber or an Uber
subsidiary under their individual name, and (2) are/were paid by
Uber or an Uber subsidiary directly and in their individual name,
and (3) electronically accepted any contract with Uber or one of
Uber's subsidiaries which contain the notice and opt-out
provisions previously ordered by this Court, and did not timely
opt out of that contract's arbitration agreement." The original
class certified on September 1, 2015 may also pursue the Expense
Reimbursement Claim. The Court denies Plaintiffs' request to
certify a subclass of drivers who drove for Uber through a
distinct third-party transportation company or who used corporate
names. However, the Court will certify a subclass of drivers who
signed Uber's more recent agreements even if they did not timely
opt out. Despite being given the opportunity, Plaintiffs again
fail to meet this burden. Instead, Plaintiffs have proposed
certifying a subclass of all drivers who drove through an
intermediary transportation company, regardless of the number of
hours spent driving for Uber. Even if the IWC's test of employment
did apply, Plaintiffs provide no evidence that the test could be
adjudicated on a class-wide basis. Instead, Plaintiffs simply
argue that "all three sub-parts of the test are plainly capable of
resolution on a common basis because all of the Borello factors
are capable of resolution on a common basis." However, the Court
specifically found that for such drivers laboring for third party
transportation companies, there are potentially significant
variations -- such as the number of hours that a driver drove for
Uber clients versus other clients -- that could cause a jury to
reach different results under the Borello test. However,
Plaintiffs again submit no proof that they could define and
objectively identify all drivers who drove for Uber more than 30
hours per week.  In other words, Plaintiffs fail to provide the
information that this Court specifically required.  Plaintiffs'
request to certify a subclass of drivers who drove for a third-
party transportation company is denied. The Court concludes that
the PAGA waiver is unenforceable on public policy grounds.
Furthermore, the arbitration agreement in the 2014 and 2015
contracts contain a non-severable PAGA waiver, rendering the
entire arbitration agreement also unenforceable. For these
reasons, the Court will certify an additional subclass of
UberBlack, UberX, and UberSUV drivers who signed up to drive
directly with Uber or an Uber subsidiary under their individual
name and electronically accepted any contract with Uber or one of
Uber's subsidiaries which contain the notice and opt-out
provisions previously ordered by this Court (e.g., the June 2014,
November 2014, or April 2015 agreements) even if they did not
timely opt out of that contract's arbitration agreement.

The Court said Uber's suggested edit does retain the later
paragraph stating that, "This Agreement is intended to require
arbitration of every claim or dispute that lawfully can be
arbitrated, except for those claims and disputes which by the
terms of this Agreement are expressly excluded from the
Arbitration Provision." But again, while this paragraph does
require arbitration, it would also require arbitration of the PAGA
claim (as part of "every claim"); PAGA claims are not expressly
excluded from the Arbitration Provision. However, because of the
non-severable section 14.3(v), the PAGA claim cannot be brought in
arbitration, resulting in a driver having no forum in which to
bring their PAGA claims.

Uber's proposed edits only highlight the impossibility of
linguistically severing the arbitration agreement in order to
remove the blanket PAGA waiver, while maintaining the arbitration
process. Plaintiffs' decision to pursue expenses that are common
to all drivers, while not seeking other potentially recoverable
expenses, is reasonable in light of the potential difficulties of
proving recovery of those other expenses on a class-wide common
basis (or perhaps even on an individual basis given documentation
issues that may arise for such items). Thus, this case is a far
cry from those in which the courts found inadequacy, as Plaintiffs
are not "pursuing relatively insignificant claims while
jeopardizing the ability of class members to pursue far more
substantial, meaningful claims." The claims pursued here are
significant, substantial, and meaningful. The Court concludes that
Plaintiffs are adequate representatives, and that a conflict of
interest is not created by Plaintiffs' decision to limit
certification to only vehicle-related and phone expenses.

The Court concludes that the named Plaintiffs are adequate
representatives and that liability for vehicle-related and phone
expenses can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis.  The Court will
certify the September 1, 2015 class and December 8, 2015 subclass
to pursue their vehicle-related and phone expenses.

Adelaide Pagano, Esq. -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Ben Weber, Esq. --
bweber@llrlaw.com Sara Smolik, Esq. and Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
-- sliss@llrlaw.com of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. and Matthew
David Carlson, Esq. -- of Carlson Legal Services serve as counsel
for Plaintiff Douglas O'Connor

Andrew Michael Spurchise, Esq. -- aspurchise@littler.com -- and
John C. Fish, Jr., Esq. -- jfish@littler.com -- of Littler
Mendelson -- Marcellus Antonio McRae, Esq. --
mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Theane D. Evangelis, Esq. --
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Brandon J. Stoker, Esq. --
bstoker@gibsondunn.com -- Debra W. Yang, Esq. --
dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada,
Esq. -- dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Joshua Seth Lipshutz,
Esq. -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- and Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell,
Esq. -- kringdowell@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
-- Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq. -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com --
of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Stephen Luther
Taeusch, Esq. -- staeusch@valdezlawgroup.com -- of Valdez Law
Group LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: District Court Expands Class of Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie C. Young, Esq., and Michael S. Arnold, Esq., of Mintz,
Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that the Uber saga continues in
O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. -- a closely watched case that
will impact the future of the gig economy.  Last time Mintz Levin
visited this case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had declined
to review the district court's class certification decision, which
certified a class of thousands of Uber drivers.  This time around,
the District Court issued an order that expanded the original
class.  But Uber has already countered with a move of its own in
response to this latest decision.

The District Court had initially excluded from the class Uber
drivers who were subject to an arbitration agreement that required
them to arbitrate their disputes with Uber individually.  However,
in this latest decision, the District Court decided to void the
arbitration agreement, because it included a Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA) waiver.  PAGA permits individuals to pursue
Labor Code violations in a class or representative action against
employers.  Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court and
the 9th Circuit each found that PAGA waivers preventing an
employee from pursuing a PAGA claim in any forum are void as a
matter of public policy -- which is exactly what the agreement did
here.  In response, Uber tried to sever the PAGA waiver and asked
the court to enforce the rest of its arbitration agreement, but
the Court was having none of it (even though the arbitration
agreement allowed the driver to opt-out).

The Court's decision to void the arbitration agreement making
previously ineligible drivers now eligible to join the class has
the potential to increase the class closer to a reported 160,000
drivers in California.  This outcome should serve as a cautionary
tale for employers addressing PAGA claims in their arbitration
agreements.  Employers must be careful to provide an appropriate
forum for bringing such claims in a clearly-stated way and to
avoid the inclusion of a blanket waiver.

But the Court's decision was not the end of the story.  Two days
after the District Court's decision, Uber distributed new
arbitration agreements to its drivers requiring them to waive
their right to participate in class-action lawsuits, or email Uber
within 30 days to opt-out.  Of course, the new agreement corrected
the PAGA issue.  After the plaintiffs objected on the basis that
this constituted an improper communication with class members, the
Court said it couldn't necessarily stop Uber from utilizing this
new agreement, but that (i) it wouldn't enforce it against the
drivers already certified in this case; and (ii) Uber cannot
communicate with class members without the Court's or plaintiffs'
counsel's approval.


UNITED DEVELOPMENT: Faces Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Dec. 22
disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
against United Development Funding IV on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities between June 4, 2014 and December 10,
2015, inclusive.

UDF IV shareholders who purchased their securities during the
Class Period may, no later than February 19, 2016, petition the
Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the class.  Any
member of the purported class may move the Court to be appointed
as a lead plaintiff through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or
other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

UDF IV shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their
legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or
Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com
For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit www.ktmc.com

UDF IV is a real estate investment trust ("REIT") under the larger
United Development Funding ("UDF") umbrella.  The Company
originates, purchases, participates in, and holds for investment
secured loans made for the acquisition and development of real
property.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that UDF IV and
certain of its executive officers made a series of false and
misleading statements during the Class Period, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the defendants are
alleged to have made materially false and misleading statements to
investors and/or failed to disclose: (1) that subsequent UDF
companies provide significant liquidity to earlier vintage UDF
companies, allowing them to pay earlier investors; (2) that if the
funding mechanism funneling retail capital to the latest UDF
company were halted, the earlier UDF companies would not be
capable of standing alone, and the entire structure would likely
crumble with investors left holding the bag; (3) that UDF IV
provided liquidity to UDF I, UMT and UDF III, among other
affiliates, further exacerbating the problem and perpetuating the
scheme; (4) that, as such, defendants were operating a Ponzi-like
real estate investing scheme; (5) that the Company was being
investigated by the SEC; and (6) that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements about UDF IV's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On December 10, 2015, a report posted on the Harvest website
asserted that companies affiliated with UDF (including UDF IV)
exhibit "characteristics emblematic of a Ponzi scheme" as
"subsequent UDF companies provide significant liquidity to earlier
vintage UDF companies, allowing them to pay earlier investors."
The report further stated, among other things, that (i) "[v]isits
to actual development sites, which serve as collateral to UDF
development loans, show that, in numerous instances, there is no
development and the collateral is still non-income producing, raw
land 2, 3, 5 (as much as 10) years after loans were issued" and
(ii) in November 2015, several UDF entities disclosed that their
independent registered public accounting firm, Whitley Penn LLP,
declined to stand for reappointment as auditor.  On this news,
shares of UDF's stock fell $6.05 per share, or more than 35%, to
close on December 10, 2015 at $11.15 per share, on heavy trading
volume.

Later on December 10, 2015, UDF IV disclosed that it had been
"cooperating since April 2014 with a nonpublic fact-finding
investigation being conducted by the Staff of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the 'SEC')."  On this additional news, shares
of the Company's stock declined an additional $2.60 per share, or
23%, to close on December 11, 2015 at $8.55 per share, again on
heavy trading volume.

UDF IV shareholders who purchased their securities during the
Class Period may, no later than February 19, 2016, petition the
Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the class.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate
governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf
of institutional and individual investors from the United States
and around the world.  The firm represents investors, consumers
and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent
practices against the government and share in the recovery of
government dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed
by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check.


USAA: John Goodson Faces Sanction Threat Over Class Action Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gwen Moritz, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that attorneys
John Goodson of Texarkana, W.H. Taylor of Fayetteville and others
involved in a class-action lawsuit against the USAA insurance
company have been ordered to explain why they shouldn't be
sanctioned for abusing the federal court system.

The case of Mark and Katherine Adams vs. United Services
Automobile Association was the subject of an in-depth report in
Arkansas Business on Dec. 14 -- a report cited by U.S. District
Judge P.K. Holmes of Fort Smith, the chief judge of the Western
District of Arkansas, in a show-cause order filed on Dec. 21.

The order suggests that the report by Senior Editor Mark Friedman
was the first time the court realized that the parties jointly
dismissed the case from Judge Holmes' court on June 22 was refiled
the next day, with a proposed settlement attached, in Polk County
Circuit Court.

On Dec. 23, the settlement was approved in state court.

"Notably, although his matter was pending in this [federal] Court
until June 22, the stipulation was signed by counsel on June 16,
2015, and specifically defines 'Court' as 'the Circuit Court of
Polk County, Arkansas,'" Judge Holmes noted in his order.

"The clear inference," Judge Holmes wrote later in the order, "to
be drawn from the fact that counsel filed a stipulation of
settlement in Polk County the day after dismissing the case that
had been pending with this Court for over 17 months is that
counsel wished to evade the federally-mandated review of the class
and the proposed settlement by this Court in particular."

Mr. Goodson, his law partner Matt Keil and W.H. Taylor of the
Fayetteville firm of Taylor Law Partners were among 14 attorneys
representing the Adamses and the proposed class of plaintiffs in
federal court.  When the case was refiled in Polk County the next
day, only Mr. Goodson, Mr. Keil and three attorneys from the
Taylor firm continued to represent the plaintiffs.

Mr. Goodson is the husband of state Supreme Court Justice Courtney
Goodson, who is running for the position of chief justice.

Three Connecticut lawyers and Lyn Peeples Pruitt of the Mitchell
Williams firm in Little Rock represented USAA.

All 18 attorneys have been ordered to explain why Judge Holmes
should not impose non-monetary sanctions -- the only kind he has
available.  A date for the show-cause hearing had not been set by
Dec. 22.

Specifically, Holmes instructed the attorneys to convince him that
they had not engaged in improper "forum shopping," had not wasted
government resources "only so counsel could gain leverage in
settlement negotiations" and had not been guilty of "generally
inappropriate procedural gamesmanship."

In his sharply worded seven-page order, Judge Holmes noted that he
had presided over a similar case that the Adamses brought against
another insurance company, and that he had ordered the parties to
make changes to their proposed settlement in that case that were
more favorable to the class of plaintiffs.  That case was settled
to Holmes' satisfaction less than three weeks before the case
against USAA was dismissed from federal court and refiled in state
court.

"Counsel in this case would have been aware, therefore, of the
kind of terms the Court would consider fair, reasonable, and
adequate in regard to the claims asserted in this matter," Judge
Holmes wrote.  And he said he "can only conclude" that the parties
decided to move the case to state court because they anticipated
that his court "would be diligent in its duty to protect the
interest of absent class members" and would be unlikely to approve
a settlement that favored the plaintiff's lawyers and the
defendants "while largely failing to protect the interests of the
class."


VIRGIN AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Ticket "Drip Pricing"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clancy Yeates, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
a Sydney law firm is investigating a potential class action
against Virgin Australia and Jetstar over the airlines' pricing
tactics, after a November ruling that the two carriers misled
consumers about ticket prices.

In November, the Federal Court found the airlines engaged in "drip
pricing" -- where an advertised price gets higher as a business
discloses extra costs -- which was misleading, deceptive and
contravened consumer law.

Now Bannister Law says it is looking into the potential for a
class action over the case, which was brought by the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission.  It says the action could end
up being Australia's biggest ever consumer class action if it goes
ahead.

In the case, the ACCC said the airlines had failed to adequately
disclose in some of their advertising a "booking and service fee,"
which was $8.50 for Jetstar and $7.70 for Virgin.

Solicitor Charles Bannister acknowledged the judge had said during
the case that a class action over the fees themselves would be
unsuccessful, because consumers were aware of these when they made
the payment.

But he said consumers experienced a loss because they may have
purchased cheaper tickets from a rival airline if they had been
aware of the full cost in advance.

"The loss is the difference in fares they could have got if they
had known the difference up front," he said.

Bannister Law has yet not commenced legal action over the issue,
and Mr Bannister said it was seeking evidence over how widespread
consumer loss may have been.

Jetstar labelled the potential action a "stunt", and pointed to
the judge's previous comments dismissing a potential class action
over the fees.

"This is just a stunt from a law firm attempting to use baseless
litigation claims to build their profile," the spokesman said.
"The Federal Court actually found that Jetstar's booking and
service fee has been adequately disclosed on Jetstar.com since
September 2013."

Virgin Australia said it was committed to ensuring its booking and
service fee was "fair and simple" for consumers to understand, and
it provided a fee-free payment option on the Virgin Australia
website and mobile website.  "We are not able to comment on the
ACCC proceedings as they have not yet closed," a spokeswoman said.

The potential action has also attracted support from a key
campaigner against the related issue of credit card surcharges, as
these were part of the ACCC's case because these fees were only
disclosed to customers after several stages of the booking
process.

Queensland businessman Klaus Bartosch, who launched a Change.org
campaign over credit card surcharging which sparked 5000
submissions to the government's financial system inquiry, said he
would promote the action to the public.

"I have an interest in continuing the campaign to see credit card
surcharges banned in this country," he said.

The government said it would ban excessive credit card surcharges
in its response to the financial system inquiry in October, but
Mr. Bartosch argues it does not go far enough.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Wolfenbarger" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Wolfenbarger, and all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi of America,
Martin Winterkorn, Herbert Diess, Michael Horn, Jan Bures, Mark
McNabb, Jonathan Browning and Scott Keogh, Case No. 1:15-cv-00326
(E.D. Tenn., November 25, 2015), seeks damages against the
Defendants for alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The federal securities class action is on behalf of all
individuals or entities that purchased shares of the ordinary and
preferred American Depositary Receipts of Volkswagen AG between
November 19, 2010 and September 21, 2015, inclusive.

Defendant Volkswagen is one of the world's leading automobile
manufacturers and the largest automaker in Europe. The Company
owns and markets 12 brands: Volkswagen passenger cars, Audi, SEAT,
SKODA, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Ducati, Volkswagen
commercial vehicles, Scania and MAN.

The Individual Defendants are officers and/or directors of
Volkswagen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Gordon Ball, Esq.
      GORDON BALL PLLC
      Bank of America Center, Ste. 600
      550 Main Street
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Tel: (865) 525-7028
      E-mail: gball@gordonball.com

          - and -

      James G. Stranch, III, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      The Freedom Center
      223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37201-1631
      Tel: (615) 254-8801
      Fax: (615) 255-5419
      E-mail: jims@bsjfirm.com


* Debt Collectors Attempt to Exploit Legal Loophole, Report Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Morran, writing for Consumerist, reports that a new report
claims that a growing number of debt collectors are trying to
exploit a legal loophole that allows them to bring potentially
frivolous lawsuits against alleged debtors, but bars those
defendants from bringing their own legal action against the debt
collector.

Once again, we're looking at an abuse of "forced arbitration" --
the Supreme Court-backed practice of inserting incredibly
restrictive clauses into contracts and other customer agreements.
These clauses compel the customer to resolve any legal dispute
with the company through binding third-party arbitration instead
of in a courtroom.  Additionally, most arbitration agreements
prohibit the customer from joining together with similarly wronged
victims to have their matter heard as one case -- even before an
arbitrator.  Instead, each individual victim must make their own
case in arbitration.

The few supporters of arbitration clauses are quick to point out
that these contract terms also block the company from taking the
customers to court.

But according to the New York Times, some collectors believe they
have figured out how to make arbitration a one-way street in their
favor.

A Maryland man tells the Times that he learned -- after the
fact -- that a debt collector had successfully sued to garnish his
wages, even though the collector wasn't licensed to collect debts
in the state.  But when he tried to bring a class action lawsuit
against the collector, the company successfully convinced the
court to prevent the case from moving forward -- not because it
lacked merit, but because the man had signed an arbitration clause
with the original lender.

That's right, the collector wasn't invoking any sort of
contractual agreement it had with the customer, but an agreement
that he -- like millions of people every day -- unwittingly signed
without any ability to change the terms.

In the Maryland case, the debt collector couldn't even prove to
the court that this particular customer had an arbitration clause
in his original contract with Citi from ten years earlier.

Instead, the collector merely showed the court that Citi contracts
currently have these clauses in them.

And this is a typical issue with debt collectors. A 2013 report
from the Federal Trade Commission found that only a small fraction
of debt buyers are given adequate supporting documents to even
prove that a debt is still owed, let alone that any sort of
arbitration clause was signed.

Which is apparently why debt collectors want to make it so they
can bring lawsuits, but customers can't.  Collection agencies
bring thousands and thousands of collection cases before the
courts every year, many of them with little to no supporting
information.

A number of these cases are won because the alleged debtor -- who
many not even know they are being sued -- never musters a defense
or even shows up.

If a group of wronged consumers were able to bring a class action
in court against the agency, they could combine their resources --
reducing the legal costs for each member of the class -- and be
awarded significant damages.

In arbitration, each plaintiff's case is heard separately.  While
each individual consumer is effectively starting from scratch, the
company has the advantage of knowing exactly what the claims will
be, because it has been through the same material with other
arbitrations.

And unlike jury trials, where punitive damages can be used to hold
companies accountable and discourage them from further bad acts,
damages in arbitration are frequently very limited.

As a result of the complicated, high-cost, low-reward setup for
binding arbitration, very few customers even pursue this avenue
for redress.  While the Maryland man had reason to believe that
there were hundreds of similarly wronged victims in his case, the
Times found that the debt collector in this case -- a subsidiary
of one of the country's largest firms -- has only gone to
arbitration in Maryland a total of 38 times over a five-year
period.

The Consumer Financial Protection recently announced that it has
begun drafting rules aimed at reining in the use of arbitration
clauses by banks and other creditors.  Some members of Congress --
urged on by bank lobbyists -- attempted to scuttle these rules by
adding a rider to the federal spending bill that would require the
CFPB to invest additional time and money in researching a topic it
had already spent three years looking into.  That effort fell
short, but you can expect further legislative attempts to block
the CFPB from drafting and enforcing these rules.


* Supreme Court Delays Decision on Wisconsin DPPA Issue
-------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Vielmetti, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports that a
long-awaited decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court on whether
police departments must censor simple accident reports and other
public records was delayed by a court left deadlocked because of
the September death of Justice Patrick Crooks.

Justice Crooks died just days after the court heard oral arguments
in the case, which was brought in 2013 by a newspaper against the
City of New Richmond.  The city has been blacking out names,
addresses and other information from police reports, citing one
interpretation of the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act.

A St. Croix County circuit judge had ruled last year that two
exceptions in the federal law clearly allow Wisconsin agencies to
follow state public records law and release the information, and
that censoring agencies were misconstruing the federal law.
Citing the statewide importance of the issue, parties had asked
that the appeal in the case go directly to the Supreme Court.

The Dec. 21 opinion revealed that the justices who heard the case
are split 3-3 on whether to affirm the trial court decision in
favor of open records.  Therefore, the court said, it has vacated
its decision to accept the case directly, and sent it back to the
District 3 Court of Appeals for a decision.

According to the opinion, Chief Justice Patience Roggensack and
justices Michael Gableman and Annette Ziegler would have reversed
the trial court, siding with those who argue that Congress
intended the DPPA to pre-empt the state's open records laws.

Justices Shirley Abrahamson, Ann Bradley and David Prosser would
have affirmed the decision that the traditionally open records
remain open.

Justice Rebecca Bradley, appointed to the court on Oct. 9 by Gov.
Scott Walker to replace Crooks, did not participate in the case.

Justice Abrahamson wrote a concurring opinion suggesting that the
six justices could have decided to rehear arguments in the case
with Justice Bradley, rather than send it back to the Court of
Appeals.

Congress passed the Drivers Privacy Protection Act in 1994 after a
stalker got a Hollywood actress' home address through motor
vehicle records, then killed her.  The DPPA restricts use of
personal information obtained from motor vehicle departments but
lists several permissible uses, though none specifically for news
reporting.

For decades, no one dreamed it was meant to undo states' open
records laws, until lawyers and marketers began buying whole state
databases of drivers and car owners, and a few successful claims
for penalties under the DPPA prompted class-action lawyers to
explore new lawsuits.

A resident of Palatine, Ill., sued the village under the DPPA
because his personal information was on a parking ticket Palatine
police had left on his windshield in 2010.  Jason Senne wanted his
case declared a class action on behalf of all the drivers who got
tickets from Palatine.  Theoretically, that exposed the village to
$80 million in penalties -- the statutory $2,500 penalty to every
person who got a ticket since the DPPA passed.

The case was thrown out, reinstated and thrown out again by
federal courts.  But along the way, it set off a panic among
lawyers for Wisconsin's League of Wisconsin Municipalities and its
self-insurance company. They advised clients to err on the side of
censorship.  If something as innocuous as a parking ticket could
violate the DPPA, they feared, any number of police records could.

Police agencies all over Wisconsin suddenly began blacking out
names, addresses and ages of people in even the most routine
traffic accident reports and other records if the information was
obtained from or confirmed by driver's license and motor vehicle
records.

The redactions came even though in 2008, then-Attorney General
J.B. Van Hollen expressly said that the DPPA did not require such
redactions, and other police agencies in Illinois and Indiana, the
other states covered by the 7th Circuit, did not resort to such
practices after the Palatine case.


                            *********

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 2016. 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  * * *