CAR_Public/160105.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 5, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 2


                            Headlines


AMERICAN PURE: Recalls Whey Protein Products Due to Milk & Soy
AMERICANS HELPING: Faces Class Action Over Adult Adoption Fraud
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: 3 Securities Class Actions Filed in N.J.
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: EPA to Designate Copper Mine Superfund Site
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Fire

BEE EXTREMELY: Recalls Weight Loss Products Due to Sibutramine
BELLISIO FOODS: Recalls Boneless Pork Rib Shaped Patty Products
BIMBO BAKERIES: Dando Claims Not Barred Under Scott Settlement
BIOSCRIP INC: Defending McCormack Shareholder Class Action
BIOSCRIP INC: Settles Cline and Rubin Shareholder Class Actions

BLUE BUFFALO: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $32MM
BREVILLE USA: Recalls Slow Cookers Due to Burn Risk
CAREER EDUCATION: "Enea" Case Stayed Pending Appeal
CAREER EDUCATION: Trial Court Proceedings in "Surrett" Stayed
CAREER EDUCATION: Summary Judgment Bid in "Wilson" Fully Briefed

CARRIER CORPORATION: Recalls Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Court Ruling to Impact Osage Oil Industry
CHOCOLATE CONFECTIONARY: Video Deposition Costs Granted in Part
CJ FOODS: Judge Refuses to Approve Class Action Settlement
CONVERGYS CORP: Settlement in TCPA Case Pending Court Approval

DE ANZA: Suit Seeks to Nullify Class Action Settlement
DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls Lawn Mowers Due to Fire Hazard
DU MONDE: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Pocket Sandwich Products
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continue to Defend "Scranton" Class Action
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Dropped From Suit v. High Frequency Traders

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continue to Defend "Rayner" Class Action
ENDOCYTE INC: Case Discovery Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid
ENZYMOTEC SECURITIES: Court Trims Claims in Securities Litigation
FOREST PARK: Faces Class Action Over Abrupt Shutdown
GENUINE TITLE: Court to Issue Confidentiality Order on Discovery

GENUINE TITLE: Court Trims "Fangman" Complaint
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Securities Suit Filed in E.D. Pennsylvania
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants to Appeal Class Certification Order
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Amount Paid into Escrow Account
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion Granted

GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants Moved to Dismiss GT Securities Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Overruled Demurrers in FireEye Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Cobalt Securities Action Sought
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Solazyme Securities Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Moved to Dismiss Intervenor's Claims in NY Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Reached in CDS Antitrust Case
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Treasury Securities-Related Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Commodities-Related Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Moved to Dismiss Zinc Storage Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Moved to Dismiss Platinum and Palladium Action

GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendant in ISDAFIX-Related Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Litigation Over Forex Trading
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Suit Over ERISA Employee Benefit Plans
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Forex Class Suits in Ontario
GOOD TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Blackberry Sale

GRINDR LLC: Bid to Dismiss "Howell" Case Granted
GUAM MEMORIAL: Responds to Class Action Over Tax Refunds
HC2 HOLDINGS: Defendants Preparing for Discovery Phase
HEALTH NET: Defending 3 Class Suits in N.D. California
HEALTH NET: 2 Stockholders Filed Merger Class Actions

INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff Files Opening Brief in Appeal
J.C. PENNEY: Arbitration Bid in "Tagliabue" Granted in Part
J&B IMPORTERS: Recalls Folding Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
KTM NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles Due to Fire Risk
MACY'S MERCHANDISING: Recalls Stainless Steel Cookware Sets

MARKWEST ENERGY: Katsman, Schein & Kleinfeldt Suits Consolidated
MAXLINEAR INC: Class Suit Parties Working on Settlement Papers
MEREDITH CORP: Faces Class Actions Over Proposed Acquisition
MONTGOMERY, AL: Group Wins Injunction in Debt Collection Suit
MOODY'S CORPORATION: Awaits 2nd Cir. Ruling in Class Action

NASDAQ INC: Intends to File Motion to Dismiss "Rabin" Case
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Okays Attorneys' Fees in "Keller"
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Raises New Funding Amid Class Action
NRG ENERGY: Court Granted Request to Stay California TCPA Action
NUWAY DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls APEXXX Tablets

PHARMEDIUM SERVICES: Recalls Norepinephrine Bitartrate
PRIORITY 1: Former Employee Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROYAL OAK: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Water Bill Fees
SAC CAPITAL: Settles Wyeth Shareholder Class Action for $10MM
SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces Class Action Over Cigarette Labels

SHORT HILLS: Mental Health Patients Mull Privacy Class Action
SPARK NETWORKS: May 9 Hearing on Summary Judgment Motions
STANCORP FINANCIAL: Entered into MOU in Oregon Class Action
STARKIST CO: Sued for Allegedly Underfilling Tuna Cans
STONERIDGE INC: "Verde" Class Action Pending in Texas Court

STONERIDGE INC: "Royal" Class Action Pending in Oklahoma Court
SWINOMISH FISH: Recalls Salmon Bacon Products Due to Clostridium
TAKATA: Government Confirms Eight Airbag Defect-Related Deaths
TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Stuffing Products Due to Soy, Milk, & Wheat
THOMAS PRODUCE: Recalls Cucumber Products Due to Salmonella

TICOR TITLE: Ruling on Attorney Agents' Payments Affirmed
TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suit Settlement Subject to Preliminary OK
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Plaintiffs Filed Motion for Reconsideration
UNITED STATES: NSA Seeks Dismissal of 2002 Olympic Spying Suit
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action for Cross-Checking Gun Buyers

UNITED STATES: Caucus Balks at DA Inaction on Discrimination Issue
UNITED STATES: Nearly 100 Mexicans to Return Under Settlement
UORIKI FRESH: Recalls Octopus Salad Due to Listeria
VICTORIAN PAPER: Recalls Tealight Holders Due to Fire Hazard
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Briefing on Class Action Appeal Completed

VOSS LAW: Among Defendants in Superstorm Sandy Class Action
WEST MARINE: Parties to File Motion for Settlement





                            *********


AMERICAN PURE: Recalls Whey Protein Products Due to Milk & Soy
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Pure Whey, New Bern, NC is recalling all lots distributed
from 7/2015 to 09/2015 of the products 100% Pure Whey Protein
Matrix and 100% Pure Whey Protein Isolate, because they may
contain undeclared milk and soy that are present in the whey
ingredient. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
milk and soy run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products. No other American Pure
Whey products are affected, and the recalled products may be
safely consumed by those who do not have an allergy or sensitivity
to milk or soy.

The products were distributed to, AE, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, IL,
IN, KY, KS, MA, MD, MI, MO, NC, NE, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN,
UT, VT, WA, WI & WY and reached directly to customers through
internet mail order.

The products were manufactured under the American Pure Whey brand
in 2 lbs, 5 lbs,10lbs, 20 lbs, and 50lbs containers or in factory
sealed food grade mylar bags in the following flavors: Chocolate,
Cake Batter, Strawberry, Cookies n Cream, Peanut Butter Chocolate,
Vanilla, Cinnamon Bun, Mango, Peach Apricot, Strawberry Banana,
Rocky Road, Blueberry, Peanut Butter, and Unflavored. Affected
packages do not include a "Contains milk and soy" statement below
the ingredient listing.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after a routine product review revealed
the products are made from a whey ingredient that contains milk
and soy, however, the product was distributed in packaging that
did not reveal the presence of milk and soy on the label. This
labeling issue was immediately corrected upon discovery.
Subsequent investigation indicates, the problem was caused by a
mislabeling of the product.

Consumers who have purchased affected whey protein products are
urged to return it to the manufacturer for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-888-399-
0580, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays.


AMERICANS HELPING: Faces Class Action Over Adult Adoption Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Heap, writing for KCRA, reports that adult immigrants in
Northern California are being adopted by American families with
the promise of gaining U.S. citizenship, KCRA Investigates has
learned.

Hundreds of immigrants from Sacramento to Marin County are
shelling out $5,000 to $10,000 each for the chance to be adopted.
Behind it all is a Sacramento nonprofit called Americans Helping
America Chamber of Commerce Agency.

The concept of adult adoption leading to citizenship has spread
through word of mouth and at churches within Northern California's
Latino and Hispanic communities.  But a KCRA 3 Investigation
reveals, while adult adoption is legal, it has no effect on
citizenship status.

"He told me about this program, you know, to be adopted," said
Marvin DeLeon, a Guatemalan immigrant.

Mr. DeLeon is one of an untold number of people who thought they
found a path to U.S. citizenship.

According to videos on its website, Americans Helping America
offers programs to help immigrants become citizens and start
businesses.  A center piece of its work is adult adoption.

"We have promoted that adult adoption is a family foundation,"
said founder and chairman of the agency, Dr. Helaman Hansen.  "We
develop the person to become successful."

But immigration lawyers tell KCRA 3 Investigates something
different.

"It's a total scam," said attorney Joseph LaCome.

According to Mr. LaCome, AHA promises that adult adoption grants a
person U.S. citizenship, which it doesn't.  Mr. LaCome working
with a civil lawyer, filed a class action lawsuit against AHA
accusing them of fraud.

"If it was that easy, I would have adopted Mexico by now,"
Mr. LaCome said.

The attorney represents dozens of immigrants, who said they paid
AHA $5,000 to $10,000 to be adopted.

One undocumented immigrant, who asked not to be identified, said
he was promised citizenship in "a year or in less."  He admitted
to being skeptical until a judge approved his adoption in court.

"If you see the judge signing off on your papers, what do you
think?" he asked.

Adult adoption is a legal process.  It's often used for estate
planning, to formalize parent child relationships, and to care for
a disabled adult.  Mr. LaCome said it has no bearing on
immigration status.

"They put all of this money up, and it doesn't help them at all,"
he said.

One man asked to be identified only as Luis.  He's adopted six
people from his church and currently has other adoptions pending.

"We have been praying for papers for people for many years, and
when I saw this, I thought this is a miracle," he said.

Now, he's worried he may have done more harm than good.

Immigration attorney Ann Block said adoption can change the
citizenship status of children 16 and younger.  For adults, it's
much more complicated and may actually hurt their chances of ever
gaining legal status.  If a person misrepresents himself as a
citizen, "that's a ground of deportability," Ms. Block said.

KCRA 3 Investigates spoke with a half dozen people from Northern
California, who said they paid AHA.  Some were adopted, while
others didn't get that far.  None of them are U.S. citizens at
this time.

Still, Mr. Hansen defends his program as being about more than
citizenship.

"We're the only agents in the United States of America that are
doing something like this, because everybody wants to make money.
We want to change lives." he said.

According to Mr. Hansen, his method saves immigrants money on
costly attorney bills.  He believes thousands of people have
become citizens through adult adoption, and they are improving
their lives in the process.

Americans Helping America has also gotten the attention of federal
investigators.

KCRA 3 Investigates was at Hansen's office on Dec. 23 when a dozen
FBI and immigration agents served a search warrant.  They were
seen loading a van with about 15 computers and boxes of other
items.

Mr. Hansen said he was happy the investigators came.  He blames
the federal investigation on a former employee, who
inappropriately handled adoptions for Mexican immigrants.

No criminal charges have been filed against Hansen or the
business.

By law, all adoption records are sealed. So, it's unclear how many
adoptions the Americans Helping America agency has done.  The
family court in Sacramento County, however, did confirm a
noticeable increase in the number of adult adoption cases in
recent years.


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: 3 Securities Class Actions Filed in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that since October
1, 2015, three purported securities class action lawsuits have
been commenced in the United States District Court for New Jersey,
naming as defendants the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, and in one of the actions, its Chief Medical Officer. The
lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made
by the Company related to the regulatory approval path for
migalastat.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages for
purchasers of the Company's common stock during different periods,
all of which fall between March 19, 2015 and October 1, 2015. It
is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations
received from stockholders, with respect to similar matters and
also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as
defendants. The Company anticipates that these lawsuits will be
consolidated into a consolidated action.


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: EPA to Designate Copper Mine Superfund Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that fifteen years after federal
regulators started assessing damage and health risks at an
abandoned Nevada copper mine, the Environmental Protection Agency
is moving to designate the contaminated land a Superfund site, a
step the state could still oppose.

Rural neighbors of the World War II-era mine that has leaked toxic
chemicals for decades won a $19.5 million settlement in 2013 from
companies they accused of covering up the contamination to
drinking water wells near Yerington, about 65 miles southeast of
Reno.

The E.P.A. recently sent a letter to Gov. Brian Sandoval
announcing its intention to place the mine on the Superfund's
National Priority List of the nation's most polluted sites to
"mitigate exposures that are a substantial threat to the public
health or welfare or the environment."

"If we do not receive a written response from the state by Jan.
29, we will assume that Nevada is in agreement with E.P.A. and
will proceed with proposing the site for addition to the N.P.L.,"
Jared Blumenfeld, the agency's regional administrator in San
Francisco, wrote in a Dec. 22 letter obtained by The Associated
Press.

State officials said they needed to review the letter and
determine their next steps.  "We're not going to worry about
turf," said Leo Drozdoff, director of the Nevada Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources.  "What we want is the best and
quickest remedy for the site."

Nevada has opposed past E.P.A. proposals to list the site, fearing
a stigma that might affect property values and any precedent that
could be set by federal intervention in the mining-friendly state,
the world's sixth-biggest producer of gold.

Nevada regulators estimated that it would cost $30.4 million to
address only what the E.P.A. considers the most immediate health
and safety concerns, and the state has been unsuccessful in
obtaining financial assistance from those responsible for the
damage.  Under the Superfund listing, the E.P.A. would cover 90
percent of the costs.

The federal proposal comes after residents filed a class-action
lawsuit in 2011 accusing Atlantic Richfield and parent company BP
America of "intentionally and negligently" concealing the extent
of uranium, arsenic and other pollutants leaking into their
drinking water wells from the mine.

The mine covers six square miles of land owned partly by the
federal Bureau of Land Management.  Atlantic Richfield acquired
the property in 1977 from Anaconda Copper, which built the mine in
1941. Atlantic Richfield has paid for other work on the site, a BP
spokesman, Jason Ryan, said.

Previous owners left behind 90 million gallons of acidic solution
that continues to threaten the groundwater, Mr. Blumenfeld said.
That is equivalent to the amount of liquid it would take to cover
about 80 football fields, 10 feet deep.

In 2008, a federal Labor Department review panel upheld a whistle-
blower claim by a former mine cleanup supervisor, Earle Dixon, who
said that the Bureau of Land Management illegally fired him for
speaking out about the risks in defiance of local politicians.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avalonbay Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend class actions related to fire.

In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community in Edgewater, NJ. The Company is
aware that third parties incurred significant property damage and
are claiming other losses, such as relocation costs, as a result
of the fire. Through the date of this Form 10-Q, residents and
others have filed approximately 172 claims with the Company's
insurers, of which approximately 79 claims have been settled or
negotiated for settlement. The Company has established protocols
for processing claims and has encouraged any party who sustained a
loss to contact the Company's insurance carrier to file a claim.

To date, four putative class action lawsuits have been filed
against the Company on behalf of Avalon at Edgewater residents and
others who may have been harmed by the fire. The Court has
consolidated these actions in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

In addition, 17 lawsuits representing approximately 133 individual
plaintiffs have been filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey
Bergen County - Law Division. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the extent of damages claimed.

The Company believes that the fire was caused by sparks from a
torch used during repairs being performed by a Company employee
who was not a licensed plumber. The Company is undertaking a full
review of its maintenance policies related to safety matters,
including training, reporting structure and qualifications to
perform certain types of work.

Following the fire, the Company received a civil citation for
"failure to notify Fire Department of an active fire" from Bergen
County, New Jersey. The Company has decided not to appeal this
citation. The Company has also received two citations that were
alleged to be serious by OSHA; the Company has appealed these
citations. It is possible that additional governmental
investigations are or may be ongoing, which could include a review
of the state of compliance of the construction and operation of
Avalon at Edgewater with building codes and other legal
requirements and the materiality of any defenses related thereto.
The Company is unable to evaluate the nature and potential
materiality of any such investigations or actions at this time.

Having incurred applicable deductibles and a self-insured amount
equal to 12% of the first $50,000,000 of property damage, the
Company currently believes that all of its remaining liability to
third parties and all of the Company's additional cost for
replacement cost coverage for property damage resulting from the
fire will be substantially covered by its insurance policies.
However, the Company can give no assurances in this regard and
continues to evaluate this matter.


BEE EXTREMELY: Recalls Weight Loss Products Due to Sibutramine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bee Extremely Amazed LLC, Jewett, OH is voluntarily recalling
various products marketed for weight loss to the consumer level
due to findings of undeclared drug ingredients including
sibutramine and/or phenolphthalein.

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

All lots of the following products marketed for weight loss are
being recalled:

  --- Asset Bold Manufactured for Asset Descor 500 mg 60 capsules
      per bottle-color-red
  --- Asset Extreme Plus Manufactured for Asset Descor 500 mg 30
     capsules per bottle-color-red and yellow
  --- Evolve Manufactured for 2637 E. Atlantic Blvd, Pompano
      Beach, Florida 33062 250 mg per capsule 60 capsules per
      bottle-color-green and white
  --- Infinity Manufactured for Floyd Nutrition 500 mg 30
      capsules per bottle-color-red
  --- Jenesis Manufactured for Timeless Solutions 1810 E. Sahara
      Ave #100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 350 mg per capsule 60
      capsules per bottle-color-blue
  --- La Trim Plus Manufactured for: MWN Health 37 N Orange Ave
      Suite 500 Orlando, FL 32801 (407) 930-4043 350 mg 60
      Capsules
  --- Oasis Manufactured for MWN Health 37 N. Orange Ave Suite
      500 Orlando, Fl, 32801 500 mg per capsule, 45 capsules per
      bottle-color-red
  --- Prime Manufactured for Zagonfly 3129 25th St #392 Columbus,
      Indiana 47203 500 mg per capsule, 60 capsules per bottle-
      color-red
  --- SlimeX-15 Manufactured in India by: HAB Pharmaceuticals &
      Research Limited 10-Pharma City, SIDCU?L, Selaqui,
      Dehradun, 248 197 15 mg 30 capsules per bottle-color-orange
  --- Slim Trim U Manufactured for Floyd Nutrition 250 mg 60
      capsules per bottle-color-green and white
  --- Ultimate Formula Manufactured for Zi Xiu Tang 250 mg 48
      capsules per bottle-color-green and white
  --- Xcel Manufactured for JNS Health 60 capsules per bottle-
      color-silver
  --- Xcel Advanced Manufactured for JNS Health 350 mg 60
      capsules per bottle-color-gold
  --- Zi Xiu Tang 250 mg 60 capsules per bottle-color-green and
      white

The affected products were sold nationwide between 4/29/2014 -
12/17/2015 via distribution/resale via the U.S. Postal service
with the return addressee referenced as Bee Extremely Amazed, LLC
or through any association with the email address
sales@beeextremelyamazed.com and websites
www.beeextremelyamazed.comdisclaimer icon
www.beefitamy.comdisclaimer icon, www.slimtrim.dietdisclaimer
icon, www.Storeenvy.comdisclaimer icon.
Bee Extremely Amazed LLC is notifying its customers to stop using
these products immediately and dispose of or return all recalled
products to Bee Extremely Amazed 85205 Sportsmans Club Road Jewett
Ohio 43986.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Bee
Extremely Amazed by email to sales@beeextremelyamazed.com or 1-
844-427-6553 Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EST. Consumers
should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have
any health questions or have experienced any problems that may be
related to taking or using this product.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/vIqDS8


BELLISIO FOODS: Recalls Boneless Pork Rib Shaped Patty Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bellisio Foods, Inc., a Jackson, Ohio establishment, is recalling
approximately 285,264 pounds of boneless pork rib shaped patty
frozen entree products that may be adulterated with extraneous
materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The Boston Market Boneless Pork Rib Shaped Patty with BBQ Sauce
and Mashed Potatoes frozen entree items were produced on various
dates between Sept. 09, 2015, and Dec. 14, 2015. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- 14-oz. boxed packages containing "Boston Market Home Style
      Meals Boneless Pork Rib Shaped Patty with BBQ Sauce and
      Mashed Potatoes" with Use By dates 09/09/2016; 09/22/2016;
      10/08/2016; 10/30/2016; and 12/14/2016.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
18297" on the end panel of the package. These items were shipped
to retail locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the firm received consumer
complaints of possible glass or hard plastic pieces being found in
the frozen entree.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions or
injuries due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

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

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Consumer
Relations at 1-855-871-9977. Media with questions about the recall
can contact Tom Lindell, Public Relations, at (612) 305-6149.


BIMBO BAKERIES: Dando Claims Not Barred Under Scott Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg held that the claims of Robert
K. Dando, Jr., are not barred by the "Released Claims" provision
in the settlement agreement in the captioned case QUINN F. SCOTT,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No.: 10-3154, (E.D. Pa.)

Class Plaintiff, Robert K. Dando, Jr., was an opt-in plaintiff in
the Scott litigation. That case involved allegations that Bimbo
Bakeries and its affiliates were liable to Class Plaintiffs for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other state
minimum wage and overtime laws.

Defendants argue that Dando's individual claims are covered under
the release and thus barred. Plaintiff responds that his
individual breach of contract claims are not barred because they
fall outside the scope of the release.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated December 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/sFrbCsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Goldberg opined that
the Dando claims are not barred by the "Released Claims" provision
in the Scott Settlement Agreement because the two cases do not
share an identical factual predicate. Defendants' motion is
denied. The Court concludes the breach of contract allegations
raised by Dando in the District of New Jersey do not share an
"identical factual predicate" with the underlying FLSA allegations
in the Scott case.

J. Edward McCain, III, Esq. and Zakia E. Moore, Esq. of of The Law
Office of J. Edward McCain III serve as counsel for Plaintiff
Quinn F. Scott

Steven R. Wall, Esq. -- swall@morganlewis.com -- and Michael L.
Banks, Esq. -- mbanks@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Bimbo Bakeries USA,
Inc.


BIOSCRIP INC: Defending McCormack Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
BioScrip, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend the McCormack Shareholder Class Action
Litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On September 8, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by Thomas McCormack, a purported
stockholder of the Company (the "McCormack Complaint"). The
Company, members of the Board, including Myron Holubiak, David W.
Golding, Michael Goldstein, Tricia Nguyen, R. Carter Pate,
Christopher S. Shackelton, and Richard M. Smith, and SunTrust Bank
("SunTrust"), the administrative agent under a credit agreement
(the "Credit Agreement") dated as of July 31, 2013, as amended by
a First Amendment to Credit Agreement dated as of December 23,
2013, a Second Amendment to Credit Agreement dated as of January
31, 2014, a Third Amendment to Credit Agreement dated as of March
1, 2015, a Fourth Amendment to Credit Agreement dated as of August
6, 2015, and a Fifth Amendment to Credit Agreement dated as of
October 9, 2015, are named as defendants in the McCormack
Complaint.

The McCormack Complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery as Thomas McCormack v. BioScrip, Inc., Myron Holubiak,
David W. Golding, Michael Goldstein, Tricia Nguyen, R. Carter
Pate, Christopher S. Shackelton, Richard M. Smith and SunTrust
Bank, C.A. No. 11480-CB.

The McCormack Complaint alleges generally that, in connection with
the adoption of what the Complaint refers to as a "Dead Hand Proxy
Put" in the Credit Agreement (the "Contested Clause"), (i) the
members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties, and (ii)
SunTrust aided and abetted the Board's alleged breach of duties.
The McCormack Complaint defined the "Dead Hand Proxy Put" as a
change in control provision that enabled the lenders to declare a
default, and accelerate payment of all outstanding debt and
interest thereunder, in the event of a change of control under
circumstances specified in the Credit Agreement, including, during
a period of 24 consecutive months, the replacement of a majority
of the directors by an actual or threatened proxy fight or consent
solicitation.

On October 9, 2015, and solely to avoid the cost, expense and
delay of litigation, the Company caused the Credit Agreement to be
amended to remove the Contested Clause. The Company believes this
amendment has mooted the McCormack Complaint and expects the
parties will engage in negotiations regarding a "mootness fee" to
be paid in exchange for an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit with
prejudice. The Company carries insurance coverage in such amounts
as it sees appropriate; however, there is no assurance that
insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement,
judgment, litigation costs or mootness fee associated with this
action. Moreover, the Company is not able to predict the outcome
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. The
Company expects certain of the defendants, may seek
indemnification from the Company for which there may be no
insurance coverage. While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter, the Company believes that the
final resolution of this action is not likely to have a material
adverse effect on results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources.


BIOSCRIP INC: Settles Cline and Rubin Shareholder Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
BioScrip, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has
settled the Cline and Rubin shareholder class action lawsuits in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On April 9, 2015, two separate putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Chancery Court") by
purported stockholders Lawrence Cline and Roger Rubin
("Plaintiffs"), respectively, in connection with the Purchase
Agreement dated March 9, 2015, with the PIPE Investors, against
the Company, directors of the Company and the PIPE Investors.
Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the Company issued and sold to
the PIPE Investors in a private placement (as defined above, the
"PIPE Transaction") an aggregate of (a) 625,000 shares of Series A
Preferred Stock, (b) 1,800,000 PIPE Class A Warrants, and (c)
1,800,000 PIPE Class B Warrants.

On April 17, 2015, the two separate class action lawsuits were
consolidated by order of the Chancery Court as In re BioScrip,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. 10893-VCG (the "Delaware
Action").

On April 30, 2015, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") to settle the
Delaware Action. The parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement on May 11, 2015 (the "Stipulation of Settlement").
The Company sought and obtained at the 2015 Annual Meeting on May
11, 2015, Stockholder Approval to remove certain conversion and
voting restrictions affecting the Series A Preferred Stock and
exercise restrictions affecting the PIPE Warrants (as defined
above, the "Stockholder Approval") and, therefore, subject to
court approval of the settlement, the Delaware Action was set to
be dismissed with prejudice by the Chancery Court in accordance
with the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement. The Chancery
Court held a hearing on July 29, 2015, to consider the fairness of
the Settlement and award of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The order
approving the Settlement and award of $750,000 in attorneys' fees
and expenses to Plaintiff's counsel was issued on July 29, 2015.

The Company carries insurance coverage in such amounts as it
believes to be reasonable under the circumstances, which covered a
certain percentage of the attorneys' fees award. The final
resolution of the Delaware Action did not have a material adverse
effect on results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources.


BLUE BUFFALO: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $32MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
leading natural pet food company announced it has agreed to settle
class action lawsuits brought over allegations that the company
deceived consumers about the ingredients in its products.

A total of 13 class actions were brought against Connecticut-based
Blue Buffalo over its alleged false advertising.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits claim, among other things, that
certain Blue Buffalo products were not consistent with its "True
Blue Promise."  The label indicates the products contains no
chicken byproduct, along with no corn, wheat, soy or artificial
flavors, colors or preservatives.

The class actions, brought on behalf of consumers who argue they
paid a premium for the pet food products, were consolidated by the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Blue Buffalo, which continues to deny any wrongdoing, said it
agreed to the settlement to eliminate the "uncertainties, burden
and expense of further litigation."

Under the terms of the deal, the company will pay $32 million into
a settlement fund.

Any attorneys' fees awarded by the court and all costs of notice
and claims administration will be paid from the fund.

The amount that each class member who submits a claim for
reimbursement will receive will depend on the total amount of Blue
Buffalo products purchased by the claimant during the class period
and certain other conditions.

"More than a year ago, we informed our Pet Parents about the
misconduct of a former ingredient supplier and a broker.  While we
will continue to pursue our claims against them, we decided that
it is in the best interest of our Pet Parents and our company to
resolve the class actions now," said Bill Bishop, chairman and
founder of Blue Buffalo.

"All of us at Blue Buffalo continue to work tirelessly to make pet
food with the finest natural ingredients for our furry family
members."

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

Blue Buffalo said it intends to pay for the settlement with cash
on hand.

A separate class action filed against the company by rival pet
food maker Nestle Purina PetCare Co. is still ongoing.


BREVILLE USA: Recalls Slow Cookers Due to Burn Risk
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Breville USA Inc., of Torrance, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 35,600 Breville Fast Slow Cookers. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The sealing gasket can be incorrectly inserted upside down on the
lid which can allow the unexpected release of built-up pressure.
This poses a risk of burns to the user or consumers nearby.

This recall involves Breville 6-quart capacity domestic
programmable electric pressure cookers with a brushed stainless
steel construction and a 3-way safety system. The safety system
consists of a locking lid, safety valve and a pressure release
button. Pressure cookers with model number BPR600XL and batch
numbers between 1235 and 1529 are included in the recall. The
model number and batch code are located on the bottom of the unit.

Breville USA has received five reports of steam or hot contents
escaping from the pressure cooker, resulting in five reports of
burns, including second degree burns to the hands, arms or
stomach.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/84B3T3

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed,
Bath and Beyond, Best Buy, Macy's, Sur la Table and Williams
Sonoma stores nationwide and online, and online at Amazon.com and
BrevilleUSA.com from September 2012 through October 2015 for about
$180.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled pressure
cookers and contact Breville for a replacement sealing gasket and
updated instructions.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Enea" Case Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
California court has stayed the case, Enea, et al. v. Career
Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM
Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc., pending a ruling on an appeal.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court
State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27,
2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the
placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to
the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an
excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service
providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-
regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers
eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school
provided graduates with career placement services for life. The
class purports to consist of persons who executed Parent Plus
loans or co-signed loans for students who attended CCA at any time
between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008. Plaintiffs seek
restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action
allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was
conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two
separate orders granting the motion to strike the class
allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended
complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. On May
9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its
order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave
to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of
plaintiffs' claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the
Court's ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class
allegations. The Court has stayed the case pending a ruling on the
appeal.


CAREER EDUCATION: Trial Court Proceedings in "Surrett" Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that all
proceedings with an Oregon trial court have been stayed pending
the outcome of the appeal in the case, Surrett, et al. v. Western
Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County
naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April
10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and
breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved
to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that
motion was granted on September 12, 2008.

On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting
class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims
purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest
of those claims and denying certification of the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6,
2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30,
2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion
to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the
case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and
we are awaiting the Court's decision. All proceedings with the
trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.


CAREER EDUCATION: Summary Judgment Bid in "Wilson" Fully Briefed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a motion
for summary judgment in the case filed by Riley Wilson is fully
briefed and the parties are awaiting a court ruling.

On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions
representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two-
count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment arising from the Company's decision to terminate our
Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan.
In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to
represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions
representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan.

"On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its
entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14,
2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the
final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on
October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012.
On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district
court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed
and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of
contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for
rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of
contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois
Supreme Court, but the petition was denied," the Company said.

The case now is on remand to the district court for further
proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of
the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. The parties have completed fact discovery as to the issue
of liability.

"On March 24, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment. The
motion is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a ruling from
the Court," the Company said.


CARRIER CORPORATION: Recalls Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Carrier Corporation, of Farmington, Conn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 285,000 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTAC)
and Heat Pumps (PTHP) (About 185,000 were previously recalled in
November 2007). Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The power cord plug can overheat, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

This recall involves Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTAC) and
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps (PTHP) sold under the Bryant, Carrier
and Fast brand names. Recalled units include those with original
power cords and those that received a supplemental power cord as
part of the 2007 recall. The recalled units have capacities of
7,000; 9,000; 12,000 and 15,000 BTUs and plug into 208/230 volt,
20 amp outlets. The following brands and eight models are being
recalled:

  --- Carrier models 52CE, 52CQ, 52PE and 52PQ;
  --- Bryant models 840 and 841; and
  --- Fast models 840 and 841

Model and serial numbers are located on the ratings/data plate on
the right front of the unit, underneath the removable front panel.
A complete list of the serial numbers involved in this recall is
available by calling Carrier or at www.carrier.com.

Carrier has received reports of approximately 47 incidents of
overheating. Two of the reported incidents involved hotel fires.
One of the reported fires involved a consumer suffering burns and
smoke inhalation. The other incidents involved scorched or melted
cord heads or wall outlets with no injuries reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at HVAC
dealers and factory-direct sales from January 2002 through
December 2009 for between $425 and $675.

Consumers should stop using and unplug the recalled units, and
contact Carrier to receive a free replacement cord.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Court Ruling to Impact Osage Oil Industry
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Overall, writing for Tulsa World, reports that in a ruling
that could affect virtually every well drilled in the past 45
years across Osage County, a federal judge has invalidated an oil
and gas lease for not including a site-specific environmental
assessment.

The lawsuit, Hayes v. Chaparral Energy and the U.S. Bureau of
Indian Affairs, specifically mentions only one lease and two
drilling permits.  But it could serve as a test case for a pending
class-action lawsuit that, if decided the same way, would have a
much wider impact.

Both cases involve the National Environmental Policy Act and
whether it requires the BIA to consider the potential
environmental impact of each specific well site.  The BIA has
generally granted drilling permits based on an environmental
assessment of the whole county conducted in 1979, but U.S.
District Chief Judge Gregory Frizzell ruled that the countywide
assessment is too generic and outdated to satisfy the law.
"Unlike 1979," the judge wrote, "today virtually every drilling
operation in Osage County involves hydraulic fracturing."
The logic of this ruling, if applied to a 2014 class-action
lawsuit known as the Donelson case, could invalidate nearly every
lease signed since NEPA was enacted in 1970, said attorney
Donald Lepp, who is representing the plaintiffs in both cases.
Although, as Mr. Lepp noted, the courts will also have to decide
whether a statute of limitations would protect leases signed more
than several years ago.

"The BIA ignored its duties under NEPA when it approved the lease
and drilling permits," Mr. Lepp told the Tulsa World.  "As
virtually every lease and permit approved by the BIA in Osage
County were handled similarly, the ruling will have impact beyond
just this case."

The ruling poses yet another problem for an Osage oil industry
that has been in turmoil for more than a year. The BIA, partly in
response the Donelson class-action lawsuit, has made it more
difficult and time-consuming to get drilling permits, and
producers took the BIA to federal court to block stricter
environmental standards that they say would have made oil
production virtually impossible in the county.

If BIA regulations haven't been in compliance with NEPA, oil
producers aren't to blame, said Jamie Sicking, an attorney for the
Osage Producers Association.

"The real bad actor here again is the BIA," he said.  "The
producers have to trust that the BIA is doing their job
correctly."

Mr. Sicking finds hope for the future of the Osage oil industry in
one of the judge's footnotes, acknowledging that federal
regulators could go through the process of issuing a "categorical
exclusion" for the county, relieving at least some of the
environmental burdens imposed by NEPA. But in the meantime, "we're
all caught in a very scary situation right now," he said.

BIA officials could not be reached for comment.


CHOCOLATE CONFECTIONARY: Video Deposition Costs Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Christopher C. Conner granted in part and
denied in part Defendants' motion for approval of video deposition
costs by Defendants in the captioned case IN RE: CHOCOLATE
CONFECTIONARY ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO ALL
DIRECT PURCHASER AND INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF CLAIMS (EXCEPT FOR
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS), MDL Docket No. 1935, Civil Action
No. 1:08-MDL-1935, (M.D. Pa.)

"The court joins the extensive line of federal district and
appellate courts which hold that a prevailing party may recover
both stenographic transcription and video deposition costs as long
as that party can demonstrate that each was individually necessary
for use in the case," Judge Conner said.

This matter is a multidistrict litigation consolidating 91
separate civil actions. Various subgroups of plaintiffs alleged
that in 2002, 2004, and 2007, the collective defendants conspired
to implement three lock step price increases in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq. The Plaintiff
groups are: (1) a certified direct purchaser class, (2) a putative
class of indirect end users, (3) a putative class of indirect
purchasers for resale, and (4) a group of individual purchaser
Plaintiffs.

Defendants on May 16, 2014, jointly sought judicial approval of
$142,205.25 in video deposition costs incurred throughout the
course of this litigation. The direct purchaser class and
individual purchaser plaintiffs both appealed the court's summary
judgment ruling, and consideration of the instant motion was
deferred pending appeal.

In his Memorandum dated December 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/hnpmRafrom Leagle.com, Judge Conner granted in part
and denied in part Defendants' motion for approval of video
deposition costs by Defendants The Hershey Company and Hershey
Canada, Inc., Nestle U.S.A., Inc., Mars, Inc., and Mars Snackfood
U.S. LLC.  The court has authorized taxation of video deposition
and stenographic transcript services for only thirteen of more
than 140 depositions identified by defendants, and those thirteen
witnesses were each used in and central to the plaintiffs' class
certification and merits arguments.

The court declined to award video deposition costs for witness
testimony obtained primarily for use in the indirect end user and
indirect purchaser for resale cases; hence, the Court said it is
not authorizing taxation of costs that defendants agreed to bear
themselves in stipulations with those plaintiff groups.  The court
thus denied plaintiffs' closing request to reduce the total award
of video deposition costs by fifty percent.

The total taxable video deposition costs are:

     $9,619.50 to Nestle,
     $7,433.75 to Mars, and
     $4,503.50 to Hershey
     ---------
    $21,556.75 Total

For all other witnesses, defendants may elect to request taxation
of either video deposition or stenographic transcription services,
but not both.

Daniel A. Small, Esq. -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC serves as counsel for Plaintiff Glenn
Coffey, t/d/b/a Candy Man, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated

Bridget E. Montgomery, Esq. -- bmontgomery@eckertseamans.com -- of
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC; Dennis P. Orr, Esq. --
dorr@mofo.com -- and Jessica L. Kaufman, Esq. -- jkaufman@mofo.com
-- of Morrison & Foerster LLP; Ruthanne Gordon, Esq. --
rgordon@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague, PC; and Mark D. Katz, Esq.
of Coronado Katz LLC serve as counsel for Defendant Cadbury Adams
Canada, Inc., Cadbury Holdings Ltd., and Cadbury PLC

The Hershey Company, Defendant, represented by Alejandro H. Cruz,
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Jonathan D. Brightbill,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Stephanie M Gyetvan, Patterson Belknap Webb
& Tyler LLP, Thomas D. Yannucci, Kirkland & Ellis, Adeel A. Mangi,
Patterson Kelknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Alan R. Boynton, Jr., McNees,
Wallace & Nurick, Carol Steinour Young, McNees, Wallace & Nurick,
Craig S. Primis, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James P. DeAngelo, McNees
Wallace & Nurick, Janakan L. Thiagarajah, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Kimberly M. Colonna, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, Kimberly A.
Selemba, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, Michael A. Finio, Saul Ewing
LLP, Ruthanne Gordon, Berger & Montague, PC & William F.
Cavanaugh, Jr., Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler.

Mars, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Brian J. McMahon,
Gibbons PC, David Marx, Jr., McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Guy V.
Amoresano, Gibbons, PC, Jennifer Mara, Baldassare & Mara, Nicole
L. Castle, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Stefan M. Meisner,
McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Thomas S. Brown, Butler Weihmuller
Katz Craig LLP, Kimberly A. Selemba, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC,
Michael A. Finio, Saul Ewing LLP & Ruthanne Gordon, Berger &
Montague, PC.

Nestle U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Carmine R.
Zarlenga, Mayer Brown, Matthew M. Haar, Saul Ewing, LLP, Michael
A. Finio, Saul Ewing LLP, Peter E. Moll, Cadwalader, Wickersham &
Taft LLP, Adam L. Hudes, Mayer Brown LLP, Daniel J. Howley,
Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP, Emily H. Edmunds, Saul Ewing
LLP, Kimberly A. Selemba, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC & Ruthanne
Gordon, Berger & Montague, PC.

Hershey Canada, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan R. Boynton,
Jr., McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Alejandro H. Cruz, Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Jonathan D. Brightbill, Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, Stephanie M Gyetvan, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP,
Thomas D. Yannucci, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adeel A. Mangi,
Patterson Kelknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Craig S. Primis, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, Kimberly A. Selemba, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC,
Michael A. Finio, Saul Ewing LLP, Ruthanne Gordon, Berger &
Montague, PC & William F. Cavanaugh, Jr., Patterson, Belknap, Webb
& Tyler.

Mars Snackfood US LLC, Defendant, represented by David Marx, Jr.,
McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Nicole L. Castle, McDermott Will &
Emery LLP, Stefan M. Meisner, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Kimberly
A. Selemba, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, Michael A. Finio, Saul
Ewing LLP, Ruthanne Gordon, Berger & Montague, PC & Thomas S.
Brown, Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP.

Government of Canada, Intervenor Defendant, represented by John P.
Relman, Relman & Dane, PLLC.


CJ FOODS: Judge Refuses to Approve Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Maya Ingram, Esq. -- mingram@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a recent decision
from the Southern District of California highlights two challenges
with obtaining preliminary approval of nationwide food misbranding
class action settlements.  On December 16, 2015, in Peterson v. CJ
America, Inc. d.b.a. CJ Foods Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02570, U.S.
District Judge Dana M. Sabraw denied preliminary approval of the
proposed class action settlement because of two defects:  (1)
Plaintiff failed to show that California law should apply to the
non-California class members, as required to satisfy the
predominance requirement; and (2) the cy pres recipients did not
satisfy the Ninth Circuit's standards.

Peterson is a false advertising case about the "NO MSG ADDED"
label on certain Annie Chun soup products, which Plaintiff claims
contain ingredients that have MSG.  Plaintiff brought claims under
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False
Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well
as a breach of express warranty claim.  After Plaintiff survived a
motion to dismiss, the parties filed a notice of settlement for a
nationwide class that included:  a $1.5 million settlement fund
that covered attorneys' fees and expenses, an incentive award to
Plaintiff, settlement administration expenses, and cash awards to
class members; a provision that remaining funds would be converted
to a cy pres award and distributed evenly to the National Farm to
School Network, the Mayo Clinic, and Action for Healthy Kids; and
an agreement that CJ Foods would not include the phrase "NO MSG
ADDED" on its labels, or market or advertise its products as
having "NO MSG ADDED" for a period of three years.

Plaintiff then filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval.
The court determined that Plaintiff had satisfied Rule 23(a) but
not Rule 23(b)'s predominance requirement, because he had not
demonstrated that California had significant contacts that created
state interests such that applying California law to non-
California class members was neither arbitrary nor fundamentally
unfair.  Although CJ Foods' products were sold in California and
it had a California office, the company was headquartered in South
Korea and the record did not show where the marketing or labeling
decisions for the products at issue were made.

In making its preliminary fairness determination, the court took
issue only with the settlement's cy pres beneficiaries, concluding
that they did not meet the Ninth Circuit's requirement of having a
driving nexus with the class because the underlying statutes in
this case focused on fair business competition and protecting
consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices.  The court
noted that Plaintiff had not provided specific evidence to support
his assertion that the selected beneficiaries helped consumers
understand food labels.  Accordingly, the proper cy pres
recipients in this case would be organizations protecting
consumers from false advertising, not charities devoted to helping
needy, underserved populations.


CONVERGYS CORP: Settlement in TCPA Case Pending Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a California court
was scheduled to hold a hearing the Court will hold a hearing
during the fourth quarter of 2015 to determine whether to give
final approval of the settlement in a class action.

In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients,
Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai), tendered a contractual indemnity
claim to Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., a subsidiary of
the Company, relating to a putative class action captioned Brandon
Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of
similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange
County Superior Court, California, Case No. 30-2011-00522293-CU-
BT-CJC. The lawsuit alleged that Hyundai violated California's
telephone recording laws by recording telephone calls with
customer service representatives without providing a disclosure
that the calls might be recorded.

An amended settlement agreement was executed by the plaintiff,
Hyundai and Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., and
received preliminary approval from the Court during the second
quarter of 2015.  The Court was scheduled to hold a hearing during
the fourth quarter of 2015 to determine whether to give final
approval of the settlement. The Company's liability with respect
to the proposed settlement was fully accrued at September 30,
2015, and did not have a material impact on the Company's
liquidity, results of operations or financial condition.


DE ANZA: Suit Seeks to Nullify Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
David Garrick, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that a federal lawsuit has been filed seeking to nullify a $32
million settlement of a long-running legal battle over the city's
eviction of residents from the De Anza Cove mobile home park on
Mission Bay.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a resident still living in the
park, claims attorneys for the city and attorneys for park
residents conspired to accelerate the case by denying residents a
"fairness hearing" required for class action settlements in
California.

City officials said they won't comment until they've had a chance
to review the case.  A lawyer for the attorneys who represented
the residents said his clients didn't engage in a conspiracy and
that no fairness hearing was required.

The lawyer who filed the suit in November said he plans to seek a
preliminary injunction, which could delay city plans to have all
residents out of the park and possibly affect proposals to
subsequently transform the park and surrounding acreage into a
120-acre recreational area.

Meanwhile, the City Council approved a $20 million settlement with
240 residents not included in the agreement that the federal
lawsuit seeks to overturn.  That agreement covers 332 of the
park's residents.

The new settlement goes to residents who initially agreed to less
generous payouts from the city for relocation fees and other
expenses, instead of joining the lawsuit that led to the $32
million settlement.

After those residents saw the size of the settlement, they
demanded more compensation from the city in May.

The federal lawsuit, filed by Los Angeles lawyer Eduardo Martorell
on behalf of resident DJ St. Jon, says the lawyers for the
residents -- Tatro & Zamoyski of San Diego -- conspired with
attorneys for the city to deny the residents a chance to question
the size of the attorney's fees they got.

The suit doesn't claim that the $7.7 million they received is too
much, but that it might be too much and that the residents were
legally entitled to a chance to evaluate the amount.

The suit says this was a violation of their "due process" rights
under federal law.

Aiming to bring 11 years of litigation to a close as quickly
possible, attorneys for both sides agreed to characterize the
settlement as a legal "judgment" instead of a settlement to avoid
a fairness hearing, the suit says.

It also claims the attorneys took advantage of the fact the mostly
low-income "plaintiffs are predominantly unsophisticated persons
unfamiliar with the legal process."

The suit says attorneys for both sides had enough experience with
class action cases to know that a fairness hearing was required.

Charles Grebing, an attorney representing Tatro & Zamoyski, said
no fairness hearing was required because the financial terms were
not a settlement under the legal definition of that word.

"State law does not require a fairness hearing when the amount
that went to the class was determined by judgment," Mr. Grebing
said.

He also said his clients "absolutely deny" there was any
conspiracy, contending they took less in attorney's fees than they
were entitled because the residents said they didn't want to
appeal the amount of relocation fees awarded by the court.

Mr. Martorell said he's aware how long the case has languished and
doesn't want to drag it out any further. But he said the residents
should be able to evaluate the size of the attorney's fees.

It's not clear whether other residents will join his suit and make
it a class action, but Mr. Martorell said he was confident that
will happen because they have nothing to lose and could receive
additional compensation if the attorney's fees get reduced.

The litigation began in 2003, as the city was on the verge of
evicting the residents because the park's 50-year lease for the
land had run out.

The city, which has been trying to evict the residents since 1979,
argued they don't deserve relocation fees because they don't own
property.  But a judge ruled they should receive relocation fees
equal to four years of rent, which is the basis for the settlement
amount.


DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls Lawn Mowers Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Deere & Company, of Moline, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of
about 150 John Deere zero-turn lawn mowers. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A fuel hose could have been cut during manufacturing, allowing
fuel to leak, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves John Deere models Z445, Z645, Z655, and Z665
zero-turn mowers with serial numbers beginning with 1GXZ,
manufactured from August 10, 2015 through September 9, 2015. A
complete list of serial numbers included in this recall is on the
firm's website. The mowers are green and yellow with yellow
wheels. The model number is on the front of the machine, near the
operator footrest. The serial number is located behind the seat,
in front of the engine.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/a4cv2s

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at John Deere independent dealers nationwide from August 2015
through November 2015 for between $4,800 and $6,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled zero-turn
lawn mowers and contact a John Deere dealer for a free repair.
After identifying four reports of cut fuel hoses during the
manufacturing process, John Deere is contacting all registered
owners of the recalled lawn mowers directly.


DU MONDE: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Pocket Sandwich Products
------------------------------------------------------
Du Monde Gourmet, a Park City, UT establishment, is recalling
approximately 235 pounds of ready-to-eat pocket sandwich products,
which may have experienced temperature deviation and may contain
Clostridium perfringens, Bacillus cereus, and/or Clostridium
botulinum, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The Jafflz Retro Pocket Sandwiches were produced on Dec. 17, 2015.
The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 77-lbs. 24 count cases containing 4-6 pieces of "JAFFLZ
      RETRO POCKET SANDWICHES PASGHETTI JAFFLES WITH SPAGHETTI
      ITALIAN MEAT SAUCE."
  --- 35-lbs. 24 count cases containing 4-6 pieces of "JAFFLZ
      RETRO POCKET SANDWICHES CLASSIC JAFFLES WITH BACON, EGG,
      AND CHEESE."
  --- 40-lbs. 24 count cases containing 4-6 pieces of "JAFFLZ
      RETRO POCKET SANDWICHES FRITTATTA JAFFLE WITH
      MEDDITTERANNEAN ITALIAN SAUSAGE SCRAMBLE."
  --- 83-lbs. 24 count cases containing 4-6 pieces of "JAFFLZ
      RETRO POCKET SANDWICHES BBQ JOE JAFFLE WITH BEEFY SLOPPY
      JOE CHEESE."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
48106" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to retail locations in Utah.

The problem was discovered by the establishment during an internal
records review which showed the product had an undocumented
cooling process without HACCP records to show that the product was
chilled from 80ø to 40øF in a timely manner.

Clostridium perfringens is a type of bacteria that can be found in
a variety of foods, particularly meats, meat products, and gravy.
Emetic toxins produced by Clostridium perfringens bacteria are
characterized by intense abdominal cramps and diarrhea which begin
8-22 hours after consumption of foods containing large numbers of
those Clostridium perfringens bacteria capable of producing the
toxin. The illness is usually over within 24 hours but less severe
symptoms may persist in some individuals for 1 or 2 weeks.

Bacillus cereus is a type of bacteria that can be found in a
variety of foods that has been stored too long at room
temperature. Emetic toxins produced by Bacillus cereus are
characterized by nausea and vomiting occurring within 30 minutes
to six hours after consumption of contaminated foods.

Clostridium botulinum is a type of bacteria found in improperly
canned foods, garlic in oil, vacuum-packed and tightly wrapped
food. These bacteria produce a nerve toxin that causes illness,
affecting the nervous system. Toxin affects the nervous system.
Symptoms usually appear 18 to 36 hours, but can sometimes appear
as few as 6 hours or as many as 10 days after eating; double
vision, blurred vision, drooping eyelids, slurred speech,
difficulty swallowing, dry mouth, and muscle weakness. If
untreated, these symptoms may progress causing muscle paralysis
and even death.

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

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

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

Consumers and/or media with questions about the recall can contact
Meryl van der Merwe, Owner, at (435)-659-1989.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continue to Defend "Scranton" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in the class
action filed by John Scranton.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The Complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case has been
deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of
Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13,
2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint
were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted
leave to amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed
on January 31, 2014.

On March 11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer
to the second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court
sustained the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the
second amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without
prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on
November 10, 2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion
to strike on December 12, 2014.

By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior Court entered a final
order sustaining the Company's demurrer on all remaining claims
with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in the Company's favor
on April 8, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27,
2015. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in
this matter.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Dropped From Suit v. High Frequency Traders
--------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
consolidated amended complaint filed against high frequency
trading firms does not identify the Company as defendant or make
any allegations regarding the Company.

On April 18, 2014, a putative class action was filed by the City
of Providence, Rhode Island against 41 high frequency trading
firms, stock exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-dealers,
including the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The Complaint alleges that the high
frequency trading firms, certain broker-dealers managing dark
pools, and the exchanges manipulated the U.S. Securities markets,
and that numerous market-makers and broker-dealers participated in
that manipulation by doing business with the high frequency
traders. As to the Company, the Complaint alleges violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On May 2, 2014, a similar putative class action was filed by
American European Insurance Company against 42 high frequency
trading firms, stock exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-
dealers, including the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The action filed by American
European Insurance Company made allegations substantially similar
to the allegations in the City of Providence complaint.

On June 13, 2014, a putative class action was filed by James J.
Flynn and Dominic Morelli against 26 firms including the Company
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The Flynn Complaint made allegations substantially
similar to the allegations in the City of Providence Complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint does not identify the Company
as a defendant or make any allegations regarding the Company.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continue to Defend "Rayner" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company is defending a class action filed by Ty Rayner.

On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty
Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as
defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a
fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees. By stipulation, the parties have
agreed to extend indefinitely the due date for a response to the
claim. The Company will defend itself vigorously in this matter.


ENDOCYTE INC: Case Discovery Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery in a
class action lawsuit is stayed pursuant to provisions of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") pending
resolution of a motion to dismiss that case.

On June 24, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and one of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: Tony Nguyen, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte,
Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Nguyen Litigation").

On July 13, 2014, a nearly identical complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under the following caption: Vivian
Oh Revocable Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Oh
Litigation").

On September 22, 2014, the court named a lead plaintiff ("Lead
Plaintiff") and consolidated the Nguyen Litigation and the Oh
Litigation under the following caption: Gopichand Vallabhaneni v.
Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Vallabhaneni Litigation").

On November 17, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
securities class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint")
against the Company, P. Ron Ellis, Beth Taylor, Michael A.
Sherman, John C. Aplin, Philip S. Low, Keith A. Brauer, Ann F.
Hanham, Marc Kozin, Peter D. Meldrum, Fred A. Middleton, Lesley
Russell (the "Individual Defendants" and collectively with the
Company, the "Endocyte Defendants"), and Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the "Underwriter
Defendants").

Lead Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the Endocyte
Defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the
efficacy of vintafolide and violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The putative class related to these allegations
consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities between March 21, 2014 and May 2, 2014. Lead
Plaintiff also alleged in the Amended Complaint that the Endocyte
Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), by, among other things, making or allowing the Company to
make false and misleading statements regarding positive opinions
about vintafolide issued by the European Medicines Agency's
Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use in the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on March 25, 2014,
preliminary prospectus filed on March 26, 2014, and final
prospectus filed on March 28, 2014. The putative class related to
these allegations consists of all those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities pursuant to or traceable to the
Company's April 2, 2014 public offering.

Lead Plaintiff seeks the designation of the Vallabhaneni
Litigation as a class action, an award of unspecified damages,
interest, costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees, and
equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem
just and proper. Pursuant to a December 9, 2014 order, all
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015. Lead
Plaintiff filed a motion in opposition on April 6, 2015 to which
Defendants replied on April 20, 2015.

Discovery in this matter is stayed pursuant to provisions of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") pending
resolution of that motion to dismiss. The Company believes that
this lawsuit is without merit and has defended, and intends to
continue to defend, itself vigorously against the allegations made
in the Amended Complaint.


ENZYMOTEC SECURITIES: Court Trims Claims in Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jose L. Linares granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss in the captioned case IN RE: ENZYMOTEC
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No.: 14-5556 (JLL) (MAH),
(D.N.J.)

David R. Raabe, David E. Raabe, and Yehuda L. Danon allege claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Securities Exchange Act) and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act), arising
from alleged fraudulent misrepresentations about the viability of
Enzymotec's business, the strength of its customer relationships,
and the sales visibility that these relationships provided.

Enzymotec Ltd., the Officer Defendants, and the Director
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action.

In his Opinion dated December 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/dVAOaHfrom Leagle.com, Judge Linares said Lead
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Prospectuses contained
untrue statements or omissions of material facts. For example,
even though Defendants warned generally of "significant and
increasing government regulations" and specifically identified the
Ministry of Health in China in their SPO Prospectus, Lead
Plaintiffs specifically allege that these risks had already come
to pass and that it was therefore unreasonable to make generalized
warnings when Defendants knew, or should have known, of the
specific regulations and their likely effect.

Additionally, the Court declines to rule on whether the truth-on-
the-market doctrine applies at this stage and believes that
discovery is necessary to determine that doctrine's applicability.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss the Securities
Act claims.

Upon a holistic consideration of the allegations contained in the
Amended Complaint, the Court finds that a reasonable person would
deem the inference of scienter at least as strong as any opposing
inference.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Lead Plaintiffs have
adequately alleged a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act, sufficient to allow the
claim to proceed at this time. Given the early stage of the
litigation and the requirement that it must give all inferences in
favor of the plaintiff, the Court finds that Lead Plaintiffs have
adequately pled that Defendants Katz and Bryan each falsely
certified that Enzymotec maintained effective internal controls
over financial reporting and that the Company's financial
statements were accurate and fairly represented the Company's
financial condition.

In particular, in contrast to the certifications, Lead Plaintiffs
specifically allege that the internal controls were deficient,
such that Defendants were allowed to engage in the allegedly
fraudulent behavior during the Class Period. The Court finds this
sufficient in light of the fact that its role at this stage is not
to determine whether the non-moving party "will ultimately
prevail" but whether that party is "entitled to offer evidence to
support the claims."

Given the strong inferences in favor of Lead Plaintiffs, the Court
finds that it is inappropriate to rule at this stage whether the
truth on the market defense applies. The Court finds that, when
giving all inferences in favor of Lead Plaintiffs, Defendants had
a duty to disclose the specifics of the Chinese regulations. As an
initial matter, the Court agrees that the question of whether
disclosure was required is best left to the trier of fact, since
whether a prior disclosure is inaccurate, incomplete, or
misleading in light of all of the evidence is a mixed question of
law and fact.

Furthermore, Lead Plaintiffs specifically allege a duty to
disclose. For example, although Defendants warned generally of
"significant and increasing government regulations" and
specifically identified the Ministry of Health in China in their
SPO Prospectus, Lead Plaintiffs specifically allege that these
risks had already come to pass and that it was therefore
unreasonable to make generalized warnings when Defendants knew, or
should have known, of the specific regulations and their likely
effect.

Accordingly, the Court finds that, at this early stage of the
litigation, the Amended Complaint adequately alleges that
Defendants had a duty to disclose. Although Defendants' argument
that the statements concerning InFat sales amount to nothing more
than puffery are well-taken, when viewing the Amended Complaint as
a whole and in a light most favorable to Lead Plaintiffs as the
Court must, the Court concludes that the allegations here
sufficiently raise a mixed question of law and fact to allow the
claims to proceed. "Only if the alleged misrepresentations or
omissions are so obviously unimportant to an investor that
reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of materiality is
it appropriate for the district court to rule that the allegations
are inactionable as a matter of law," the Court said.  Given the
inferences owed to Lead Plaintiffs, the Court concludes at this
stage of the litigation that reasonable minds could differ on the
question of materiality with respect to the statements regarding
InFat sales.

The Court will grant the motion to dismiss with respect to claims
concerning krill oil sales but will deny the motion to dismiss
with respect to claims concerning InFat. Because the Amended
Complaint makes specific allegations with adequate particularity
about the alleged inapplicability of the safe harbor relating to
InFat, the Court finds that that Lead Plaintiffs are "entitled to
offer evidence to support the claims."

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- of The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A. serves as counsel for Movant Fred LaPorte

Allison M. Wuertz, Esq. -- allison.wuertz@kattenlaw.com -- and
Jonathan Rotenberg, Esq. -- jonathan.rotenberg@kattenlaw.com -- of
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP serve as counsel for Defendant
Enzymotec Ltd.


FOREST PARK: Faces Class Action Over Abrupt Shutdown
----------------------------------------------------
Bill Hethcock, writing for Dallas Business Journal, reports that a
former scrub nurse at the now-closed Forest Park Medical Center
has sued the hospital and its management company, seeking unpaid
wages after the facility abruptly shut down and laid off its
workers.

The lawsuit by Laura Gurganus claims people and companies with
ownership interests and operational responsibilities in the
financially-troubled facility directed employees to continue
working despite a lack of funds to pay wages.  Hospital ownership
did so to protect their own investment, the lawsuit claims.
Ms. Gurganus seeks unspecified wages and accrued benefits.

Forest Park's owners, operators and management company knew the
hospital was not solvent, but concealed financial information from
hospital employees, depriving them of final paychecks and the
chance to find another job before the mass layoff, according to
Ms. Gurganus' lawsuit, which was filed Dec. 14 in U.S. District
Court by Dallas lawyer Richard Capshaw.

The lawsuit names Dallas-based private equity firm glendonTodd
Capital LLC, The Management Company at Forest Park Medical Center,
and glendonTodd CEO Todd Furniss, among other entities and
individuals.

Mr. Furniss, who is chairman of the management company in addition
to leading glendonTodd, said there were no plans to shutter the
hospital when employees were directed to keep working, but a
lender backed out of an expected loan.

"It is unfortunate that the financing and funding wasn't there and
that caused payroll to not be funded," Mr. Furniss said.  "I do
expect all employees to be paid over time."

Mr. Furniss on Oct. 30 sent an email to staff in the Dallas
hospital saying they would not be paid because of an "unexpected
funding issue."  The hospital moved about 20 patients to other
facilities and closed its doors, including its emergency room,
later that day, leaving 196 employees out of work and without a
final paycheck.

Mr. Furniss refers to the shutdown as a "pause," because a closure
would affect the hospital's licensing.

Staffers in Forest Park's San Antonio hospital also started
missing paychecks in the weeks before that hospital closed Oct.
15, putting 139 employees out of work there.  It has not reopened.
The former chief operating officer of Forest Park Medical Center's
San Antonio hospital filed a class action over that hospital's
abrupt shutdown.


GENUINE TITLE: Court to Issue Confidentiality Order on Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Bennett granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' joint motion to suspend Plaintiffs' discovery
rights and restrict use of third party personal and financial
information 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.).

In his Memorandum Order dated December 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/1laG3Tfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bennett said the Court
will not suspend Plaintiffs' discovery rights or restrict
Plaintiffs' future contact with potential class members, but will
enter a Confidentiality Order governing the discovery of sensitive
third-party personal and financial information. The parties shall
submit a Proposed Confidentiality Order, pursuant to Local Rule
104.13. In light of the fact that Plaintiffs' discovery requests
have included, and likely will include, the sensitive personal and
financial information of absent class members and other third
party borrowers who closed loans with Genuine Title, the Court
will enter a Confidentiality Order governing discovery in this
matter. The parties are directed to submit a Proposed
Confidentiality Order, pursuant to Local Rule 104.13.  The Court
said Defendants' argument for restrictions on Plaintiffs' future
contact with and use of potential class members' personal and
financial information fails.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' request for pre-certification
discovery, an exercise of its broad discretion to control
discovery under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, the Court declined to suspend Plaintiffs' discovery
rights at this time.

Plaintiffs Edward J. Fangman and Vicki Fangman and 46 other
Plaintiffs bring this purported class action lawsuit against
Genuine Title, LLC (Genuine Title); Brandon Glickstein, Inc.; Dog
Days Marketing, LLC (Dog Days Marketing); Competitive Advantage
Marketing Group, LLC (Competitive Advantage) (collectively Genuine
Defendants); Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. and Wells Fargo, N.A.
(Wells Fargo); West Town Bank & Trust (West Town); PNC Mortgage
and PNC Bank, N.A. (PNC); MetLife Home Loans, LLC and MetLife
Bank, N.A. (MetLife); Net Equity Financial (Net Equity); Eagle
National Bank (Eagle National); E Mortgage Management (E
Mortgage); and JP Morgan Chase Bank (Chase), alleging violations
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C.
Sections 2607(a), (b), and MD. CODE ANN., REAL PROP. Section 14-
127 (Section 14-127).

Defendants Wells Fargo, West Town, Net Equity, Emery Federal
Credit Union (Emery), Eagle National, Chase, E Mortgage
Management, and MetLife filed their Joint Motion to Suspend
Plaintiffs' Discovery Rights and Restrict Use of Third Party
Personal and Financial Information.

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

Ari Karen, Esq. -- akaren@offitkurman.com -- and Gregory P Currey,
Esq. -- Gcurrey@offitkurman.com -- of Offit Kurman serve as
counsel for Defendant Brandon Glickstein, Inc.


GENUINE TITLE: Court Trims "Fangman" Complaint
----------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Bennett ruled on various motions to
dismiss filed by defendants 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 this Court.

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

     -- the 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.

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." For these reasons, 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.

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


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Securities Suit Filed in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Globus Medical, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

"On September 28, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed against us and certain of our officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania," the
Company said. "Plaintiff in the lawsuit purports to represent a
class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February
26, 2014 and August 5, 2014. The complaint purports to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, attorney's fees and other relief. We believe the
allegations to be unfounded, and intend to defend our rights
vigorously. The probable outcome of this litigation cannot be
determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential loss.
Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the
evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual
related to this litigation."


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants to Appeal Class Certification Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a securities class action lawsuit sought to take an
appeal from the class certification order, The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

Starting in April 2010, a number of purported securities law
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group
Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's
activities in the CDO market, the firm's conflict of interest
management, and the SEC investigation that led to Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) entering into a consent agreement with the SEC,
settling all claims made against GS&Co. by the SEC in connection
with the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO offering (ABACUS 2007-AC1
transaction), pursuant to which GS&Co. paid $550 million of
disgorgement and civil penalties. The consolidated amended
complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names as defendants Group
Inc. and certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and its
affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages.

On June 21, 2012, the district court dismissed the claims based on
Group Inc.'s not disclosing that it had received a "Wells" notice
from the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1
transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs' other claims to
proceed. On September 24, 2015, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, and on October 8, 2015, the
defendants petitioned the appellate court for leave to appeal the
class certification order.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Amount Paid into Escrow Account
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the firm
has paid the full amount of the proposed settlement in two class
action lawsuits into an escrow account.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and
GS Mortgage Securities Corp. and three current or former Goldman
Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class action
commenced on December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of
various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed
certificates issued by various securitization trusts established
by the firm and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. The complaint
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities
laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or
rescissory damages.

By a decision dated September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
plaintiff's claims with respect to 10 of the 17 offerings included
in plaintiff's original complaint but vacated the dismissal and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
reinstate the plaintiff's claims with respect to the other seven
offerings.

On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff served an amended complaint
relating to those seven offerings, plus seven additional offerings
(additional offerings).

On July 10, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss as to the additional offerings.

On March 23, 2015, the plaintiff moved for class certification.

On June 3, 2010, another investor filed a separate putative class
action asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one
of the additional offerings and thereafter moved to further amend
its amended complaint to add claims with respect to two of the
additional offerings.

On March 27, 2014, the district court largely denied defendants'
motion to dismiss as to the original offering, but denied the
separate plaintiff's motion to add the two additional offerings
through an amendment.

On March 20, 2015, the separate plaintiff moved for class
certification.

On August 12, 2015, the plaintiffs in both actions and the
defendants entered into a definitive settlement agreement, subject
to court approval. The firm has paid the full amount of the
proposed settlement into an escrow account.

The securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote,
approximately $11 billion principal amount of certificates to all
purchasers in the offerings at issue in the complaints.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a New York
court has granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to
plaintiff's remaining claims.

On September 30, 2010, a class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Group Inc. and two former GS&Co.
employees on behalf of investors in $823 million of notes issued
in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1
and 2006-2). The amended complaint asserts federal securities law
and common law claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted as to plaintiff's
claim of market manipulation and denied as to the remainder of
plaintiff's claims by a decision dated March 21, 2012.

On May 21, 2012, the defendants counterclaimed for breach of
contract and fraud. On June 27, 2014, the appellate court denied
defendants' petition for leave to appeal from the district court's
January 22, 2014 order granting class certification.

On September 8, 2015, the court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to plaintiff's remaining claims.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants Moved to Dismiss GT Securities Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that defendants
have moved to dismiss the GT Advanced Technologies Securities
Litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions filed in
October 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include
certain directors and officers of GT Advanced Technologies Inc.
(GT Advanced Technologies). As to the underwriters, the complaints
generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with
the December 2013 offerings by GT Advanced Technologies of
approximately $86 million of common stock and $214 million
principal amount of convertible senior notes, assert claims under
the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and rescission.

On July 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. On October 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss.

GS&Co. underwrote 3,479,769 shares of common stock and $75 million
principal amount of notes for an aggregate offering price of
approximately $105 million. On October 6, 2014, GT Advanced
Technologies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Overruled Demurrers in FireEye Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
California court has overruled the defendants' demurrers to
dismiss the FireEye Securities Litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
starting in June 2014 in the California Superior Court, County of
Santa Clara. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye) and certain of its directors and
officers.

The complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in
connection with the offering materials for the March 2014 offering
of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common stock, assert
claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount and rescission.

On August 11, 2015, the court overruled the defendants' demurrers,
which sought to have the consolidated amended complaint dismissed.
GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of
approximately $172 million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Cobalt Securities Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that all
defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in the case, Cobalt International Energy Securities
Litigation.

Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its
officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group
Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), affiliates of
shareholders of Cobalt (including Group Inc.) and underwriters
(including Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.)) for certain offerings of
Cobalt's securities are defendants in a putative securities class
action filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 1, 2015, asserts
claims under the federal securities laws, seeks compensatory and
rescissory damages in unspecified amounts and alleges material
misstatements and omissions concerning Cobalt in connection with a
$1.67 billion February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a
$1.38 billion December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible
notes, a $1.00 billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common
stock, a $1.33 billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock,
and a $1.30 billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible
notes.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, among others,
Group Inc. and GS&Co. are liable as controlling persons with
respect to all five offerings. The consolidated amended complaint
also seeks damages from GS&Co. in connection with its acting as an
underwriter of 14,430,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $465 million, $690
million principal amount of convertible notes, and approximately
$508 million principal amount of convertible notes in the February
2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings, respectively, for an
aggregate offering price of approximately $1.66 billion.

On June 30, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Solazyme Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants
in a putative securities class action filed on June 24, 2015 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Solazyme,
Inc. (Solazyme) and certain of its directors and officers. As to
the underwriters, the complaints generally allege misstatements
and omissions in connection with March 2014 offerings by Solazyme
of approximately $63 million of common stock and $150 million
principal amount of convertible senior subordinated notes, assert
claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. GS&Co. underwrote
3,450,000 shares of common stock and $150 million principal amount
of notes for an aggregate offering price of approximately $187
million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Moved to Dismiss Intervenor's Claims in NY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
defendants have moved to dismiss the claims of an intervenor in an
New York class action by former employees.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against
female employees in respect of compensation, promotion,
assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint
alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at
specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since
July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in
part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of
plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group
Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations
in their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the
named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm.

On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge
assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class
certification recommended that the motion be denied in all
respects.

On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge denied plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration of that recommendation and granted the
plaintiffs' motion to intervene two female individuals, one of
whom was employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other
of whom is a current employee of the firm.

On August 17, 2015, the defendants appealed the magistrate judge's
decision on intervention.

On September 28, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the claims
of an intervenor who is not a current employee of the firm for
lack of standing.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Reached in CDS Antitrust Case
-------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Goldman,
Sachs & Co. has entered into a definitive settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in the so-called Credit Derivatives Antitrust
Matters.

The European Commission announced in April 2011 that it was
initiating proceedings to investigate further numerous financial
services companies, including Group Inc., in connection with the
supply of data related to credit default swaps and in connection
with profit sharing and fee arrangements for clearing of credit
default swaps, including potential anti-competitive practices.

On July 1, 2013, the European Commission issued to those financial
services companies a Statement of Objections alleging that they
colluded to limit competition in the trading of exchange-traded
unfunded credit derivatives and exchange trading of credit default
swaps more generally, and setting out its process for determining
fines and other remedies.

Group Inc.'s current understanding is that the proceedings related
to profit sharing and fee arrangements for clearing of credit
default swaps have been suspended indefinitely. The firm has
received civil investigative demands from the U.S. Department of
Justice for information on similar matters. Goldman Sachs is
cooperating with the investigations and reviews.

GS&Co. is among the numerous defendants in putative antitrust
class actions relating to credit derivatives, filed beginning in
May 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege
that defendants violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to
forestall the development of alternatives to OTC trading of credit
derivatives and to maintain inflated bid-ask spreads for credit
derivatives trading. The complaints seek declaratory and
injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

On September 4, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss, permitting the claim alleging
an antitrust conspiracy to proceed but confining it to a period
after the fall of 2008.

On September 30, 2015, GS&Co. entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs, subject to court approval. The firm
has reserved the full amount of the proposed settlement.

                           *     *     *

Goldman Sachs also disclosed that beginning in February 2015,
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), and Group Inc. were named as
defendants in separate putative class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal
antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange benchmark
rates, which caused artificial foreign exchange futures prices.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and treble
damages in an unspecified amount.

On August 13, 2015, the court consolidated these actions with the
antitrust class actions. On October 1, 2015, GS&Co. and Group Inc.
entered into a definitive settlement agreement with the plaintiffs
in the consolidated action, subject to court approval. The firm
has reserved the full amount of the proposed settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Treasury Securities-Related Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named as
defendants in several putative class actions relating to the
market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015,
in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York,
the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, and the Northern
District of Illinois. The complaints generally allege that the
defendants violated the federal antitrust laws and the Commodity
Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury
securities, as well as related futures and options, and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an
unspecified amount and restitution.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Commodities-Related Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend the Commodities-Related Litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs International (GSI),
J. Aron & Company and Metro International Trade Services (Metro),
a previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold
in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a
number of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaints generally allege violations
of federal antitrust laws and state laws in connection with the
storage of aluminum and aluminum trading. The complaints seek
declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief as well as
unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages.

On August 29, 2014, the court granted the Goldman Sachs
defendants' motion to dismiss. Certain plaintiffs appealed on
September 24, 2014, and the remaining plaintiffs sought to amend
their complaints in October 2014.

On March 26, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints, rejecting
their monopolization claims and most state law claims but
permitting their antitrust conspiracy claims and certain parallel
state law and unjust enrichment claims to proceed, and the court
directed the remaining plaintiffs to file their amended
complaints, which they did on April 9, 2015.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Moved to Dismiss Zinc Storage Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that GS Power,
Goldman Sachs International (GSI), Metro International Trade
Services (Metro), and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) are among the
defendants named in putative class actions, filed beginning on May
23, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, based on similar alleged violations of the federal
antitrust laws in connection with the management of zinc storage
facilities. On June 17, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint. On August 3, 2015, the defendants moved to
dismiss.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Moved to Dismiss Platinum and Palladium Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Goldman
Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints generally allege that the defendants violated federal
antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical
platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive
relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On July
27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, and on September 21, 2015, the defendants moved to
dismiss.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendant in ISDAFIX-Related Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Group Inc.
is among the defendants named in several putative class actions
relating to trading in interest rate derivatives, filed beginning
in September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The second consolidated amended complaint,
filed on February 12, 2015, asserts claims under the federal
antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged
conspiracy to manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmark and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint on April 13, 2015.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Litigation Over Forex Trading
------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the firm
continues to defend the so-called currencies-related litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the
defendants named in several putative antitrust class actions
relating to trading in the foreign exchange markets, filed
starting in December 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege
that defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection with
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange
markets and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
treble damages in an unspecified amount. On February 13, 2014, the
cases were consolidated into one action, and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed on March 31, 2014.

On January 28, 2015, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated action. On July 16, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a second consolidated amended complaint.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Suit Over ERISA Employee Benefit Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. were among the defendants
named in a putative class action filed on June 3, 2015, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of certain ERISA employee benefit plans. As to the claims
brought against GS&Co. and Group Inc., the complaint generally
alleges that the defendants violated ERISA in connection with an
alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange
markets, which caused losses to ERISA plans for which the
defendants provided foreign exchange services or otherwise
authorized the execution of foreign exchange services. Plaintiffs
seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as restitution and
disgorgement in an unspecified amount.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Forex Class Suits in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Group
Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc.
are among the defendants named in putative class actions related
to trading in foreign exchange markets, filed beginning in
September 2015 in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada
and the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments traded in
Canada. The complaints generally allege a conspiracy to manipulate
the foreign currency exchange markets and assert claims under
Canada's Competition Act and common law. The Ontario and Quebec
complaints seek, among other things, compensatory damages in the
amounts of 1 billion Canadian dollars and 100 million Canadian
dollars, respectively, as well as restitution and 50 million
Canadian dollars in punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages.


GOOD TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Blackberry Sale
--------------------------------------------------------
Cromwell Schubarth, writing for Silicon Valley Business Journal,
reports that Good Technology is already a poster child for unicorn
markdowns, selling to Blackberry in September for less than half
of the $1.2 billion it had been valued at by private investors a
year before.

Now the Sunnyvale company is being held up as an ugly example of
the economic fallout inflicted on employees when a unicorn
stumbles badly.

The New York Times reported on Dec. 23 that employee shares in the
Blackberry sale were valued at just 44 cents a share, down from
$4.32 a year earlier.  What's worse is that many Good employees
ended up paying taxes on the inflated value of their private
stock.  The paper said that one it talked to paid more than
$80,000 in taxes and another paid more than $150,000.

In contrast, preferred stock owned by Good's investors was valued
at more than $3 a share in the sale.

Christy Wyatt, the CEO who negotiated the sale to Blackberry and
has since left, got $4 million plus a $1.9 million severance.
And to rub salt on the employee wounds, it turns out that Good
turned down an $825 million acquisition offer from CA Technologies
in March and later a $650 million offer from private equity firm
Thoma Bravo.

The price a few months later when Blackberry bought the company
fell to $425 million.

Some Good employees, executives and shareholders are seeking
damages from the company's board in a class-action lawsuit.

One of them is Matthew Parks, who remains at Good as director of
cloud products and has worked at the company since 2006.  He
reportedly paid a six-figure tax bill for stock allotted to him
before the company was sold, but which is now worth a fraction of
its former value.

"Many employees may not recover what they've lost," Mr. Parks told
the Times.  "We listened to these executives and, in the end,
incurred huge tax bills because we trusted them.  Employees
essentially ended up paying to work for the company."


GRINDR LLC: Bid to Dismiss "Howell" Case Granted
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend in the captioned case MARK HOWELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GRINDR, LLC, Defendant, Case No.: 15cv1337-GPC(NLS),
(S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Mark Howell filed the operative amended complaint (FAC)
alleging a putative class action against Defendant Grindr, LLC for
violations of California's Dating Service Contracts Act (DSCA),
Cal. Civ. Code sections 1694 et seq.; California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq. and
California Business & Professions Code sections 17535 et seq.

Plaintiff alleges that according to Defendant's website,
http://grindr.com/learn-more,more than five million guys in 192
countries use Grindr.  Beginning in 2013, Plaintiff paid $11.99
per month to join Grindr Xtra, Defendant's premium service. When
joining Grindr Xtra, consumers are required to enter their names,
telephone numbers, addresses and statistics into Defendant's
system. In addition, consumers will also upload photographs and/or
videos onto Defendant's system. At the time Plaintiff joined
Defendant's online dating service, Defendant's contract with
California consumers failed to include a three day cancellation
provision as required by California Civil Code section 1694.2(b).
In addition, Defendant's contract also failed to include the name
and address of the dating service operator to which the notice of
cancellation was to be mailed in violation of California Civil
Code section 1694.2(c).

Defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) based
on Plaintiff's lack of statutory standing and that Grindr Xtra is
not covered by the SDCA.  Defendant also moves to dismiss pursuant
Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing. Lastly, Defendant
moves, alternatively, to strike the class action allegations
pursuant to Rule 12(f) in the event the Court does not dismiss the
FAC.

In his Order dated December 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/RglpTgfrom Leagle.com, Judge Curiel granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court
directed the Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint on or
before December 31, 2015.

According to the Court, the FAC does not allege the facts
surrounding the cancellation of the contract. The words "upon
cancellation", does not properly explain how the contract was
cancelled, and/or whether Plaintiff attempted to cancel the
contract as outlined in section 1694. Without more facts,
Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged statutory standing, which
requires a showing that the economic injury suffered by him was
due to a violation of the statute. A violation of the statute
itself is not enough. Thus, Plaintiff lacks statutory standing by
failing to allege a cognizable injury.

Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. -- ak@kazlg.com -- and Matthew Michael
Loker, Esq. -- ml@kazlg.com -- of Kazerouni Law Group, APC; Joshua
Swigart, Esq. -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- of Hyde & Swigart
and Todd M. Friedman, Esq. -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
-- of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Mark Howell

Mazda K Antia, Esq. -- mantia@cooley.com -- Craig Edward
TenBroeck, Esq. -- ctenbroeck@cooley.com -- and Darcie Tilly, Esq.
-- dtilly@cooley.com -- of Cooley Godward Kronish serve as counsel
for Defendant Grindr LLC


GUAM MEMORIAL: Responds to Class Action Over Tax Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------
Janela Carrera, writing for PNC News First, reports that the Guam
Memorial Hospital is once again responding to a class action
lawsuit filed against them by a Compact migrant for garnishment of
tax refunds.

In it, the hospital's legal counsel pokes holes at the plaintiff's
arguments on why GMH should not garnish tax refunds of Freely
Associated States migrants.

In the lawsuit, the Guam Memorial Hospital's legal counsel,
Minakshi Hemlani, makes certain points about the plaintiff's
arguments.

The lawsuit was brought on by a Chuukese citizen who's suing GMH
for garnishment of her tax refunds because of her unpaid hospital
bills.

The plaintiff, Tairin Atesom, believes that because the hospital
gets reimbursement -- partial as it may be -- from the federal
government as part of the Compact of Free Association, GMH should
not be able to collect twice on her debt, once from her and once
from the federal government.

But the hospital says that logic is absurd.  "By Plaintiff's
logic, Compact Impact funding is not meant to assist Guam's public
education and social service providers, but should instead be
applied as payment for FSM citizens' personal expenses -- and to
what end? Is Mr. Atesom suggesting that the federal government
reimburse expenses for groceries, clothing and legal fees as
well?" Mr. Hemlani writes.

Furthermore, GMH criticizes the lawsuit for appearing to patronize
the hospital at one point by saying GMH was big hearted when it
"went ahead and did the right thing" . . . "well knowing that
probably plaintiff could not afford to pay."

"It was not being big hearted in providing medical services to
Plaintiff and her family," Mr. Hemlani says.  "It was simply
following the law and its mission."

GMH is asking the District Court again to dismiss the lawsuit on
grounds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

They also argue that by allowing Mr. Atesom to bring what they
believe is a personal contractual dispute to the District Court,
it would open the door for any FSM citizen on Guam to bring all
contractual and collection claims to the federal courts.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Defendants Preparing for Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2015, that defendants are currently preparing for the discovery
phase of a stockholder class action.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of Schuff was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt,
Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil
Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint").

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v.
Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek,
Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda,
Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The currently operative
complaint is the November 6, 2014 Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with
the tender offer, the individual members of the Schuff board of
directors and HC2, the controlling stockholder of Schuff, breached
their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The
Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form merger
based upon plaintiff's expectation that we would cash out the
remaining public stockholders of Schuff following the completion
of the tender offer.

Such a short-form merger has never been formally proposed or acted
upon and as of September 30, 2015, approximately 341 thousand
shares of Schuff remain in public hands, representing
approximately 9% of the outstanding shares of Schuff. The
Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory
damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. The
defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015.

"We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the
Complaint are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously,"
the Company said.


HEALTH NET: Defending 3 Class Suits in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in three related litigation matters pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Northern District of California") relating to the
independent contractor classification of counselors ("MFLCs") who
contracted with the Company's subsidiary, MHN Government Services,
Inc. ("MHNGS"), to provide short-term, non-medical counseling at
U.S. military installations throughout the country under the
Company's Military and Family Life Counseling (formerly Military
and Family Life Consultants) program.

The Company said, "On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a
putative class action in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for Pierce County against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and
MHN Services d/b/a MHN Services Corporation (also a subsidiary),
on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of current and former
MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors in
the state of Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present.
Plaintiffs claim that MFLCs were misclassified as independent
contractors under Washington law and are entitled to the wages and
overtime pay that they would have received had they been
classified as non-exempt employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages,
overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest.
We moved to compel the case to arbitration, and the court denied
the motion on September 30, 2011. We appealed the decision. The
Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on
August 15, 2013. On February 26, 2014, we removed this case to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act."

"On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington
action, as well as 12 other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed
collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former
MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors
nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege
misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek
penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has
since transferred the case to the Northern District of California
to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2,
2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also
a subsidiary).

"The third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the
FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state
laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico,
Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October
24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations
for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

"On November 1, 2012, we moved to compel arbitration in the
Northern District of California, and the court denied the motion
on April 3, 2013. We noticed our appeal of that decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 8,
2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court granted Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification to
allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective action members. The
court stayed all other proceedings pending an outcome in the Ninth
Circuit appeal. On December 17, 2014, a divided (2-1) Ninth
Circuit panel affirmed the district court's decision denying our
motion to compel arbitration. On January 14, 2015, we petitioned
for rehearing en banc, and the Ninth Circuit denied the petition
on February 9, 2015. On February 13, 2015, the Ninth Circuit
granted our motion to stay the proceedings, and the proceedings
will remain stayed until the final disposition by the U.S. Supreme
Court of our petition for a writ of certiorari. We filed our
petition for writ of certiorari on June 10, 2015, and on September
30, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted our petition.

"On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred
to the Northern District of California to relate it to the two
FLSA suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, we moved to stay the
suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. We also filed two
alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case to
arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims and California
Labor Code section 226.8 claims. On June 3, 2014, the court
granted our motion to stay, and denied the later alternative
motions without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted.
This suit will also remain stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court's
disposition of our case and final determination on appeal.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims;
however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties."


HEALTH NET: 2 Stockholders Filed Merger Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Two purported Health Net, Inc. stockholders filed two putative
class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware seeking to enjoin a merger deal, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On July 2, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Centene Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Centene"), together with Chopin Merger Sub
I, Inc. ("Merger Sub I") and Chopin Merger Sub II, Inc. ("Merger
Sub II"), each a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned
subsidiary of Centene.

In connection with the Merger, two purported Company stockholders
filed two putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware seeking to enjoin the Merger, and other
relief. The lawsuits were consolidated, and the amended complaint
alleges, among other things, that the merger consideration is
inadequate, that the process culminating in the Merger was flawed,
that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the Merger, and that Centene, Merger Sub I and
Merger Sub II aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty.
The amended complaint also alleges that the Form S-4 Registration
Statement filed by Centene on August 19, 2015 contains material
misstatements and omits material information.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims;
however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties," the
Company said.


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff Files Opening Brief in Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
plaintiff have filed its opening brief with the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and Mr. Reynolds, as defendants
(the "Securities Class Action"). The lawsuit alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements related to the timing and
completion of the clinical study of the Company's Neuro-Spinal
Scaffold. The plaintiff seeks class certification for purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from April 5, 2013
through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages.

On April 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiff's claim with
prejudice. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this decision on
May 4, 2015.  A mandatory mediation conference was held on
September 10, 2015.  Following that conference, on October 5,
2015, plaintiff filed its opening brief with the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  The defendants were
scheduled to file their answering brief on November 5, 2015, with
any reply brief of the plaintiff due thirty days thereafter.


J.C. PENNEY: Arbitration Bid in "Tagliabue" Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stanley A. Boone granted in part Defendant's motion
to compel arbitration in the captioned case JERAD TAGLIABUE,
Plaintiff, v. J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., Defendant, Case No.:
1:15-cv-01443-SAB, (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Jerad Tagliabue, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, filed this action in the Superior Court of
California in the County of Stanislaus alleging employment related
violations of state law. Defendant removed the action to the
Eastern District of California pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), and 28 U.S.C. Section
1441(a). Plaintiff amended his complaint to allege an additional
claim under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).

Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. Defendant seeks to
compel arbitration based upon two employment contracts under which
Plaintiff was employed. Plaintiff does not challenge that the
employment agreement requires arbitration of the individual or
class action claims at issue in this action.

Plaintiff contends that arbitration should not be required because
he did not sign the employment contracts, the contracts are
unconscionable, and Plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate the
PAGA claims.

In his Order dated December 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/99i6PMfrom Leagle.com, Judge Boone directed
Plaintiff is required to arbitrate his individual claims. The
parties shall file supplemental briefing addressing whether the
PAGA claims are required to be arbitrated under the Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement.  The Court set these deadlines:

     a. Defendant's supplemental brief shall be filed on or
        before January 15, 2016;

     b. Plaintiff's supplemental opposition shall be filed on
        or before January 29, 2016; and

     c. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed on or before
        February 5, 2016;

     d. Oral argument on the remaining issue is set before the
        undersigned on February 17, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in
        Courtroom 9.

Leonard Thomas Emma, Esq. and Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq. --
silg@ilglegal.com -- of Employment Lawyers; and Michael R.
Hoffman, Esq. -- mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com -- of Hoffman
Employment Lawyers, LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Jerad
Tagliabue

Lindsey Connor Hulse, Esq. -- lhulse@orrick.com -- and Lynne C
Hermle, Esq. -- lchermle@orrick.com -- of Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP serve as counsel for Defendant J.C. Penney
Corporation, Inc.


J&B IMPORTERS: Recalls Folding Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
J&B Importers, Inc., of Miami, Fla., announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,600 Origin8 folding bicycles. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The frame on the folding bicycles can break, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves three models, the F1, F3 and F7.  The F1
model is a single speed folding bike which came in matte black and
can be identified by the "F1" on the top tube. The F3 model is a
three speed folding bike which came in white and can be identified
by "F3" on the top tube. The F7 model is a seven speed folding
bike which came in battleship gray and can be identified by "F7"
on the top tube. The serial number is located on the bottom tube,
near the bike pedals. Serial number ranges included in the recall
are as follows:

  --- F1 Model
  Serial number range:
  --------------------
  B0470373-B0470459
  B181460001-B181460100
  B13223229 - B13223374

  --- F3 Model
  Serial number range:
  --------------------
  B181460101 - B181460200
  B0470460-B0470580
  B130170001-B130170147
  B181404945-B181405079

  --- F7 Model
  Serial number range:
  --------------------
  B181460201 - B181460320
  B0470581-B0470746
  B131070148-B130170279
  B13223375 - B13223510
  B181405080 - B181405255

Origin8 has received 13 reports of welds on the frame cracking or
failing. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/9d6jrC

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Independent bicycles dealers nationwide between August 2012 and
October 2015 for between $370 and $480.

Consumers should stop using the recalled bicycles immediately and
return them to the place where purchased for a free replacement
bicycle.


KTM NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
KTM North America Inc., of Amherst, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 550 KTM Competition/Closed Course Off-Road
Motorcycles. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Under extreme riding conditions, fuel can escape from the tank
breather assembly. This poses a risk of fire and injury to the
rider.

This recall involves model year 2015 and 2016 KTM brand
motorcycles with 250cc and 2-cycle engines. The recalled KTM
motorcycles are orange and black with the KTM logo on both sides
of the shrouds covering the fuel tank. The engine size is printed
on both sides of the rear fender below the rear of the seat.

Model year 2015 motorcycles have the letter F in the 10th position
of the vehicle identification number (VIN). The VIN is located on
the right side of the steering head.

Model year 2016 motorcycles have the letter G in the 10th position
of the vehicle identification number (VIN). The VIN is located on
the right side of the steering head.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in KTM Motorrad AG, of
Austria and sold in Authorized KTM dealers nationwide from August
2014 to December 2014 for about $7,900 for the 2015 model year,
from June 2015 to July 2015 for about $8,000 for the 2016 model
year.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the recalled motorcycles
and contact an authorized KTM dealer to schedule a free repair.
KTM is contacting consumers who purchased the recalled product
directly.


MACY'S MERCHANDISING: Recalls Stainless Steel Cookware Sets
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Macy's Merchandising Group, Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 121,000 Martha Stewart Collection(TM)
10-piece Stainless Steel Cookware Set. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

This recall involves the Martha Stewart Collection 10-piece
stainless steel cookware sets, which include an 8-inch and a 10-
inch stainless steel frying pan. The frying pans have two rivets
that attach the frying pan to the handle. The rivets have
stainless steel discs on top of them. Other items included in the
cookware sets are a 1-quart covered saucepan, 2-quart covered
sauce pan, 3-quart covered saucepan and 6-quart covered stockpot.
The recall affects only the two frying pans. UPC numbers
0733003518899, 0733003623326, 0766370840959 or 0766370980334 can
be found on the product packaging or purchase receipt. The
recalled products have one of the following date codes inscribed
on the bottom of the pans.

Date Codes on Frying Pans:
70118
70138
70218
70228
70318
70328
70338
70418
70428
70438
70518
70528
70618
70628
70718
70728
70818
70828
70918
70928
71018
71108
71118
71208
71218
HF10114
HF10414
HF10513
HF10514
HF10613
HF10614
HF10713
HF10813
HF10913
HF11113

The firm has received seven reports of the metal discs popping off
the frying pans, including three minor injuries. Injuries include
bruises, burns and welts.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/6FD8N0

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Macy's stores nationwide and Military Exchanges, and online at
www.macys.com between January 2011 and September 2015 for about
$170 at Macy's and $90 at Military Exchanges.

Consumers should immediately stop using the 8 and 10-inch frying
pans from the cookware set. The other items from the cookware set
are not affected by this recall. Consumers who purchased the
cookware sets from Macy's or macys.com should return the frying
pans to Macy's or macys.com for a store credit for the full value
of the two frying pans. Consumers who purchased the cookware sets
from a Military Exchange should return the frying pans to the
Military Exchange for a full refund.


MARKWEST ENERGY: Katsman, Schein & Kleinfeldt Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Markwest Energy Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Katsman, Schein and Kleinfeldt lawsuits have been consolidated
into one action pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, now captioned In re MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.
Unitholder Litigation.

On July 11, 2015, the Partnership entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with MPLX LP ("MPLX"),
MPLX GP LLC, the general partner of MPLX ("MPLX GP"), Sapphire
Holdco LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of MPLX ("Merger Sub" and,
together with MPLX and MPLX GP, the "MPLX Entities"), and, for
certain limited purposes set forth in the Merger Agreement,
Marathon Petroleum Corporation, the parent of MPLX GP ("MPC").

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with
and into the Partnership (the "Merger"), with the Partnership
surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of MPLX.  After
the Merger, the Partnership's common units will cease to be
publicly traded.

On July 24, 2015, a putative unitholder class action complaint was
filed by a single plaintiff who purports to be a unitholder of the
Partnership in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware
(Case No. 11332-VCG) against the individual members of the General
Partner's board of directors (the "Board"), the General Partner,
MPLX, MPC and Merger Sub. The complaint, styled Katsman v. Frank
M. Semple, et al., (the "Katsman lawsuit") alleges that the Board
breached its duties in approving the Merger with MPLX. Generally,
the Katsman lawsuit alleges that the Board breached its duties to
the Partnership's common unitholders because the Merger does not
provide the Partnership's common unitholders with adequate
consideration, the Board did not seek to maximize value for the
benefit of the Partnership's common unitholders, certain members
of the Partnership's management team will remain executive
officers of MPLX after the consummation of the Merger and the
Merger Agreement contains preclusive deal protective devices and
does not provide for appraisal rights.  The Katsman lawsuit also
alleges that MPC, MPLX and Merger Sub aided and abetted in such
breaches. The Katsman lawsuit seeks, among other relief, to enjoin
the Merger, or in the event the Merger is consummated, rescission
of the Merger or monetary damages. The Katsman lawsuit also seeks
an accounting and recovery of attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and
other litigation costs.

On August 10, 2015, another purported unitholder of the
Partnership filed a putative class action complaint, captioned
Schein v. Semple, et al., (the "Schein lawsuit") in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, advancing substantially similar
allegations and claims, and seeking substantially the same relief
against the same defendants named in the Katsman lawsuit.

On August 14, 2015, another purported unitholder of the
Partnership filed a putative class action complaint, captioned
Kleinfeldt v. Semple, et al., (the "Kleinfeldt lawsuit") in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The Kleinfeldt
lawsuit asserts substantially the same allegations and claims
against the same defendants named in the Katsman and Schein
lawsuits.

On September 9, 2015, the Katsman, Schein and Kleinfeldt lawsuits
were consolidated into one action pending in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, now captioned In re MarkWest Energy
Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation.  The Chancery Court's
consolidation order contemplates that any future Delaware class
action suits will be consolidated into this action.  On October 1,
2015, the Delaware plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the individual members of the Board, MPLX, the general
partner of MPLX, MPC and Merger Sub asserting that in connection
with the Merger and related disclosures, among other things, (i)
the Board breached its duties in approving the Merger with MPLX
and (ii) MPC, MPLX, the general partner of MPLX, and Merger Sub
aided and abetted these breaches.  The complaint seeks, among
other relief, to enjoin the Merger, or in the event the Merger is
consummated, rescission of the Merger or monetary damages.

The Partnership intends to vigorously defend this consolidated
lawsuit. However, one of the conditions to the completion of the
Merger is that no law, order, decree, judgment or injunction of
any court, agency or other governmental authority shall be in
effect that enjoins, prohibits or makes illegal consummation of
any of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.  A
preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of
the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive
relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger.  An
adverse judgment for rescission or for monetary damages could have
a material adverse effect on the Partnership and MPLX following
the Merger.


MAXLINEAR INC: Class Suit Parties Working on Settlement Papers
--------------------------------------------------------------
MaxLinear, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the proposed
settlement in a class action lawsuit is subject to negotiation of
the settlement papers by the parties and is subject to court
approval after notice and an opportunity to object is provided to
the proposed settlement class.

Starting on February 9, 2015, eleven stockholder class action
complaints (captioned Langholz v. Entropic Communications, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 10631-VCP (filed Feb. 9, 2015); Tomblin v.
Entropic Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10632-VCP (filed Feb. 9,
2015); Crill v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10640-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Wohl v. Entropic Communications,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10644-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Parshall
v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10652-VCP
(filed Feb. 12, 2015); Saggar v. Padval, et al., C.A. No. 10661-
VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Iyer v. Tewksbury, et al., C.A. No.
10665-VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Respler v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10669-VCP (filed Feb. 17,
2015); Gal v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10671-VCP (filed Feb. 17, 2015); Werbowsky v. Padval, et al., C.A.
No. 10673-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015); and Agosti v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10676-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015))
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
behalf of a putative class of Entropic Communications, Inc.
stockholders.

The complaints name Entropic, the board of directors of Entropic,
MaxLinear, Excalibur Acquisition Corporation, and Excalibur
Subsidiary, LLC as defendants. The complaints generally allege
that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Entropic by
MaxLinear, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Entropic stockholders by, among other things,
purportedly failing to take steps to maximize the value of
Entropic to its stockholders and agreeing to allegedly preclusive
deal protection devices in the merger agreement. The complaints
further allege that Entropic, MaxLinear, and/or the merger
subsidiaries aided and abetted the individual defendants in the
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek,
among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from
consummating the proposed transaction, an order declaring the
merger agreement unlawful and unenforceable, in the event that the
proposed transaction is consummated, an order rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages to the class,
imposition of a constructive trust, damages, and/or attorneys'
fees and costs.

On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs Ankur Saggar, Jon Werbowsky, and
Angelo Agosti filed an amended class action complaint. Also on
March 27, 2015, plaintiffs Martin Wohl and Jeffrey Park filed an
amended class action complaint. On April 1, 2015, plaintiff Mark
Respler filed an amended class action complaint.

On April 16, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Delaware actions, captioned In re Entropic Communications, Inc.
Consolidated Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10631-VCP (the
"Consolidated Action"). The April 16, 2015 order appointed
plaintiffs Rama Iyer and Jon Werbowsky as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
designated the amended complaint filed by plaintiffs Ankur Saggar,
Jon Werbowsky, and Angelo Agosti as the operative complaint (the
"Amended Complaint").

The Amended Complaint names as defendants Entropic, the board of
directors of Entropic, the Company, Excalibur Acquisition
Corporation, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC. The Amended Complaint
generally alleges that, in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Entropic by the Company, the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Entropic stockholders by, among
other things, purportedly failing to maximize the value of
Entropic to its stockholders, engaging in a purportedly unfair and
conflicted sale process, agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal
protection devices in the merger agreement, and allegedly
misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose all material
information in connection with the proposed transaction. The
Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company and the merger
subsidiaries aided and abetted the individual defendants in the
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Amended Complaint
seeks, among other things: an order declaring the merger agreement
unlawful and unenforceable, an order rescinding, to the extent
already implemented, the merger agreement, an order enjoining
defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, imposition
of a constructive trust, and attorneys' and experts' fees and
costs.

On April 24, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered
into a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement
of the Delaware actions. The proposed settlement is subject to
negotiation of the settlement papers by the parties and is subject
to court approval after notice and an opportunity to object is
provided to the proposed settlement class. There can be no
assurance that the parties will reach agreement regarding the
final terms of the settlement agreement or that the Court of
Chancery will approve the settlement.


MEREDITH CORP: Faces Class Actions Over Proposed Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Patane, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that
three lawsuits filed in Polk County District Court are seeking to
stop the proposed acquisition of Meredith Corp., the Des Moines-
based media and publishing company.

The lawsuits filed in Iowa join one filed in federal district
court.

While filed separately, they make similar claims and ask a judge
for an injunction to stop Meredith's acquisition.  All four are
asking a judge to grant class-action status.

Meredith announced in September that it would be sold to Virginia-
based media company Media General for $2.4 billion, not including
debt.

The deal would result in a new company, Meredith Media General,
with offices in both Richmond, Va. and Des Moines.  Meredith CEO
Steve Lacy would hold the same position in the new company.

In the lawsuits, Meredith shareholders claim company executives
and Meredith family members set up the deal to earn themselves a
payday while leaving minority shareholders behind.

The lawsuits claim the proposed acquisition undervalues Meredith's
potential future growth while Meredith's officers and directors
will receive "millions of dollars in special payments" not offered
to common shareholders.

Should the deal go through, "the Meredith family and Company
insiders will receive over $223 million in cash alone," one
lawsuit reads.

All four lawsuits were filed between Sept. 21 and Oct. 21.
Meredith and Media General acknowledged the lawsuits in a Nov. 25
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"Meredith and Media General believe that the claims asserted in
each of these actions are without merit and intend to defend each
of them vigorously," the filing reads.

In an email on Dec. 23, Meredith spokesman Art Slusark said none
of the suits have merit, including on a consolidated basis.

"Such class action lawsuits are an expected (even if unwarranted)
consequence of any consequential merger or acquisition,"
Mr. Slusark said.

Lacy and other executives have a conflict of interest in pushing
for the deal, the lawsuits claim, since they are guaranteed
positions with the new company.

If the deal is approved, Media General shareholders would own
about 65 percent of the company and Meredith shareholders would
own about 35 percent.  The new company's board would include eight
members appointed by Media General and four appointed by Meredith,
according to filings with the SEC.

The lawsuits also claim Meredith executives put protections in
place to ensure the company's deal with Media General succeeds and
scares off other potential buyers.

For example, the lawsuits point to a fee put in place that would
require Meredith to pay Media General $60 million should the
acquisition be terminated.  Similar fees to be paid to Meredith
are in place should Media General pull out of the deal.

The three Polk County lawsuits include complaints from three
Meredith shareholders.

The federal lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa, was first filed on behalf of a Meredith
shareholder in Illinois.  A second Meredith shareholder who lives
in New York has since joined the suit.

Meredith's combination with Media General would create a company
that owns 88 local television stations and Meredith's suite of
women-focused magazines, like Better Homes & Gardens.

Since the acquisition's announcement in September, Texas-based
Nexstar Broadcasting has made a bid for Media General, which would
cancel the Meredith deal.  However, Nexstar said earlier in
December that it has "reached an impasse" in negotiations with
Media General.

However, Reuters and The New York Post recently reported that
Nexstar and Media General are in talks about their deal.  Both
reports cited anonymous sources.

Meredith and Media General expect their deal to close in June
2016.


MONTGOMERY, AL: Group Wins Injunction in Debt Collection Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elyssa Cherney, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that after
Orange County officials waived -- for one weekend only -- a 40
percent surcharge on overdue traffic tickets and criminal fines,
the Clerk of Courts Office noticed a positive response.

About 860 people showed up and paid off more than half a million
dollars in money owed.

"It really got us to start saying, 'what is our ultimate goal?' "
said Clerk of Courts Tiffany Moore Russell. "Is our ultimate goal
to collect what's owed to the state, or to help collection
companies make money? . . . and it really made us sit back and
say, 'We need to address this collection rate.' "

In a recent interview, Russell announced she is lowering the
surcharge collection agencies can impose on overdue payments.
Starting in January, the interest rate will drop from 40 percent
-- the highest amount allowed by state law -- to 25 percent.
Ms. Russell said she considers the lower rate a more "reasonable"
incentive.

For almost a decade, the clerk in Orange has referred cases to
collection agencies if an attempt to pay the fee is not made
within the first 90 days.

The surcharge is meant to cover expenses for collection agencies
to track down the debtors, notify them and obtain the payment. The
Orange County clerk's office works with two companies: Penn Credit
Corporation and AllianceOne, both based out of Pennsylvania.

Some stakeholders in the criminal-justice system have long debated
the practice of fining, questioning whether it creates an extra
burden for indigent people.  Legislators enabled clerks to use
collections agencies in the early 2000s.

That was around the time the state took over some funding for the
offices, said John Dew, executive director of the Florida Clerks
of Court Operations Corporation.  Legislators were looking for
best practices to account for every dollar, he said.

Clerks are not required to use collection agencies.

Seminole County, for example, manages fines and fees internally.
Instead of contracting a collection agency, judges use a
sentencing review process for county court to determine individual
payment plans, according to Michelle Kennedy, a spokeswoman for
the court.  In the felony divisions, fines are often imposed as a
condition of probation, she said.

Equal Justice Under the Law, a nonprofit civil rights organization
headquartered in Washington, D.C., has said exorbitant interest
rates on court fines and fees create today's equivalent of a
debtor's prison.

In a federal class-action lawsuit filed in Alabama, the group won
an injunction that stopped the city of Montgomery from privatizing
its debt-collection services.

Hiring collection agencies enables companies and the state to
profit from people who genuinely cannot afford to pay, said
Hallie Ryan, an attorney with the nonprofit Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law, which focuses on similar issues.

While Ms. Ryan said lowering the interest rate in Orange County is
a welcome change, she objects to having a surcharge at all,
believing it penalizes certain people.

"It essentially is creating a two-tier system of justice, where if
you are somebody with money you can pay off your fines and fees
easily . . ." she said.  "But if you're poor, you are put onto
this payment schedule, and you are charged these exorbitant
rates."

From the perspective of the clerk in Orange County, an interest
rate doesn't become a punishment.  It's an incentive for people to
take care of their bills, a jolting reminder of the unpaid
balance.  People can also avoid the surcharge if they sign up for
a monthly payment plan with the clerk's office before the fines
are overdue.

Total collections for Orange County neared $267 million, but some
of that money went to other counties.  All 67 clerks collect about
$1 billion in fines and fees each year, which directly fund their
budget.

The change to the interest rate follows other sweeping fixes to
the county's court collection processes.  In September,
Ms. Russell and Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Frederick Lauten
announced they were ending the practice of issuing arrest orders
for people with unpaid fines who failed to appear in collections
court.  The move also quashed more than 21,000 outstanding arrest
orders.

An upcoming reform, Ms. Russell said, will be changing people's
behavior so they pay before cases get referred to a collection
agency.  This could be accomplished by changing the way the clerk
contacts people -- such as using text messages instead of phone
calls -- or editing the notices they send.

"The collection agencies already have enough cases, they don't
need to collect for us," Ms. Russell said.

"We're looking to see what works for a county the size of Orange
County."


MOODY'S CORPORATION: Awaits 2nd Cir. Ruling in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action
case has now been returned to the Second Circuit for final
disposition of an appeal, and a decision is expected in the near
future.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory
and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In
early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud.

In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added
to the complaint.

In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary
judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud
claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case
law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims.

In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants'
motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except
for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19,
2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the
negligent misrepresentation claim.

On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion
for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud
and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in
part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but
allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims
of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11
plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's
for aiding and abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose
claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on
November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions,
reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously
dismissed.

On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one
additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the
remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims
against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for
negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013.

On April 24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements,
the 14 plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial
stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these
claims as against all defendants, and the court so ordered that
stipulation on April 26, 2013.

The settlement did not cover certain claims of two plaintiffs,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement
System ("PSERS") and Commerzbank AG ("Commerzbank"), that were
previously dismissed by the Court.

On May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their
claims and also seeking reversal of the trial court's denial of
class certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in
earlier proceedings, PSERS and Commerzbank AG seek, respectively,
$5.75 million and $69.6 million in compensatory damages in
connection with the two claims at issue on the appeal.

In October 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of class
certification and the dismissal of PSERS' claim but reversed a
ruling of the trial court that had excluded certain evidence
relevant to Commerzbank's principal argument on appeal. The Second
Circuit did not reverse the dismissal of Commerzbank's claim but
instead certified a legal question concerning Commerzbank's
argument to the New York Court of Appeals. The New York Court of
Appeals subsequently agreed to hear the certified question, and on
June 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals ruled in Moody's favor. The
case has now been returned to the Second Circuit for final
disposition of the appeal, and a decision is expected in the near
future.


NASDAQ INC: Intends to File Motion to Dismiss "Rabin" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in a putative class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX
LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.).

"We intend to file a motion to dismiss the complaint. We believe
the claims to be without merit and intend to litigate them
vigorously," the Company said.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Okays Attorneys' Fees in "Keller"
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken granted the motion for attorneys'
fees in the captioned case SAMUEL KELLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.;
and COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY, Defendants. EDWARD O'BANNON, et
al. Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION;
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.; and COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY,
Defendants, Case Nos.: C 09-1967 CW, C 09-3329 CW, (N.D. Cal.)

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed Keller v. EA, 09-1967, as a
putative class action, naming EA, the NCAA and Collegiate
Licensing Company (CLC) as Defendants and alleging the unlawful
use of college student athletes' names, images, and likenesses in
NCAA-branded football and basketball videogames produced and sold
by EA. The case asserted common law and statutory right-of-
publicity (ROP) claims, a California Unfair Competition Law claim
and various other common law claims.

Hausfeld LLP filed O'Bannon v. NCAA, 09-3329 as a putative class
action, alleging that the NCAA, its members, EA and CLC conspired
to suppress to zero the amounts paid to Division I football and
men's basketball players for the use of their names, images and
likenesses, in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.  On
January 15, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs Keller and
O'Bannon's joint motion to consolidate their cases along with
several other related actions pending before the Court.  On that
date, the Court appointed Hausfeld LLP and Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP as co-lead counsel in the consolidated cases, with
Hausfeld taking primary responsibility for the O'Bannon
Plaintiffs' claims and Hagens Berman taking primary responsibility
for the Keller Plaintiffs' claims.

On August 19, 2015, the Court granted final approval of the class
action settlements in the cases. In its final approval orders, the
Court allocated 29% of the NCAA settlement fund and 30% of the
Electronic Arts settlement fund for attorneys' fees, reserving the
division of those funds among the attorneys.

Class Counsel have filed five separate motions for attorneys' fees
and costs:

     -- Counsel for the Plaintiff class in O'Bannon v. NCAA
        (O'Bannon Plaintiffs) seek $8,000,000 in fees from EA.

     -- Counsel for the Plaintiff class in Keller v. NCAA (Keller
        Plaintiffs) seek $8,580,000 in fees from EA and
        $5,800,000 in fees from the NCAA.

     -- Current counsel for the Plaintiff class in Hart v. EA,
        D.N.J. Case No. 09-5990, seek $883,177 in fees from EA.

     -- Timothy McIlwain, former counsel for the Hart Plaintiffs,
        seeks $4,620,000 in fees from EA.

Counsel for the various Plaintiff groups oppose each other's
motions for fees.

In her Corrected Order dated December 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/JzRvKJfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wilken granted:

     -- the Keller Plaintiffs' counsel' motion for $5,800,000
        in attorneys' fees and $224,434.20 in costs under the
        NCAA settlement.

     -- the Keller Plaintiffs' counsel $5,046,000,
        the O'Bannon Plaintiffs' counsel $4,000,000,
        the current counsel in Hart $260,000, and
        the former counsel in Hart $694,000,

        in attorneys' fees from the EA fund.

     -- $2 million, to be held in escrow, to be paid to the
        O'Bannon Plaintiffs' counsel if they are not paid their
        fees by the NCAA and to be paid to Keller Plaintiffs'
        counsel if O'Bannon Plaintiffs' counsel is paid by the
        NCAA.

     -- the Keller Plaintiffs' counsel $224,434,
        the O'Bannon Plaintiffs' counsel $1,819,964,
        the current counsel in Hart $12,367.59, and
        the former counsel in Hart $45,810.58,

        in costs from the EA fund.

Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Esq. -- abailey@hausfeldllp.com -- and
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- of Hausfeld
LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff William F. Russell

Glenn Douglas Pomerantz, Esq. of Munger Tolles & Olson Robert
James Wierenga, Esq. -- rwierenga@schiffhardin.com -- of Schiff
Hardin LLP Atleen Kaur, Esq. of Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone
PLC  Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, Esq. -- Carolyn.Luedtke@mto.com --
of Munger, Tolles Olson LLP; David P. Borovsky, Esq. --
David.Borovsky@mbtlaw.com of Cozen O'Connor; Glen Robert Olson,
Esq. -- golson@longlevit.com -- of Long & Levit LLP Gregory L.
Curtner, Esq. of Schiff Hardin LLP Jason Alex Geller, Esq. --
jgeller@laborlawyers.com -- of Fisher & Phillips LLP Jeslyn A
Miller, Esq. of Munger Tolles Olson; Justin Paul Raphael, Esq. --
justin.raphael@mto.com -- of Munger Tolles and Olson; Kelly Max
Klaus, Esq. -- klauskm@mto.com -- of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP --
Kimberly K. Kefalas, Esq. -- kkefalas@schiffhardin.com -- of
Schiff Hardin LLP; Luis Li, Esq. -- luis.li@mto.com -- of Munger
Tolles and Olson LLP; Rohit K. Singla, Esq. -- singlark@mto.com
-- of Munger Tolles & Olson; Suzanne Wahl, Esq. --
swahl@schiffhardin.com -- of Schiff Hardin LLP and Thane Rehn,
Esq. -- Thane.Rehn@mto.com -- of Munger, Tolles and Olson serve as
counsel for Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Raises New Funding Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Medici, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports that
Bethesda-based Northwest Biotherapeutics Inc. is raising $12.6
million in new funding as part of a direct offering to health
care-focused investors, according to a company announcement.

Northwest Biotherapeutics, which is developing products to
stimulate the immune system to help fight tumors and kill cancer
cells, had previously raised $27 million in a 2013 offering.

The company is selling 3.5 million shares of common stock in its
latest offering -- valued at $3.60 a share.  The investors will
also receive the rights to purchase up to 1.75 million additional
shares of stock at $4.50 a share, but only six months after the
deal closes.

The deal is expected to close Dec. 29, according to the company.

Northwest Biotherapeutics has drawn fire from investors who claim
the company made false and misleading statements regarding the
prospects of its products, according to two separate lawsuits.

In a lawsuit filed Aug. 28 in U.S. District Court, investor Chad
Lerner alleged the company and CEO Linda Powers didn't disclose
the adverse material facts about its vaccine trials in Securities
and Exchange Commission filings and press releases.  The suit
alleges their statements were based on preliminary and unconfirmed
trial results that hadn't been reviewed or analyzed by hospitals
conducting their trials.

On Sept. 18, law firm Ryan & Maniskas LLP filed a separate class-
action lawsuit on behalf of Northwest Biotherapeutics
shareholders, also claiming that the company's claims were based
on preliminary and unconfirmed medical trials.


NRG ENERGY: Court Granted Request to Stay California TCPA Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court in the
California Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action has
granted NRG's request for a stay.

Two purported class action lawsuits have been filed against NRG
and NRG Residential Solar Solutions, LLC in California and New
Jersey.  The plaintiffs generally allege misrepresentation by the
call agents and violations of the TCPA, claiming that the
defendants engaged in a telemarketing campaign placing unsolicited
calls to individuals on the "Do Not Call List." The plaintiffs
generally seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 per plaintiff,
actual damages and equitable relief. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

On September 25, 2015, plaintiffs dismissed NRG Energy, Inc. from
the New Jersey lawsuit. The remaining NRG parties have requested a
stay of both cases pending decisions of unrelated cases by the
U.S. Supreme Court, the results of which could materially affect
these lawsuits. On October 21, 2015, the court in the California
case granted NRG's request for a stay.


NUWAY DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls APEXXX Tablets
------------------------------------------
Nuway Distributors llc is voluntarily recalling all lots of APEXXX
tablets to the consumer level. FDA analysis found APEXXX to
contain amounts of the PDE-5 Inhibitor, sildenafil, which is the
active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug for erectile dysfunction
(ED) making this tainted dietary supplement and unapproved drug.

Sildenafil is not listed on the product labels. Sildenafil may
interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs such as
nitroglycerin and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels
that may be life threatening. Consumers with diabetes, high blood
pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates.
Additionally, the product may cause side effects, such as
headaches and flushing.

This product marketed as a dietary supplement for male sexual
enhancement. APEXXX is packaged in a single blister pack
containing 1 tablet. UPC 705105963617. All lots of APEXXX are
included in this recall sold in 2014 to June 2015. APEXXX can be
identified by the black packaging, it is a yellow diamond shaped
tablet embosses with the wording "APEXXX" on it. APEXXX was sold
in retail store located in Orlando, Florida for further sale in
smoke shops, convenient stores and gas stations. APEXXX may also
have been further sold online.

In an abundance of caution, Nuway Distributors llc is also
removing all lots of OPAL tablets to the consumer level because
this product is sourced from the same vendors as the APEXXX
product. OPAL is packaged in a single blister pack containing 1
tablet, UPC 794504852400. OPAL can be identified by the black
packaging, it is a black diamond-shaped tablet [note any
embossing]. OPAL was also sold in a retail store located in
Orlando, Florida for further sale in smoke shops, convenience
stores and gas stations. OPAL may also have been further sold
online.

Nuway Distributors llc is now notifying its customers by press
release and is arranging for a return of all recalled and removed
products.

Consumers and retailers that have APEXXX or OPAL should stop using
and distributing this product immediately and arrange return of
the products.

Consumers with questions regarding this voluntary recall can
contact Nuway Distributors llc by email at
nuwaydistributors@gmail.com and calling at 407-722-0061. Consumers
should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using
these drug products.

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

Complete and submit the report online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or FAX: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request reporting form, then complete and return to the address on
the pre-addresses form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
This recall and market action are being conducted with the
knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
"As Nuway Distributors llc receives this product from overseas in
a sealed package, representing that it contains only lawful and
legitimate ingredients, we are relying on the representations of
the Food and Drug Administration that the public interest would
best be served by voluntarily complying with their request to get
the product off the shelves. Our goal is to protect the safety of
the consumer," stated Nuway Distributors llc.


PHARMEDIUM SERVICES: Recalls Norepinephrine Bitartrate
------------------------------------------------------
PharMEDium Services, LLC is voluntarily recalling 29 lots of 4mg
Norepinephrine Bitartrate (16mcg/mL) added to 0.9% Sodium Chloride
in 250mL Viaflex Bag and 3 lots of 8mg Norepinephrine Bitartrate
(32mcg/mL) added to 0.9% Sodium Chloride in 250mL Viaflex Bag
distributed to hospital customers. We have received complaints
from hospitals for products that have been found to exhibit a
slight discoloration in the admixture. The drug manufacturer's
prescribing information advises not to use the product if it is
discolored.

Discoloration is indicative of degradation and could result in
decreased potency due to oxidation of Norepinephrine Bitartrate.
Decreased potency may result in a delay of achieving desired
therapeutic effect. PharMEDium Services has not received any
reports of adverse events to date related to this recall.

The product is used for blood pressure control in certain acute
hypotensive states and is packaged in a 250 mL Viaflex Bag. The
affected 4mg Norepinephrine Bitartrate (16mcg/mL) added to 0.9%
Sodium Chloride in 250mL Viaflex Bag and 8mg Norepinephrine
Bitartrate (32mcg/mL) added to 0.9% Sodium Chloride in 250mL
Viaflex Bag include the following lot numbers and expiration
dates:

  -- 2K6134

  Lot#       Expiration Date
  ----       ---------------
  15342084S  2/10/2016
  15342191S  2/10/2016
  15342223S  2/10/2016
  15342224S  2/10/2016
  15342225S  2/10/2016
  15342226S  2/10/2016
  15343025S  2/11/2016
  15343026S  2/11/2016
  15343129S  2/11/2016
  15343131S  2/11/2016
  15344157S  2/12/2016
  15344160S  2/12/2016
  15344209S  2/12/2016
  15345036S  2/13/2016
  15345104S  2/13/2016
  15345106S  2/13/2016
  15345142S  2/13/2016
  15346015S  2/14/2016
  15346016S  2/14/2016
  15346017S  2/14/2016
  15346018S  2/14/2016
  15346019S  2/14/2016
  15346020S  2/14/2016
  15346022S  2/14/2016
  15346023S  2/14/2016
  15348152S  2/16/2016
  15348197S  2/16/2016
  15350046S  2/18/2016
  15350154S  2/18/2016

  -- 2K6127

  Lot#        Expiration Date
  ----        ---------------
  15342123S   2/10/2016
  15349071S   2/10/2016
  15351050S   2/10/2016

The product can be identified by PharMEDium Services Code 2K6134
(NDC Number 61553-134-61) 4mg Norepinephrine Bitartrate (16mcg/mL)
added to 0.9% Sodium Chloride in 250mL Viaflex Bag or 2K6127 (NDC
61553-127-61) 8mg Norepinephrine Bitartrate (32mcg/mL) added to
0.9% Sodium Chloride in 250mL Viaflex Bag
On December 22, 2015, PharMEDium Services e-mailed notification to
all affected customers and requested quarantine and destruction.
Replacement of all recalled products is available.

Hospital pharmacies that have the recalled 4mg Norepinephrine
Bitartrate (16mcg/mL) added to 0.9% Sodium Chloride in 250mL
Viaflex Bag and 8mg Norepinephrine Bitartrate (32mcg/mL) added to
0.9% Sodium Chloride in 250mL Viaflex Bag in stock should stop
using and discard per the hospital destruction policy. Hospitals
that may have shared these products with other hospitals should
contact those hospitals that received the products.

Hospitals or other healthcare providers with questions regarding
this recall can contact PharMEDium Services by calling 847-457-
2244 or email at quality1@pharmedium.com Monday through Friday,
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Central Standard Time. Patients should contact
their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced
any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug
product.

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

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htmdisclaimer icon

Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmdisclaimer icon or call 1-800-
332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to
the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-
FDA-0178.

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

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


PRIORITY 1: Former Employee Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Ellis, writing for Dailycomet.com, reports that an Ascension
man is suing an Arizona-based air rescue company with locations in
Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes for unpaid overtime.

Andrew Landry, a former employee of Priority 1 Air Rescue
Operations, is seeking unpaid overtime wages, damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.  He also wants a ruling that would force Priority
1 to pay damages to others making similar claims.

Priority 1 provides paramedics, hoist operators and other
personnel for air ambulance services.  It did not immediately file
a response to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in New
Orleans.

A collective action suit, which this is, is different from a class
action suit in that employees must chose to be a part of the
lawsuit.

Mr. Landry worked as a paramedic for Priority 1 from September
2013 through November and often worked "far in excess of 40 hours
per week," the lawsuit says.

"Priority 1 has also willfully and improperly avoided paying
overtime to many other non-exempt employees.  Mr. Landry is aware
of dozens of others current and former non-exempt employees of
Priority 1 who also worked similar hours for Priority 1 without
receiving overtime pay," the suit says.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 states that non-exempt
employees be paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
should they work in excess of 40 hours per week.


ROYAL OAK: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Water Bill Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike McConnell, writing for Macomb Daily News, reports that a
lawsuit has been dismissed against Royal Oak for including debt
service and user fees to cover the city's share of costs for a
regional drain system treatment facility.

"They wanted from $7 million to $9 million," City Manager Don
Johnson said of the plaintiff's suit on Dec. 23.  "For the moment,
until there is an appeal, we've won."

Royal Oak is one of more than a dozen cities served by the George
W. Kuhn Drain District treatment facility.  The facility was
upgraded nearly a decade ago to meet federal requirements on storm
and sewage water disposal.  Each member city has to pay its
portion of debt service on the costly upgrade.  There are also
continuing costs for the treatment of sewer and storm water.

The lawsuit case is complex and mirrors recent cases in other
cities such as Ferndale and Birmingham.  Ferndale settled its case
for $4.2 million in March and Birmingham settled its case in
November by paying a $2.8 million settlement.

But Royal Oak decided to fight its case. Oakland County Circuit
Judge Shalina Kumar dismissed the lawsuit against Royal Oak on
Dec. 17.

All the cases are being handled by the Kickham Hanley law firm in
Royal Oak on behalf of a single water-bill payer in each community
named as a lead plaintiff in class-action lawsuits on behalf of
water-bill payers.  The firm is preparing a statement on the
dismissal of the suit against Royal Oak, a lawyer there said on
Dec. 23.

In Royal Oak the lead plaintiff is Andrew Schroeder.

The plaintiff's lawyer has indicated they are going to appeal the
dismissal, said Royal Oak City Attorney Mark Liss.

"The biggest concentration of money coming out of these lawsuits
is going to the law firm that is representing the plaintiffs and
not the waste-water paying customers," Mr. Liss said.  "The
dismissal of the suit is essentially saying the plaintiffs didn't
have any basis of law to sue the city."

In the Ferndale settlement, about $1.25 million went to Kickham
Hanley and plaintiff Laurence Wolf, a Ferndale businessman.  The
other $3 million is being disbursed to more than 10,000 Ferndale
water customers who get an average refund of up to roughly $300
each.  Mr. Wolf, a Birmingham resident, was also the lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit which Birmingham recently settled.

All the communities in the Kuhn Drain system contribute storm and
sewage water combined into the single drainage system.

Ferndale admitted no wrong doing when it settled its case, but
officials decided to settle rather than appeal their case and face
potentially more costly litigation expenses.

Ferndale, like Royal Oak, was sued over adding user fees to water
bills to cover the city's costs for storm-sewage water treatment
and debt service for the Kuhn Drain treatment facility upgrades.
Ferndale is transferring those costs from water bills into
separate drain code assessments that will be about 2 mills each.
They will cost the owner of a house with taxable value of $100,000
about $400 a year in new taxes.

The plaintiffs' argument in suing Royal Oak and other cities is
that city user fees on water bills are essentially taxes not
approved by voters.  The allegation is that the fees are unfair
forms of taxation under Michigan's Headlee Amendment.

But Judge Kumar in her dismissal of the lawsuit against Royal Oak
noted the city's argument that those fees are exempt because they
were authorized by the City Charter in 1942, over 35 years before
the Headlee Amendment was enacted.


SAC CAPITAL: Settles Wyeth Shareholder Class Action for $10MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that billionaire
Steven A. Cohen's former hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors LP has
agreed to pay $10 million to resolve a lawsuit by shareholders of
drugmaker Wyeth, who claimed they lost money because the fund
engaged in insider trading in Wyeth's stock.

The proposed settlement was disclosed in court papers filed on
Dec. 23 in federal court in Manhattan and would resolve a class
action launched following the arrest of a former SAC Capital
portfolio manager, Mathew Martoma, for insider trading.

Mr. Martoma was sentenced in 2014 to nine years in prison after
being convicted of engaging in insider trading based on
confidential results of a clinical trial of an Alzheimer's drug
being developed by Elan Corp and Wyeth.

Prosecutors said the trades enabled SAC Capital to make $275
million, making it the most lucrative insider trading case ever
charged in the United States.

The $10 million class action accord, which requires court
approval, follows earlier deals with U.S. authorities in which SAC
Capital agreed to pay $1.8 billion and plead guilty following
investigations into insider trading by its employees.

Those accords included a $602 million settlement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission by an SAC Capital unit
resolving claims related to insider trading in Elan and Wyeth.
Elan and Wyeth are now part of Perrigo Co Plc and Pfizer Inc,
respectively.

City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System and KBC Asset
Management NV served as lead plaintiff in the Wyeth class action,
which was filed in 2013 and sought to recover investor losses from
the defendants, who included Cohen himself.

A separate case by Elan investors remains pending.  SAC Capital
has been in runoff mode, and Cohen's fortune is now traded through
his family office, Point72 Asset Management.

"We are pleased to have resolved the Wyeth matter and are prepared
to vigorously contest the remaining class action," Point72
spokesman Mark Herr said.

In total, six ex-SAC Capital employees have been convicted of
insider trading.  Prosecutors in October dropped charges against
two others, including Michael Steinberg, who was convicted in 2013
and sentenced to 3-1/2 years in prison.

Mr. Cohen was never criminally charged.  But the SEC filed an
administrative action against him in 2013 for failing to supervise
Messrs. Martoma and Steinberg.
The SEC on Dec. 21 said that given the dismissal of charges
against Steinberg, it would pursue a narrower case against Cohen
over his supervision of Mr. Martoma.

Trial is scheduled for April 11.

The case is Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. SAC Capital
Advisors LP, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
No. 13-02459.


SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces Class Action Over Cigarette Labels
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Sandlin, writing for Journal North, reports that cigarette
packages in appealing colors, the words "natural" and "additive-
free," along with images of a Native American smoking a pipe are
part of what a new federal lawsuit calls a comprehensive campaign
to mislead consumers into thinking Natural American Spirit
cigarettes are more healthful or less harmful than other
varieties.

That's the contention in a national class action complaint filed
on Dec. 23 in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque by a San Diego
law firm, Ronald Marron, teamed up with the Rothstein Law Firm of
Santa Fe that seeks damages, including punitive damages, from
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company and Reynolds American Inc.

The plaintiffs include New Mexico plaintiff Ceyhan Haskal of Santa
Fe, who has purchased the brand and paid a higher price based on
advertisements touting "natural" and "100% additive-free," as well
as other claims.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco was founded in New Mexico in 1982 and has
operated as subsidiary of Reynolds since a $340 million buyout in
2002, according to the lawsuit.  The company now also has a
production facility in North Carolina.

A Japanese company bought international rights to Santa Fe Natural
Tobacco.

The lawsuit includes plaintiffs from New Mexico, California,
Illinois and Minnesota, but contends that application of New
Mexico law by the nationwide class is appropriate because Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco maintains corporate headquarters in New Mexico,
and marketing and sales decisions occurred here.

Laws of other states might result in application of laws that in
effect ban class actions, the lawsuit says.

The New Mexico Unfair Practices Act bars deceptive or
unconscionable trade practices and permits persons who suffer over
$100 in losses to recover damages.

While the packaging and advertising suggest a product that is more
healthful, a healthy cigarette doesn't exist, though a growing
body of research concludes that consumers associate terms such as
"organic" and "additive-free" with a healthier product, according
to the complaint.

Natural American Spirit cigarettes, despite claims, "are neither
natural nor additive-free," the complaint says.

They "contain a variety of harmful additives that are not
disclosed to consumers," it says.

According to one study of 11 brands cited in the complaint,
Natural American Spirit and Gauloises Brunes, a French brand, had
the highest level of free-base nicotine, which delivers a more
powerful "kick" that some scientists believe indicates the
presence of ammonia as an additive.

The tobacco crops also are grown with artificial fertilizers and
pesticides, despite the "additive-free" claims, the complaint
says.

The lawsuit takes aim as well at what it calls the deceptive use
of Native American imagery, which it alleges "misleads consumers
into believing that the cigarettes are affiliated with an Indian
tribe."

The complaint quotes a memo from Santa Fe Natural Tobacco to its
retailers that was produced in other tobacco litigation: "The
unique combination of 'Indian' and 'natural' gives us, and you, a
solid competitive edge, creates intense media interest and
reinforces our basic message - The Smoke Speaks for Itself!"

The New Mexico Code of Regulations includes specific requirements
for environmental marketing claims, the complaint alleges, such as
deceptive claims that Natural American Spirit cigarettes are made
with "organic" tobacco and "Grown by Certified Farmers."

It contends the company has failed to make clear whether the
purported environmental benefits relate to the product or the
packaging, making it an unfair or deceptive practice.


SHORT HILLS: Mental Health Patients Mull Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Ornsteindec, writing for The New York Times, reports that
when a New Jersey lawyer named Philip received legal papers
informing him that his former psychologist's practice was suing
him over an unpaid bill, he was initially upset they could not
work out a payment arrangement outside of court.

It was only later, Philip said in an interview, that he scanned
the papers again and realized something else: The psychology group
to which he had confided his innermost feelings had included his
mental health diagnosis and treatments he received in publicly
filed court documents.

The greatest fear of many patients receiving therapy services is
that somehow the details of their private struggles will be
revealed publicly.  Philip, who requested his last name not be
used to protect his privacy, said he felt betrayed by his
psychologist.  He worried that his legal adversaries would find
the information and try to use it against him in court.

"It turned my life upside down," he said.

Short Hills Associates in Clinical Psychology, the group based in
New Jersey that treated Philip, has filed dozens of collections
lawsuits against patients and included in them their names,
diagnoses and listings of their treatments.

In cases in which the patients were minors, the practice sued
their parents and included the children's names and diagnoses.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the
federal patient privacy law known as Hipaa, allows health
providers to sue patients over unpaid debts, but requires that
they disclose only the minimum information necessary to pursue
them.

Still, the law has many loopholes.  One is that Hipaa covers only
providers who submit data electronically -- and apparently Short
Hills Associates does not.

Between 2010 and 2014, Short Hills Associates filed 24 collections
cases in which patients' diagnoses were listed, New Jersey court
records show.  The defendants included lawyers, business people
and a manager at a nonprofit.

The suits identified diagnoses by unique codes listed in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the
reference work on mental illness published by the American
Psychiatric Association. An online search of the codes quickly
provides their meaning.

Short Hills Associates' managing partner, Barry Helfmann, has been
a leader in New Jersey psychology circles.  He is a past president
of the New Jersey Psychological Association and serves as its
director of professional affairs. He has also served on the board
of the American Group Psychotherapy Association.

In other contexts, Dr. Helfmann has been a champion of patient
privacy. In 2010, he was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against two
insurance companies and a New Jersey state commission, accusing
them of requiring psychologists to turn over their treatment notes
in order to get paid.

Philip is now countersuing Dr. Helfmann and his partners, the
psychology group and the practice's debt collection lawyers for
invasion of privacy, breach of the psychologist-patient privilege,
fraud and misrepresentation, and other claims. He is seeking the
court's permission to represent other patients as part of a class
action.

Jon, another person being sued by Short Hills Associates for
unpaid bills, said he was surprised to learn from a reporter that
his son's name and diagnosis were included in court papers.

"Our kids learn in school and we're tasked to drive home to them
that everything they do online will remain online forever.  And
don't do stupid stuff online," said Jon, who requested his last
name not be published to protect his family's privacy.  "And now
to find out that adults aren't following that practice on their
behalf is borderline devastating."

In a deposition taken in November, Audrey Muratore, billing
manager for Short Hills Associates, maintained that "it is within
my right" to send a bill for debt collection and that once a suit
was filed, she did not see the legal papers.  "Once they file a
suit, it's out of my hands," she said.

She added that the firm had not filed any additional debt lawsuits
since Philip filed his countersuit against them and currently did
not have a collection agency working on its behalf.

A review of the billing lawsuits filed by another psychology group
against patients in New Jersey found that they redacted diagnosis
and treatment codes.

John Mullahy, a lawyer for Mr. Helfmann and Short Hills
Associates, issued a statement in response to questions for this
article: "My clients deny and will be vigorously defending against
all allegations of wrongdoing here. We cannot and will not comment
further given that litigation is pending."

Jeffrey Rothbard, a partner at Rothbard, Rothbard, Kohn & Kellar,
the firm that filed the collections lawsuits on behalf of Short
Hills Associates, also declined to comment. "I don't want to start
trying this case in the press," Mr. Rothbard said.

Alan Nessman, the senior special counsel of the American
Psychological Association, said in a statement that he could not
comment on the legal fight in New Jersey.  But he said the
organization would typically recommend against including patients'
diagnoses and a list of procedures as part of collection suits
because it "may be more than the minimum disclosure necessary to
obtain payment" under Hipaa and the group's ethics code.

The inclusion of patients' diagnoses in lawsuits is rare, experts
say, but not unheard-of.  An Indiana man won a $1.25 million jury
verdict in 2010 against his physician group for including his
H.I.V. status in a collections lawsuit. Another Indiana resident
secured a settlement in 2013 after his H.I.V. status was included
in a billing suit filed by his dentist. (In bold, capital letters,
his record said, "MEDICAL ALERTS: H.I.V.+ AIDS.")

The man, who asked that he be identified only by his first name,
Fred, to protect his privacy, said in an interview that the
dentist's disclosure upended his life.  He was given a diagnosis
of major depression and takes medications to treat it.  "It
affects the very essence of who I am," he said. "It would be
tantamount to walking down the street with a sign pointing at me
saying, 'Here it is.'"

When Short Hills Associates filed suit against Philip in September
2014, it said he owed $4,400 for meetings from 2012 to February
2014.

Philip asserted in legal documents that he confronted Dr. Helfmann
in a phone call the following month and that the psychologist told
him it was his fault his information was disclosed because he had
not paid his bill.

In November 2014, Philip's lawyer obtained a judge's order
directing that the bill detailing his diagnosis and treatment
codes be replaced with a document in which that information was
redacted.

Several months later, Andrew Thomasson, Philip's lawyer, sent an
email to Mr. Mullahy, his counterpart representing Short Hills
Associates, listing all the collection cases in which the practice
had disclosed patients' diagnoses.  As of Dec. 21, though, the
records were still publicly available.

Mr. Thomasson said he was particularly concerned about minors
whose patient information was exposed.

"When they're grown up, want to get a job with the F.B.I. or the
U.S. attorney's office, they conduct very thorough background
checks and they may come across it," he said in an interview.  "It
could be used to prevent someone from getting a job one day."

Nevertheless, a spokesman for the New Jersey Division of Consumer
Affairs said the inclusion of diagnostic codes in lawsuits did not
violate any regulations or statutes for the State Board of
Psychological Examiners.

Philip filed a complaint in March with the Office for Civil Rights
of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, the agency
that enforces Hipaa.  It included details on his case and others.
In August, the agency wrote back to say it was "closing this
complaint with no further action."

In an email, Rachel Seeger, a spokeswoman for the office, said the
agency "closed this case because we determined that Short Hills
Associates in Clinical Psychology is not a Hipaa-covered entity,
and therefore we have no jurisdiction to investigate or take any
action on the complaint."

The privacy law's language specifies that it covers only health
providers who "electronically transmit any health information in
connection with transactions for which H.H.S. has adopted
standards."  Doctors who still rely on paper records and paper
bills -- or clients who pay cash -- are not subject to the law.

In legal papers, Short Hills Associates has not argued that it
falls outside Hipaa's reach.  In fact, on its website it offers
patients forms and information that specifically mentions their
rights under the law.


SPARK NETWORKS: May 9 Hearing on Summary Judgment Motions
---------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a motion filed by
Spark Networks to coordinate two matters in Los Angeles Superior
Court was granted, and the parties have resumed discovery in
preparation for filing cross-motions for summary judgment, which
are set to be heard on May 9, 2016.

California Unruh Act Litigation- Werner, et al. v. Spark Networks,
Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC and Wright, et al. v. Spark
Networks, Inc., Spark Networks USA, LLC, et al.

On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action
Complaint (the "Werner Complaint") in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Los Angeles against Spark Networks,
Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC (collectively "Spark Networks").
The Werner Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' website
ChristianMingle.com violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
(the "Unruh Act") by allegedly discriminating on the basis of
sexual orientation.  The Werner Complaint requests the following
relief: an injunction, statutory, general, compensatory, treble
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment
interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just
and appropriate.

On December 23, 2013, Richard Wright, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class
Action Complaint (the "Wright Complaint") in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Francisco against Spark
Networks, Inc.  The Wright Complaint alleges that Spark Networks,
Inc.'s commercial dating services including ChristianMingle.com,
LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com,
MilitarySinglesConnection.com and AdventistSinglesConnection.com
violate the Unruh Act by allegedly intentionally and arbitrarily
discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  The Wright
Complaint requests the following relief: a declaratory judgment, a
preliminary and permanent injunction, statutory penalties,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and
an award for any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.

A motion filed by Spark Networks to coordinate the two matters in
Los Angeles Superior Court was granted, and the parties have
resumed discovery in preparation for filing cross-motions for
summary judgment, which are set to be heard on May 9, 2016.


STANCORP FINANCIAL: Entered into MOU in Oregon Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stancorp Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company, each of the members of the Company's Board, Meiji Yasuda,
and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU") with the plaintiffs in the Oregon class action.

Since entering into the Merger Agreement dated July 23, 2015 with
Meiji Yasuda and Merger Sub, the Company, members of the Board and
the Meiji Yasuda parties have been named as defendants in four
lawsuits brought by purported shareholders of the Company on
behalf of the Company's shareholders challenging the merger.

Four putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Circuit
Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah: Shiva
Stein, et al. v. StanCorp Financial Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
15CV20372, filed July 31, 2015, Bud and Sue Frashier Family Trust,
et al. v. J. Greg Ness, et al., Case No. 15CV20832, filed August
7, 2015, Grant Causton, et al. v. StanCorp Financial Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 15CV22197, filed August 20, 2015, and Janet Shock
v. StanCorp Financial Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 15CV23748
(later amended to name Hillery Scott as plaintiff), filed
September 8, 2015.

On October 7, 2015, the Multnomah County Circuit Court granted an
order of consolidation and appointment of co-lead counsel,
consolidating the four lawsuits for all purposes under the caption
In re StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case
No. 15CV20372 (the "Oregon Action").

Prior to the filing of Ms. Shock's complaint on September 8, 2015,
on August 18, 2015, the Company received a letter from her legal
counsel, alleging that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in
connection with the negotiation of the Merger Agreement and
demanding that the Board take action to remedy those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company's
Board has violated their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders by entering into the Merger Agreement and putting
their personal interests and the interests of the Meiji Yasuda
parties ahead of the interests of the Company's shareholders, and
by failing to provide the Company's shareholders with material
information to make an informed vote on the approval of the Merger
Agreement. The complaints also allege that the Company and the
Meiji Yasuda parties knew of the Board's alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties and aided and abetted in their commission.

Based on these allegations, the complaints seek certain injunctive
relief, including enjoining the merger, and, to the extent already
implemented, rescission of the merger. The complaints also seek
other damages, including recovery of all damages suffered by the
plaintiffs as a result of the individual defendants' alleged
wrongdoing, including rescissory damages, and costs of the
actions, including attorneys' fees. The Company and the Board
intend to vigorously defend these actions. The Company cannot
predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of
loss from these matters.

On November 3, 2015, the Company, each of the members of the
Company's Board, Meiji Yasuda, and Merger Sub entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in the
Oregon Action, which sets forth the parties' agreement in
principle for a settlement of the Oregon Action. As set forth in
the MOU, the Company, the members of the Company's Board, Meiji
Yasuda, and Merger Sub have agreed to the settlement solely to
eliminate the burden, expense, distraction, and uncertainties
inherent in further litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing.

As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Merger, which were set forth
in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 3, 2015.  A copy of
the Form 8-K report is available at http://is.gd/3zn9DU


STARKIST CO: Sued for Allegedly Underfilling Tuna Cans
------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Read, writing for The News-Herald, reports that a Mentor
man who claims StarKist Co. has fishy business practices is
seeking $64,000 in damages.

Acting as his own attorney, Bryan Anthony Reo filed a lawsuit
Dec. 23 in Lake County Common Pleas Court against the Pittsburgh-
based company.

According to the suit, StarKist committed statutory violations of
the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act by underfilling cans of tuna
by about three-tenths of 1 ounce to four-tenths of 1 ounce each
and then placing the cans "into the stream of commerce" to be sold
to customers.

During 2013 and 2014, Mr. Reo said he bought at least several
hundred cans of StarKist chunk light tuna to have an emergency
food reserve and because he often eats a can a day.

"I like it.  It's low-fat, high protein," said Mr. Reo when
contacted by telephone.

Mr. Reo, who is not an attorney, said he still has numerous
unopened cans from 2013 and 2014.

Mr. Reo said he is seeking between $200 to $3,000 per can for the
20 cans he can prove were underfilled, and other costs, for a
total of $64,000.

Another man sued the company in 2013 with similar claims.
StarKist agreed to settle the case while not admitting fault.

In the class action case, the company agreed to pay customers who
bought at least one can of tuna over the last five years either
$25 in cash or $50 in tuna -- no receipt necessary, according to
Consumerist.com.

The deadline to join the class action suit was Nov. 20.

"I decided to opt out of the class action suit and proceed as an
individual," said Mr. Reo.  "I typically eat three to five cans a
week, so $25 wasn't adequate."

Michelle Faist, StarKist's senior manager of corporate affairs,
did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

The case has been assigned to Judge Richard L. Collins Jr.


STONERIDGE INC: "Verde" Class Action Pending in Texas Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has a
legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al., currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Cause No. 6:14-cv-00225- KNM.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company and
others on March 26, 2014.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company was
involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and
sale of a control device ("CD") that was incorporated into a Dodge
Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in 2006.  Plaintiff alleges that
the Company breached express warranties and indemnification
provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of
performing its intended function.  The putative class consists of
all Texas residents who own manual transmission Chrysler vehicles
model years 1994-2007 equipped with the subject CD.  Plaintiff
seeks recovery of economic loss damages incurred by him and the
putative class members associated with inspecting and replacing
the allegedly defective CD, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification seeking to
certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain
automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1998-2007.  Plaintiff alleges
this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people.

In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that
damages are no more than $1 per person.  A hearing on Plaintiff's
motion for class certification was set for November 12, 2015.


STONERIDGE INC: "Royal" Class Action Pending in Oklahoma Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Royal v.
Stoneridge, Inc. et al. is a legal proceeding currently pending in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma, Cause No. 5:14-cv-01410-F.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company,
Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014.
Plaintiffs alleges that the Company was involved in the vertical
chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a CD that was
incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased by Plaintiff between
1999 and 2006.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge
Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied
warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability.
Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company and Stoneridge
Control Devices, Inc.  The putative class consists of all owners
of vehicles equipped with the subject CD, which includes various
Dodge Ram trucks and other manual transmission vehicles
manufactured from 1997-2007, which Plaintiffs allege is more than
1,000,000 vehicles.  Plaintiffs seeks recovery of economic loss
damages associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly
defective CD, diminished value of the subject CDs and the trucks
in which they were installed, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
amount of compensatory or other damages sought by Plaintiffs and
the putative class members is unknown. The Company is vigorously
defending itself against these allegations, and has and will
continue to challenge the claims as well as class action
certification. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not
probable or reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has
been recorded for these claims at September 30, 2015.


SWINOMISH FISH: Recalls Salmon Bacon Products Due to Clostridium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Swinomish Fish Company is initiating a voluntary recall of
packages of both Traditional and Peppered flavors of NATIVE CATCH
SALMON BACON with a "BEST BY" date of 1/23/16 and 3/16/16
distributed in the Western Washington and Florida areas. The
Native Catch Salmon Bacon has the potential to be contaminated
with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-
threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned to not use the
product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.
Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision
and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.

No illnesses or reactions have been reported to date and no other
Native Catch products are involved in this recall. The potential
for contamination was noted after a routine Washington State
Department of Agriculture (WSDA) inspection discovered that the
product had potentially been under processed.

The Native Catch Salmon Bacon products subject to this recall are:

Peppered flavor with UPC: 7 83583 27965 9, packaged in 8 oz. and
14 oz. clear vacuum bag with Best By codes 1/23/16 and 3/16/16.
Traditional flavor with UPC: 7 51778 15900 0, packaged in 8 oz.
and 14 oz. clear vacuum bags with BEST BY codes 1/23/16 and
3/16/16.

Recalled products were shipped to locations in the states of
Washington and Florida between the dates of August 10, 2015
through December 11, 2015 This recall is being made with the
knowledge of the WSDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
All retail outlets that sell these products are being notified to
remove the product with affected date code from their shelves and
warehouses immediately. Consumers are urged to dispose of the
products or return to the stores where it was purchased.

Consumers may contact Swinomish Fish Company at 1-360-466-0176
weekdays from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM Pacific Time for a replacement or
full refund, as well as with general inquires.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/H6UwHX


TAKATA: Government Confirms Eight Airbag Defect-Related Deaths
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bengt Halvorson, writing for The Car Connection, reports that the
U.S. federal government has confirmed an eighth death due to
schrapnel from Takata airbags -- this time, to a teen driver at
the wheel of a Honda Accord that was already under recall at the
time of the accident, this past summer.

That marks the ninth death worldwide attributed to the issue,
which has been attributed to about 100 injuries in the U.S.

The issue concerns inflators that can rupture in a fashion not
originally intended, deploying with excessive force, turning the
metal inflator casing into shrapnel, which was propelled at
occupants.

Damage done, damages levied

On November 3, Takata agreed to pay a federal fine of $70 million,
as well as a series of terms that would include phasing out the
problematic ammonium nitrate propellant type and firing employees
associated with a cover-up that lasted years.  If it doesn't
comply it could be subject to an additional $130 million.

Meanwhile, earlier in December, a U.S. judge rejected a claim to
end a class-action lawsuit concerning the issue, against Honda and
Takata.

Honda owns a 1.2-percent stake in Takata and had been its biggest
customer, when the automaker said that it was aware that Takata
had manipulated test data concerning the airbag inflator issue.

Honda had started recalling vehicles due to the inflator issue
back in November 2008, adding more vehicles in 2009, while a NHTSA
probe was opened in November 2009.

The issue covers about 34 million airbags, in vehicles reaching
back to the 2000 model year and up to the 2011 model year in some
cases.  It includes some models from BMW, FCA (Chrysler), Daimler,
Ford, GM, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota.

The recall effort, which requires the manufacture of new airbag
components and a rather time-consuming installation by the
dealership, could take years.  Because the issue has a higher
chance of becoming deadly and injurious with time and prolonged
exposure to high humidity, the government has organized recall
fixes into priority groups, with some of the older vehicles that
have been located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Texas, and other territories earning top priority for
fixes at the dealership.


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Stuffing Products Due to Soy, Milk, & Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc. of Tracy, California is voluntarily
recalling 190 cases of Signature Cafe Traditional Stuffing because
the product label did not identify certain ingredients including
soy, milk and wheat. The recalled product was sold in a limited
number of Safeway and Pak 'N Save stores in Northern California
and Nevada and Vons stores in Fresno, CA; Clovis, CA and Oakhurst,
CA.

People who have severe sensitivity or allergies to soy, wheat or
milk may run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products. There are 190 cases of
product that could potentially contain the wrong label. This
recall only pertains to the Signature Cafe Traditional Stuffing
packaged in a 39 oz. plastic container which bears a UPC number of
21130-08320 with a Use By Date of 12/26/2015 and a Lot Code of
TFPV351. The Use By Date and Lot Code are located on the product
label on the lid. The product is pre-made and sold from the
refrigerated case in the deli section of the store.

No illnesses have been reported to date. This voluntary recall
does not apply to any other Safeway or Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc.
products. Customers who have purchased the recalled product are
urged to discard it or return it to the store for a full refund.
For additional information, customers can call Taylor Farms
Pacific, Inc. at 209-830-3186 or Safeway at 1-877-SAFEWAY.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/iO5AhB


THOMAS PRODUCE: Recalls Cucumber Products Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Produce Company of Boca Raton, FL is recalling 174 bulk-
packed containers of Cucumbers. This product has the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy
persons infected with Salmonella may experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain.

This product was sold to distributors in Florida and Georgia
between 12/15/2015 and 12/16/2015. All distributors that received
this product have been notified as of the time of this press
release.

The fresh, whole, green Cucumbers were sold in 166 cardboard
bushel boxes (1 1/9 bushel size) with one of the following lot
numbers ink-jet printed on the side: 1554311JDNK, 1554311HDNK, and
15143115DNK. These cucumbers were also distributed in 8 bulk
cardboard bins(4'x4' size) tagged with codes 15NKJD-1554311-D,
15NKHD-1554311-D, and 15NK5D-1514311-D.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
recall.

This recall notice is being issued due to an isolated instance in
which a sample of Thomas Produce Cucumbers yielded a positive
result for Salmonella in a random sample test conducted by the
FDA. Out of an abundance of caution, the company has elected to
recall all lots of cucumbers that were packed on the same day. The
company has ceased production and distribution of the affected
lots of cucumbers as the FDA and the company continue their
investigation.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to not
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the original place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact Richard Wilson, Compliance Director, of Thomas Produce
Company at 1-561-482-1111 Monday through Friday between 9:00 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. EST.


TICOR TITLE: Ruling on Attorney Agents' Payments Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Mary Anne Mason affirmed the trial court's
ruling that the title companies' payments to attorney agents were
not prohibited under section 2607 of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act where attorney agents provided settlement services
in return for the payment, and the reasonableness of the monetary
amount of those payments is irrelevant.

The appellate case is captioned, DOLJIN CHULTEM, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants
and Cross-Appellees, v. TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHICAGO
TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY, and FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees and Cross-Appellants. PAUL COLELLA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. CHICAGO TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY and CHICAGO TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY, Defendants-
Appellees and Cross-Appellants, Case Nos.:  1-14-0808, 1-14-0820
(consolidated), (Ill. App.)

The case began when Chultem and Colella each filed a complaint,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the title companies claiming that the title companies made
unlawful payments to the attorney agents because the attorney
agents did not perform "core title agent services" in addition to
the services the attorneys rendered to their clients in a real
estate transaction.

The Colella proposed class included transactions where individuals
purchased title insurance from Chicago Title during the period
from January 1, 2001, to September 1, 2005, and Chicago Title paid
attorney agents their full compensation.

The Chultem proposed class included transactions where individuals
purchased title insurance from Ticor during the period from
February 1, 2000, to September 30, 2005, and Ticor paid the
attorney agents in full after sending the attorney agents a
preliminary title exam (A-Exam) that was not changed in any way by
the attorney agents.

According to the complaints, which were amended multiple times,
the putative class members purchased, sold or mortgaged real
property and paid for a title insurance policy from the title
companies to protect the purchasers against any defect or
irregularity in the property's title. A portion of the premium
paid for the policy was then shared by the title company with an
attorney agent in exchange for allegedly performing title
services. The title companies typically paid an attorney agent 70%
to 80%, and at all times more than 50%, of the premium collected
for the title insurance policy. Plaintiffs claimed the title
companies' payments to the attorney agents were unlawful because
the attorney agents did not perform any "core title services" if
the title companies sent the attorney agents a title insurance
commitment, i.e., either a Preliminary Commitment provided by
Chicago Title to the Colella class members or an A-Exam provided
by Ticor to the Chultem class members. Plaintiffs alleged that the
title companies disguised prohibited kickbacks for the referral of
business by implementing a program where the attorney agents would
receive payments from the title companies
-- a portion that was collected from consumers -- under the guise
of providing "core title agent services." The attorney agents
received compensation from both the title companies -- for
services as a title agent -- and their clients -- for services as
an attorney. Based on these common allegations, Chultem and
Colella sought class certification.

Chultem and Collella later took an appeal from the trial court's
ruling that Ticor, Chicago Title, Chicago Title and Trust Company
(CT&T) and Fidelity National Financial, Inc. did not make illegal
kickback payments by splitting a fee with attorneys for their
referral of business to the title companies in violation of the
Illinois Title Insurance Act (215 ILCS 155/1 (West 2002)) (Title
Act) and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2002)) (Consumer Fraud
Act). Plaintiffs assert that payments made by the title companies
to attorneys who also served as title agents (attorney agents)
were unlawful because the title companies provided those attorneys
with a pro forma title commitment that determined the insurability
of a property's title -- a function they assert must be performed
by the attorney agents to earn the fee paid by the title
companies. Plaintiffs claim that because the attorney agents
received the pro forma commitment, they did not perform "core
title services" and the title company's payment was unearned and,
in reality, an illegal kickback.

The appeals were consolidated.

In his Opinion dated December 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ROMOoOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Mason said Plaintiffs
failed to establish a violation of the Title Act (215 ILCS 155/1
(West 2002)) and Consumer Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/1 (West 2002)),
claims which are both premised on a violation of section 2607. The
trial court did not err in entering judgment in favor of the title
companies. As such, the Court of Appeals need not address the
alternative grounds the title companies raise as a basis to affirm
the trial court's judgment, which include: (1) their good faith
compliance with RESPA; (2) state regulators authorized attorney
agents to participate in the programs; (3) Plaintiffs suffered no
actual damages; (4) Plaintiffs failed to prove proximate cause;
and (5) Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a need for injunctive
relief.


TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suit Settlement Subject to Preliminary OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TTM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2015, that the proposed
settlement in the class action complaints related to Viasystems
Acquisition is subject to the preliminary approval of the court as
well as the court's final approval after notice of the terms of
the settlement has been provided to the proposed settlement class.

Since the public announcement on September 22, 2014 of the
execution of the Merger Agreement, Viasystems, TTM, and the
members of the Viasystems Board have been named as defendants in
two putative class action complaints challenging the acquisition
of Viasystems. The first lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of
St. Louis County, Missouri on September 30, 2014 (the Missouri
Lawsuit), and the second lawsuit, filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware on October 13, 2014 (the Delaware Lawsuit
and, together with the Missouri Lawsuit, the Lawsuits), generally
allege that the Merger fails to properly value Viasystems, that
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the Merger Agreement, and that those breaches were aided
and abetted by TTM and Viasystems.

The Delaware Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other
allegations, that (1) the Viasystems Board breached its fiduciary
duties by: (a) agreeing to the Merger for grossly inadequate
consideration, (b) agreeing to lock up the Merger with deal
protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a
successful competing offer for Viasystems, and (c) participating
in a transaction where the loyalties of the Viasystems Board and
management are divided; (2) the voting agreements entered into
between the Company and certain of Viasystems' significant
stockholders prevent Viasystems stockholders from providing a
meaningful vote on the proposal to adopt the Merger; and (3) that
those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by TTM,
Merger Sub, and Viasystems.

Further, the Missouri Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other
allegations, that (1) the proposed Merger is unfair and the
consideration to be paid in connection with the Merger is
inadequate; (2) the Viasystems Board and Viasystems' management
have a conflict of interest due to the cash pool bonus and change
in control payments to be made to certain executive officers and
key employees if the Merger is consummated; and (3) the Merger
Agreement contains impermissible deal protection devices.

The Lawsuits seek injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from
completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, rescinding, to the
extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the
terms therein, costs and disbursements and attorneys' and experts'
fees and costs, as well as other equitable relief as the
respective court deems proper. The Delaware Lawsuit also seeks:
(1) in the event the Merger is consummated prior to the entry of
the court's final judgment, rescissory damages as an alternative
to rescission, and (2) an accounting by all defendants to the
plaintiff and other members of the class for all damages caused by
the defendants and for all profits and any special benefits
obtained as a result of their alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

On January 6, 2015, the parties to the Missouri Lawsuit entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with respect to a
proposed settlement that will terminate both Lawsuits upon entry
of the final judgment. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the
parties entered into a stipulation of settlement on May 22, 2015,
that remains subject to customary conditions, including court
approval. The settlement agreement does not require the defendants
to pay any monetary consideration to the proposed settlement
class. The settlement agreement provides for payment of attorneys'
fees of the plaintiffs and reimbursement of expenses, in the
amount to be determined by the court, but not to exceed $550. If
the stipulation of settlement is approved by the court, it will
fully and finally resolve all of the claims asserted, or that
could have been asserted, in the Lawsuit against the defendants,
and provide a release by the proposed settlement class of all
claims against the defendants and their respective affiliates and
agents in connection with the Merger.

The proposed settlement is subject to the preliminary approval of
the court as well as the court's final approval after notice of
the terms of the settlement has been provided to the proposed
settlement class. Timing of the approval process is dependent on
the court's calendar. Members of the proposed settlement class
will have the right to object to the settlement in writing to the
court once the court has set a hearing for final approval.


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Plaintiffs Filed Motion for Reconsideration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs
in a class action lawsuit have filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's memorandum, opinion and order.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were
issued regarding the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The
News of the World. The suit names as defendants the Company,
Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks
compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs.

On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court
issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint
shall be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended
consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things,
added as defendants NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK &
Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to
include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. The defendants filed
motions to dismiss the litigation, which were granted by the court
on March 31, 2014.

On April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, which generally repeats the allegations of the amended
consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to July
8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended consolidated complaint, and on September 30, 2015, the
court granted defendants' motions in their entirety and dismissed
all of the plaintiffs' claims. In its memorandum, opinion and
order relating to the dismissal, the court gave plaintiffs until
November 6, 2015 to file a motion for leave to amend their
complaint.

On October 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's memorandum, opinion and order. The Company's
management believes the claims in the Wilder Litigation are
entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend this
action.


UNITED STATES: NSA Seeks Dismissal of 2002 Olympic Spying Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Winslow, writing for Fox13 Salt Lake City, reports that the
National Security Agency is asking a federal judge to dismiss a
lawsuit that alleges it spied on every person in the Salt Lake
City area during the 2002 Winter Olympics.

The class action lawsuit, filed by former Salt Lake City Mayor
Rocky Anderson, alleges the NSA eavesdropped on everyone in and
around Olympic venues throughout the entire two weeks of the
games, including phone call metadata, text messages and emails.

"This is the very definition of tyranny," Mr. Anderson said in an
interview on Dec. 23 with FOX 13.  "I don't overstate it when I
use that word."

Mr. Anderson, who was mayor of the city during the 2002 Olympics,
said he believed the NSA's actions would be the largest
surveillance ever recorded on U.S. citizens.

In the filing in U.S. District Court, the NSA asks a judge to
dismiss the lawsuit.  It claims Mr. Anderson's plaintiffs are not
entitled to collect damages because of government immunity
statutes, and he cannot prove there was actually any surveillance
going on.

"They maintain that the Government intercepted their
communications during the 2002 Winter Olympics, based on a bare
assertion that the Government intercepted "everyone['s]"
communications in Salt Lake City while the Games were underway.

But the Complaint contains no factual enhancement to support this
allegation, and under the plausibility standard of pleading, it is
not entitled to the presumption of truth," the filing states.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action for Cross-Checking Gun Buyers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reports that a
recently filed federal class-action lawsuit accuses the Justice
Department of treating "every potential gun owner like a
terrorist" by requiring the cross-checking of names of firearm
purchasers with those on secret watch lists.

Paloma Capanna, an attorney, filed a complaint against the Justice
Department's top brass in Rochester, New York, to raise objections
to the federal government's use of rosters containing the names of
suspected terrorists when reviewing proposed firearm purchases.
Ms. Capanna is a policy analyst with the Shooters Committee on
Political Education, a New York-based gun rights group.

The plaintiffs -- currently more than two dozen individuals led by
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America --
specifically take aim at the government's decision to cross-check
likely gun buyers with the Terrorist Screening Database maintained
by the Terrorist Screening Center, a division of the FBI.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has
conducted more than 222 million searches of likely gun buyers
through the National Instant Criminal Background Check system
between Nov. 30, 1998, and Nov. 30, 2015, the lawsuit alleges.

But beginning in February 2004, the government also started cross-
checking those same persons with the Terrorist Screening Center
(TSC) database of suspected terrorists -- a maneuver that the
plaintiffs accuse of having been done for more than a decade now
without any legal authority.

"The federal government has enacted nine specific categories of
persons, who, through their actions and omissions and after a
rigorous legal course, can be deemed to have forfeited their
privileges under the Second Amendment of the United States
Constitution.  Being a named person on a 'terrorist watch list' is
not a federal statutory disqualifying factor, nor should it be,"
Ms. Capanna said in the complaint.

"Permanent deprivation of a fundamental civil right cannot and
should not occur because something as small as an alleged,
anonymous tip places an individual in a secret database managed by
the attorney general, the FBI, and/or the TSC to which the
individual has no right of access and no method of recourse," she
added.

The lawsuit also calls into question the effectiveness of the
government's own alleged counterterrorism measures, noting that
the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Rep. John Lewis have landed on
federal "no-fly" lists alongside the likes of conservative
journalist Stephen F. Hayes.

Additionally, Ms. Capanna alleges that the government's cross-
checking of potential gun buyers has proven to be ineffective by
citing the armed rampage that took place in December in San
Bernardino, California.  Neither the two terrorists nor
Enrique Marquez, an acquaintance who had purchased one of their
guns, had appeared on any federal watch list, despite the ambush
being declared an act of terrorism, the attorney wrote.

The plaintiffs have asked a federal judge in the Western District
of New York to impose an injunction barring federal authorities
from using the National Instant Criminal Background Check system
in tandem with the database of suspected terrorists.  They charge
that such usage violates constitutional rights to bear arms, to be
free improper searches and seizures, and to due process.

As of Dec. 23, the Justice Department had not answered any
requests for comment with regards to the suit made by Courthouse
News, which first reported about the lawsuit.


UNITED STATES: Caucus Balks at DA Inaction on Discrimination Issue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Montoya Bryan, writing for Associated Press, reports that
the U.S. Department of Agriculture is embarking on a partnership
with universities across the country in hopes of infusing its
ranks with more diversity as it faces civil rights complaints from
Latino farmers and ranchers.

But some members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are voicing
frustration, saying the agency has been dragging its feet and has
yet to adequately address their concerns.

The caucus had asked for a meeting with Agriculture Secretary
Tom Vilsack in October, saying members received reports from
constituents indicating significant civil rights violations and
discrimination by the agency.

Caucus members also pointed to a 2013 review that found
noncompliance with civil rights requirements and regulations by
U.S. Forest Service offices in New Mexico and Colorado.

"I am not convinced that the USDA is being as forthcoming as I
would expect," said U.S. Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a New Mexico
Democrat.  "I look forward to pressing the secretary to provide
more details that adequately address our concerns."

The USDA said that it's willing to meet with caucus members, but
it can't address the civil rights review or other discrimination
issues because of pending litigation.

The agency cited one case being heard by a federal judge in
Albuquerque involving grazing permits in northern New Mexico and
other cases that stem from claims of discrimination regarding the
issuance and management of farm loans over a period of two
decades.

Attorneys representing the New Mexico ranchers argued that the
civil rights review wasn't part of the grazing case and should be
addressed.  The agency's general counsel said the case involves
civil rights matters in general, putting it off limits for
discussion.

In a letter to the caucus that was obtained by The Associated
Press, the agency also defended a $1.3 billion settlement that was
reached with Hispanic and women farmers over the farm loans.

The USDA argued that it had no role in adjudicating any of the
claims, a task that fell to an independent contractor to ensure
impartiality.  That process was then reviewed by the USDA's Office
of Inspector General.

Critics have said claims filed by Latinos and women have been
denied at much higher rates than those of other minority groups,
including black and Native American farmers who settled following
separate class-action lawsuits.

U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, a member of the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus, said farmers and ranchers who have been discriminated
against deserve to be made whole and that he looks forward to
meeting with the secretary.

"This issue impacts the livelihood of so many in my district and
the USDA must be held accountable," the New Mexico Democrat said.

Despite an indefinite delay in addressing civil rights with the
caucus, the agency noted in its letter that progress is being made
on other fronts and pointed to the new partnership with the
nation's Hispanic-serving colleges and universities.

The USDA's Office of Advocacy and Outreach in early December
signed a cooperative agreement with the Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities to fund 180 paid internships at the
agency.  The association represents more than 470 schools.

Officials said the program will increase awareness about career
opportunities as well as foster the secretary's goals of a
diverse, inclusive workforce.


UNITED STATES: Nearly 100 Mexicans to Return Under Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Spagat, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
nearly 100 Mexicans have sought to return to the U.S. by the
Dec. 23 deadline under the settlement of a class-action lawsuit
that accused federal immigration officials in Southern California
of failing to advise people of their rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Department of Homeland
Security in 2013 over the use of a procedure to expel people from
the country known as a voluntary return.

Under the procedure, people surrender rights to appear before an
immigration judge and can't legally return to the U.S. for up to
10 years.  The lawsuit claimed authorities threatened people into
accepting the terms.

The government didn't acknowledge wrongdoing but agreed to changes
in California that include a revised form that spells out the
consequences and options of a voluntary return, new training and
procedures and an information hotline for detainees seeking legal
aid.

The settlement reflects the agency's "commitment to ensuring
foreign nationals fully understand the implications of returning
voluntarily to Mexico," the department said in a statement.

The government also agreed to let some Mexicans return to the U.S.
to resume efforts to stay legally.

The ACLU, which had estimated thousands might be eligible for that
chance, identified nearly 100 who might qualify to return to the
U.S., said staff attorney Gabriela Rivera.  Of those, the
government has so far approved more than 20 to return and was
reviewing other cases.

The number reflects the high bar to qualify, Ms. Rivera said.  The
requirements include being married to a U.S. citizen after
entering the country legally, being in the country for at least 10
years and having a spouse, child or parent who relies on them, or
being eligible to be shielded from deportation under President
Barack Obama's 2012 executive order.

Applicants also must have accepted a voluntary return in Southern
California between 2009 and 2014.

Lucy Sanchez, who came to California in 1996, was on a fishing
boat in San Diego's Mission Bay in October 2009 when authorities
asked her legal status.  She said they told her she might be
jailed for months if she fought to stay and would be released
immediately to Mexico if she agreed to a voluntary return.

"They didn't even let me read it, they just said sign here," said
Ms. Sanchez, 35, a wife and mother of U.S. citizens.

Ms. Sanchez lived in Tijuana, Mexico, for six years with her
daughter, now 7, and was among a small group of Mexicans allowed
to return to the U.S. in August to plead her case before an
immigration judge. She has a court date in April.

The ACLU spearheaded an extensive campaign on both sides of the
border that included workshops, billboards and television
advertising to reach the estimated 200,000 people who accepted
voluntary returns in Southern California during the period covered
by the settlement.

The settlement applies only to the Border Patrol's San Diego
sector and Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Los Angeles and
San Diego field offices, and the requirements on the agencies to
change the form and its practices expire in August 2017.

The agencies have limited changes to Southern California and made
no commitment to keep them in place after 2017.

The number of voluntary returns has dropped sharply in recent
years to less than 9,000 nationwide in fiscal 2015, the federal
agency said.


UORIKI FRESH: Recalls Octopus Salad Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------
Uoriki Fresh, Inc. (UF) of Secaucus, NJ is recalling its "Octopus
Salad", because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes (LA1), an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffuess, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea. Listeria infection can also cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The Octopus Salad was distributed to one Wegmans Food Market store
in Manalapan, NJ, where it was packaged in an 8 oz. plastic tray
or sold by the pound in the seafood department with the label
Wegmans Fresh Octopus Salad. Recalled product was sold from
December 18 to 24, 2015 and labeled with best before dates ranging
from December 21 to 24.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
incident.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
UF, which revealed the presence of LM in Wegmans Octopus Salad
sold in 8oz plastic trays or sold by the pound.

The production of the product has been suspended while FDA and
Uoriki Fresh, Inc. continue to investigate the source of the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Wegmans Octopus Salad that was sold
from December 18-24 and labeled with best before dates ranging
from December 21-24 are urged to return product to store or
discard product.

Consumers with questions may call Wegmans Consumer Affairs at 1-
855-934-3663, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m EST.

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


VICTORIAN PAPER: Recalls Tealight Holders Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Victorian Paper Company, d/b/a Victorian Trading Company, of
Lenexa, Kan., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Tealight
Holders (in addition, 13 were sold in Canada). Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The diameter of the hole in the top hat is too small, which can
allow heat to build up and create cracks in the surface, posing a
fire hazard.

The recall affects John Snowball, Esq., Tealight Holders. The
tealight holder is a snowball-shaped character with a wire monocle
on his right eye, a cigar in his mouth and a black top hat with a
yellow band above the brim on his head. Tealight holder measures
4.5" x 4.5" x 6." There is a hole in the back of the item to hold
the tealight. Clear stickers with Victorian Trading Company logo
are on the bottom of the tealight holders.
The firm has received three reports of cracks in the holder. No
reports of fire.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/B4cRTE

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Victorian Trading Company and Victorian Trading Company Wholesale
and online at www.victoriantradingco.com from September 2014 to
October 2015 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the tealight holder and
contact the firm for instructions on returning the product for a
full refund. The firm is contacting consumers directly.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Briefing on Class Action Appeal Completed
----------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that briefing in a
class action appeal has been completed.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On
October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the
Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

On February 4, 2014, the Court denied Vonage's Motion to Compel
Arbitration. On March 5, 2014, Vonage filed an appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the
decision denying Vonage's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On March
6, 2014, Vonage moved to stay the district court proceedings
pending its appeal; the Court granted Vonage's stay motion on
March 26, 2014. Briefing on the appeal is complete.


VOSS LAW: Among Defendants in Superstorm Sandy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for South East Texas Record, reports that a
pair of Texas law firms were recently named in a New Jersey class
action lawsuit, which accuses the defendants of improperly
soliciting and billing Superstorm Sandy victims.

Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Pierce Frauenheim filed a first amended class action complaint
against The Voss Law Firm and The Posey Law Firm on Dec. 18 in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County - Law Division.

Other defendants named in the complaint include William Voss,
Scott Hunziker, Jake Posey, Harbatkin & Levasseur, Audwin
Levasseur, Daniel Hogan, Stephenson Claims Service, Mark
Lindoerfer and 10 additional John Does.

In October 2012, Sandy decimated the New Jersey and New York
coastlines, killing hundreds and causing more than $68 billion in
damages.

"This action arises from a fraud perpetrated by the defendants
being those who sought to take advantage of Hurricane Sandy's
victims during some of their most difficult hours," the suit
states.

"The defendant law firms and lawyers together with the defendant
public adjusting companies and its principals . . . conspired to
collect from the persons they represented in insurance claims
related to Hurricane Sandy improper referral fees commonly
referred to as fees paid to 'runners.'"

Case runners solicit business for law firms -- a form of barratry,
more commonly called ambulance chasing, which is illegal.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants worked together to
collect from the persons they represented in Sandy insurance
claims improper expert fees, doing so by taking the loss report
prepared by the firm that received the "runner" fee and having a
second public adjuster copy that report and present it on its
letterhead and thereafter charge the clients an "outrageous"
expert fee.

"This case is brought to put an end to these egregious practices
now and recover for Plaintiff and the putative Class the improper
charges paid by the defendant law firms to the defendant public
adjusters and their firms as damages," the suit states.

This is not the first time defendants Voss, Hunziker and Levasseur
have been singled out for questionable behavior in Sandy
litigation.

In January 2015, a New Jersey federal judge sanctioned the
attorneys for their apparent apathy toward a motion to dismiss a
suit against an insurer and indifference to the judge's order to
show causation, according to a Law360 article.

The three men were representing Lighthouse Point Marina & Yacht
Club in a Sandy lawsuit against Atlantic Specialty Insurance. The
suit had been dismissed in November 2014 because of the marina's
repeated failure to allow for a re-inspection of the damaged
property, the article states.

As previously reported, another Texas law firm, the Mostyn Law
Firm, was accused in a recent lawsuit of inflating the damages of
a commercial property marred by Hurricane Ike by millions.

Firm founder Steve Mostyn allegedly ditched his client when the
insurer called the bluff, possibly leaving the plaintiff on the
hook for the defendant's legal bills, which total more than $1
million.

In the New Jersey complaint, Mr. Frauenheim (the plaintiff) seeks
to represent class members who were represented by the defendant
law firms -- firms that purportedly paid fees out the clients'
insurance settlements to public adjusters and expert witnesses and
pocketed the remaining balance.

In all, Mr. Frauenheim seeks to represent members who:

   -- Were improperly charged at least one fee of approximately
$250 paid by The Voss Law Firm to Daniel Hogan and/or the John
Does representing either an improper "runner" fee paid for
directing clients to the firm or an improper charging of ordinary
law office overhead expenses to a client;

   -- Were improperly charged at least one fee in excess of $1,000
allegedly paid by The Voss Law Firm to a public adjuster as an
expert acting on plaintiff's behalf when no such representation
actually happened or was duplicative of the alleged expert
services provided by other alleged expert witnesses for which the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated were also charged;

  -- Were improperly charged at least one fee in excess of $2,000
paid by The Voss Law Firm to alleged experts acting on plaintiff's
behalf when no such representation actually happened or was
duplicative of the alleged expert services provided by other
individuals and/or companies; and

  -- Entered into a contingency fee agreement with the defendant
law firms without first having advised of the right and afforded
the opportunity to retain the attorneys under an arrangement for
compensation on the basis of the reasonable value of the services.

"Those defendants engaged in a scheme designed to improperly
charge the plaintiff and class members fees and costs associated
with the handling of their Hurricane Sandy related insurance
claims, including fees paid to "runners,'" the suit states.

A contract of legal employment is attached to the suit as
Exhibit A.

The contract states that the agreement is for representation by
The Voss Law and shows Mr. Frauenheim's signature but lacks an
attorney's signature.

Over the years, the Record has reported on the numerous insurance
lawsuits filed through The Voss Law Firm, which specializes in
insurance litigation.

The defendants are accused of violating New Jersey's Consumer
Fraud Act, breach of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
contract and common law fraud.

The plaintiff is demanding punitive and compensatory damages, plus
attorney's fees.

New Jersey attorney Gregg Trautmann of Trautmann & Associates is
representing the plaintiff.

Docket No. OCN-L-3470-15


WEST MARINE: Parties to File Motion for Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action lawsuit against West Marine, Inc. have
been slated to file a motion seeking preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement, West Marine said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2015.

In October 2014, a putative class action was filed against the
Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Diego, by a California former hourly employee claiming
violations of the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought unspecified
damages and attorney's fees, alleging the Company's failure to pay
overtime to hourly California store employees who earned bonus
wages or commissions during pay periods in which they worked
overtime, and the derivative claims of failure to provide accurate
wage statements and all wages owed upon termination of employment.

Although the Company continued to vigorously defend the claims
underlying the lawsuit, on October 16, 2015, the parties agreed in
principle to settle this matter on an individual and class-wide
basis to avoid the uncertainty and costs associated with
protracted litigation. The Company's estimated aggregate
obligation, including settlement funds, plaintiff's attorneys'
fees and costs and settlement administration costs had no material
impact on the Company's financial statements. This settlement is
subject to the court's preliminary and final approval, and the
parties expect to file a motion seeking preliminary approval in
November 2015.


                            *********

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  * * *