CAR_Public/160106.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, January 6, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 3


                            Headlines


3DNA CORP: "Eckdahl" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
AET HOLDINGS: "McFadden" Action Seeks Overtime Wage Recovery
ARKANSAS: MHA Faces Class Action Over Eviction Dispute
ARMOR-ALL PROTECTION: "Cortes" Action Seeks OT Pay, Damages
ASHLEY MADISON: New User Sign Up Despite Data Breach Class Action

AUSTRALIA: Christmas Island Class Suit Witnesses Exempted from BFA
BELL MATTRESS: "Gonzalez" Action Seeks OT, Minimum Wage Pay
BERKLEY COUNTY, SC: "Collins" Action Seeks to Recover OT Wages
BLUE BUFFALO: "Jacobs" Suit Consolidated in Pet Food Sales MDL
BMW: "DiMartino" Suit Alleges Spare Parts Monopoly

BOATHOUSE AT FSV: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRINK'S INC: "Thomas" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
C&J GROUP: "Roesler" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Bail Bond System
CHINA TELECOM: Bronstein, Gewirtz Mulls Securities Class Action

CINQUE CORP: "Arenillas-Agudo" Action to Recover Unpaid Wages
CLASSIC LANDSCAPE: "Flores" Action Seeks OT Recovery
CLAWSON MEDICAL: "Kosmala" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
COLLECTION BUREAU: Illegally Collects Debt, "Katzoff" Suit Says
COMPUTER CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

CUSTOM CONTROLS: "Fernandez" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
D&A SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
DAHYARAM CORP: "Chastain" Suit Seeks Recovery of Wages, Injuries
DAIICHI SANKYO: Settles Sales Employees' Wage Discrimination Suit
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Wax" Suit Alleges Rigging in Online Games

DXP ENTERPRISES: "Bouchard" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
ELDORADO LOUNGE: "Braxton" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Files Class Action
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Ojeda" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Cal.
FAIRWAY GOLF: "Medina" Action Seeks to Recover Withheld Tips

FAMILY PRACTICE AND INJURY CENTER: "Pinckley" Seeks Unpaid OT
FANDUEL INC: "Backer" Suit Alleges Illegal Gambling
FANDUEL INC: "Herod" Suit Alleges Illegal Online Gambling
FLOWERS FOODS: "Noll" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
FLOWERS FOODS: "Carr" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

GENERAL CHEMICAL: Aluminum Sulfate Overpriced, ERD Claims
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Columbia, SC Sues Over Aluminum Sulfate Price
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Cox" Suit Alleging Zofran Injuries
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Johnson" Suit Alleging Zofran Injury
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Zofran-Related Injury Suit in Alabama

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Sued in Alabama Over Zofran-Related Injuries
GROUPON INC: Andrews & Springer Mulls Securities Class Action
GUAM: Taxpayers Lose Court Challenge for Refunds
HAIKU ASIAN 8: "Zhang" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ICONIX BRAND: Faces SEC Probe Into Accounting Practices

ILLINOIS: Private Property Owners File Class Action
JACKSON, MS: "Lewis" Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
JAPAN: Group Wants "Comfort Women" Talks to Include Taiwan
JET-PERU COURIER: Faces "Vargas" Action Over Unpaid Wages & OT
JOHN SAMAKOVLIS: "Dawson" Action Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery

LIBERATO RESTAURANT: NLRB Refuses to Approve Settlement
MASGAD CORP: "Membrives" Action Seeks Recovery of Withheld Tips
METLIFE INSURANCE: Faces "Lau" Action Over ERISA Violations
METLIFE SECURITIES: "Creighton" Suit Moved From Illinois to N.Y.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: "Duck" Action Hits Broadcast Exclusivity

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: T-3 Restaurants Sues Over Exclusive Broadcast
NEA-BBQ LLC: "Olliff" Action Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage
NESTLE USA: Court Dismisses Supply Chains Act Class Action
NEW CHINA COUNTRY BUFFET: "Lopez" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
NEW YORK, NY: Rikers Island Faces Suit Over Female Inmate Rapes

NQ MOBILE: March 11 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PARK WEST EXECUTIVE: Faces "Faroque" Suit Over Unpaid OT
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: "Niren" Seeks Overtime Wage Recovery
POMPEI RISTORANTE: "Lazo" Action Seeks to Recover Tips Due
PRIME DENTAL LAB: "Salazar" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Faces "Negron" Suit Over Insurance Claim
PROPETRO SERVICES: "Nabarrette" Action Seeks OT Pay
QUICKEN LOANS: "Orsatti" Suit Hits Telemarketing Calls
RALEIGH HOTEL: Faces "Membrives" Suit Over Withheld Tips
REMINGTON LODGING: Faces "Membrives" Suit Over Withheld Tips

SAN JOSE WATER CO: "Figueroa" Suit Hits Unitemized Wage Record
SARUSSI CAFE: Faces "Aragon" Suit Over Unpaid Wages & OT Pay
SATAY CORP: "Pan" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Pay
SEAWORLD: Judge Dismisses Patrons' Class Action
SERVICE FUSION: New United Sues in Chicago Over Unsolicited Fax

SOLARWINDS INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Texas
SOUTHCOAST FINANCIAL: Investor Files Suit Over Proposed BNC Buyout
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Action Mulled Over Natural Gas Leak
ST. CROIX, VI: Implementation of Mental Health Plan Faces Delay
SUBURBAN FORD: "Fernandez" Action Hits SMS Scam

SUNEDISON INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Missouri
SUPER NICE STS: "Petit-Homme" Action Seeks OT Pay
TAM'S SUPER: Accused of Not Paying Overtime and Other Wages
TOTAL PETROCHEM: "Barton" Suit Hits Retirement Plan Mismanagement
TRI-STATE PARKING: "Ditren" Action Seeks Minimum and OT Pay

TUTTLE FAMILY: "Presuel" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Averts TCPA Class Action in New York
USFIA SINGAPORE: Director Faces Fraud Class Action
V.C. LAUDERDALE: "Stanton" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Recovery
VALERO ENERGY: "Bautista" Action Hits Discount Scheme

VANGUARD GROUP: "Fee" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
VERDE ENERGY USA: "Bowser" Action Hits Telemarketing Scam
VIRGINIA: 4th Cir. Upholds Inmates' Parole Class Action Dismissal
VISITING NURSE SERVICE: "Savino" Action Seeks to Recover OT Pay
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Kirkman" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Ligeti" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Olsen" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
VTECH ELECTRONICS: Faces "Bran" Suit Over Tablet PC Data Breach
W.R. GRACE: Manitoba Woman Calls for Inquiry Into Zonolite
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures

WILMINGTON SAVINGS: Sued Over Illegal Collection Practices
WINDSOR REGIONAL: Cardiac Programs to Get Share in Settlement

* Background Screening FCRA Suits Expected to Rise in 2016
* ERISA Medical Treatment Class Actions Hit Insurers
* Federal-Related Mass Torts Heart of Legal Settlements in 2015
* London, Ont. Councilor Opposes Installation of Red Light Cameras
* Malaysian D&O Insurance Coverage Market Still Nascent

* More Companies Use Mandatory Arbitration, Carlton Fields Says
* President Set to Unleash New Wave of Regulations in 2016
* Shareholders Balk at Use of US-Style By Laws by Canadian Cos.





                            *********


3DNA CORP: "Eckdahl" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeri Eckdahl and Monica Grandy, Individually, And On Behalf Of All
Other Person Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3DNA Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-09367 (C.D. Cal., December 3, 2015),
seek recovery of unpaid overtime wages for hours worked beyond 40
hours per week, liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.

3DNA Corporation is a national technology company specializing in
online community building operating under the name Nationbuilder.

Jeri Eckdahl and Monica Grandy worked as frontline organizers for
the Defendant. They claim to have rendered in excess of 40 hours
per work week without compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ted K. Lippincott, Esq.
      LEVINE & BLIT LLP
      8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 945
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 281-0100
      Email: tlipincott@levineblit.com


AET HOLDINGS: "McFadden" Action Seeks Overtime Wage Recovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie McFadden, Latoya Davis and Brandon Dean, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AET Holdings,
LLC, Stampede Logistics, LLC d/b/a Stampede Transportation and
Shanali Bhagat and Alykhan Bhagat, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00740-JM (W.D. Ark, December 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

AET Holdings, LLC is a Texas corporation operating in the state of
Arkansas with its principal place of business at 2415 West
Northwest Highway, Suite 105, Dallas, Texas 75220. It owns and
operates Stampede Logistics, LLC, d/b/a Stampede Transportation.
Alykhan Bhagat and Shanali Bhagat are the owners and incorporators
of AET Holdings and Stampede.

Defendants operate and manage an oil and gas transport center in
Little Rock, Arkansas. McFadden, Davis and Dean were employed by
Defendants as dispatchers. They often worked as much as 20 hours
per day on the days they were on call often resulting in up to 100
hours work in a single work week without compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve Rauls, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AK 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com


ARKANSAS: MHA Faces Class Action Over Eviction Dispute
------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Boozer, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that
attorneys representing a housing tenant in an eviction dispute
with the Metropolitan Housing Alliance in Little Rock have filed a
motion seeking class-action status.

Brenda Glover was stripped of her Section 8 housing voucher by the
housing authority when her landlord sent her a 10-day eviction
notice.

She argued that she had proof her rent had already been paid in an
agreement signed by her landlord, but the housing authority didn't
reinstate her benefits until she filed suit against them in
November 2014.

Even though the alliance reinstated her housing voucher that
November, her attorneys moved forward with the lawsuit against the
alliance in federal court because, according to documents provided
by the housing agency, it had stripped 964 other families of their
Section 8 benefits since October 2011 based solely on having
received a notice-to-vacate letter.

Ms. Glover's attorney, David Slade, with Carney, Bates & Pulliam
PLLC, called the agency's eviction policy "pervasive."

"MHA's policies and procedures allow families to lose their
benefits based upon the uncontested word of tenants' landlords.
These landlords are not present at pre-termination hearings, so
tenants may never directly challenge their word through cross-
examination.  Nonetheless, MHA treats this hearsay evidence as
dispositive, and any attempt by the plaintiff or class members to
challenge the notice to vacate is futile," the original lawsuit
complaint says.

The authority's Executive Director Rodney Forte and the agency's
attorney have not answered phone messages or emails seeking
comment on the lawsuit since it was filed in 2014.  Mr. Forte
didn't return messages on Dec. 28 seeking comment on the class-
action motion.

Mr. Slade filed his motion for class-action status on Dec. 23.

In Ms. Glover's situation, the lawsuit states that her landlord
signed an agreement to take August's rent out of her security
deposit because she was moving to a smaller unit in September. The
landlord then refused to refund the remainder of the deposit, so
Glover filed a complaint with the attorney general's office, the
lawsuit says.

After hearing about the complaint, the landlord reneged on the
agreement and gave Glover a 10-day eviction notice.

The housing authority used that notice as the sole reason for
terminating Glover's Section 8 voucher, despite the fact that the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has regulations
that prohibit conditioning a termination based on Arkansas'
criminal eviction statute, the lawsuit says.

The motion for class-action status argues that the Little Rock
housing agency has a practice of treating housing voucher
recipients in that way and that deprives them of their protections
under federal statutes and their right to due process under the
Constitution.

The proposed class is everyone receiving Section 8 housing
vouchers from the agency. Slade's law firm has records of the
names and addresses of those recipients, the motion says.

The lawsuit seeks clarification on whether it is legal for the
housing agency to terminate vouchers based on a landlord's
eviction notice without a judicial order, to send termination
letters without providing a reason for the termination, to shift
the burden of proof at informal hearings requiring voucher
recipients to disprove the allegations against them, and to
conduct informal hearings with decision-makers who have not
received adequate training.

There was no time frame specified for a judge to rule on the
request for class-action status.

"I expect that we would have an order either granting or denying
the motion no later than the spring," Mr. Slade said by email on
Dec. 28.


ARMOR-ALL PROTECTION: "Cortes" Action Seeks OT Pay, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Cortes, Amanda Garcia, Natalia Tirado and Darlene Galbert,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. Armor-All Protection LLC, Antone Maroon Deek d/b/a
The Alarm Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01788 (D. Conn, December 3,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages according to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. as well as damages for
sexual harassment, sexual orientation discrimination, wrongful
discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent
infliction of emotion distress in violation of the Connecticut
General Statutes Sec. 46a-104.

Armor-All Protection LLC is a Connecticut limited liability
company with a business address of 26 Hallock Avenue, 2nd Floor,
New Haven, Connecticut 06519 with Antone Maroon Deek as manager.

Cortes, Garcia, Tirado, and Galbert worked as telemarketers for
the Defendants tasked with calling individuals selling security
alarm system. Plaintiffs claim to work Saturdays without
compensation on top of the 40 hour work week from Monday to
Friday. They also allege sexual harassment, common law wrongful
discharge, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress arising from Deek's advances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth J. Krayeske, Esq.
      KENNETH J. KRAYESKE LAW OFFICES
      1 Linden Place, Unit 107
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Tel: (860) 995-5842
      Fax: (860) 760-6590
      EMail: attorney@kenkrayeske.com


ASHLEY MADISON: New User Sign Up Despite Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CNN reports that a notorious hacking scandal is apparently not
stopping website Ashley Madison from signing up new users.

The cheating website claims on its homepage that it now has more
than 43 million members.  That's up 4 million from this summer
when the hack was first publicized.

The data breach exposed the names and some vital information of an
estimated 32 million members.

The new number has not been confirmed.  Ashley Madison's parent
company, Avid Life Media, declined comment.

Even with new members, the website may not survive.  Avid Life
Media is facing numerous class-action lawsuits related to the data
breach.

Several of those suits are asking for more than a half billion
dollars in damages.


AUSTRALIA: Christmas Island Class Suit Witnesses Exempted from BFA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ackland, writing for The Guardian, reports that the
supreme court of Victoria has made orders that give witnesses in a
Christmas Island class action an exemption from the secrecy
provisions of the Border Force Act.  This could be seen as
bringing the spirit of Christmas to the eponymous island.

The law firm Maurice Blackburn has brought a representative class
action on behalf of asylum seekers on Christmas Island, alleging
that for three years up to August 2014 there was a lack of medical
care and support services for detainees.

The defendants are the Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection and the commonwealth of Australia, with International
Health and Medical Services and Serco Australia joined as third
parties.

The secrecy provisions of the Border Force Act attracted great
notoriety when introduced into parliament last February, providing
for two years' jail for the disclosure of "protected information"
by "entrusted persons".

These punitive sanctions extend to current and former immigration
and border protection workers, and a variety of categories of
people who provide services to the department, non-government
consultants, contractors and sub-contractors.

Doctors and other health workers have been at the forefront of
protests against the secrecy provisions of the act.

Late in November, the supreme court judge Jack Forrest, in
response to an application by Maurice Blackburn to interview
potential witnesses without them risking penal sanctions, said it
was important to see that there was a fair trial of the issues at
stake in the class action.  To that end, he made orders that
navigate a way around the information lock-down in the Border
Force Act, the Crimes Act and in the confidentiality clauses in
the contracts of service workers.

All is not plain sailing, even though the Border Force Act
provides an exemption for entrusted persons to disclose protected
information where this is "required" by an order or direction of a
court or tribunal.

Forrest had to grapple with the word "required" because in this
instance witnesses approached by Maurice Blackburn may mistakenly
think there is a legislative obligation on them to speak to legal
representatives about conditions at the detention centre.

Eleven unnamed potential witnesses have been identified and the
plaintiff originally sought orders that would allow open-ended
interviews in the search for "high level" information.  This was
opposed by IHMS and Serco and eventually the impasse was resolved
by an agreement for a two-step process.

Step one would allow the plaintiff's lawyers to submit a
confidential affidavit to the court with the names and addresses
of each witness sought to be interviewed and the role they played
on Christmas Island.  The court would then inspect that list and,
if satisfied, make stage two orders enabling the lawyers to
conduct more extensive interviews, if the witnesses voluntarily
consent.

Applications to the court will also have to be made on a witness-
by-witness basis in relation to those affected by the secrecy
provisions of the Commonwealth Crimes Act and confidentiality
clauses in service contracts.

IHMS and Serco argue that there is a distinction between
requirements for pre-trial disclosure and disclosure at trial.
However, there is authority from the high court and elsewhere that
obligations of confidentiality will not be enforced where their
application involves "an interference with the administration of
justice".

In any event, the stage one affidavit in relation to border force
secrecy has to come back to court on February 1, 2016.  The trial
is set down for hearing on September 5.

In an earlier preliminary round in April, Justice Stephen Kaye
ordered the commonwealth to delay the planned demolition of the
alluringly named Aqua and Lilac compounds on Christmas Island.

Maurice Blackburn said it wanted access to the compounds to
inspect detention conditions.  The Department of Immigration and
Border Protection had insisted that only departmental staff be
permitted to take photos and videos of the compounds on behalf of
the plaintiff's lawyers.

The whole thrust of the border force regime is designed to keep
the Australian public in ignorance of what is really going on in
immigration prisons.

The lid is supposed to be tightly clamped.  Occasionally isolated
types from the "stop the boats" cheer squad have been allowed to
report on what are effectively "black hole" offshore prisons --
but this is the exception rather than the rule.

It seems scarcely conceivable it was envisaged by the minister,
Peter Dutton, that the limited legislative exemptions would extend
to allowing information to be used against the commonwealth in
cases where the government was being sued for negligence and other
wrongs.

As it happens, Guardian Australia already has ably assisted the
plaintiff's case by revelations on the difficulties experienced by
IHMS in balancing its commercial imperatives with its healthcare
obligations.


BELL MATTRESS: "Gonzalez" Action Seeks OT, Minimum Wage Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan L. Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Bell Mattress, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Daniel Zamora, individually, and Flor Zamora,
individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-24475-FAM (S.D. Fla., December 4,
2015), seeks unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fee and costs for violations
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
216(b) and for breach of contract.

Plaintiff claims to have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per work week without compensation and was not paid the mandatory
minimum wage rate.

Bell Mattress is a corporation formed and existing under the laws
of the State of Florida with Daniel Zamora and Flor Zamora as co-
owners/operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Militzok. Esq.
      MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
      The Yankee Clipper Law Center
      3230 Stirling Road, Suite 4
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 780-8228
      Fax: (954) 791-4456
      Email: bjm@militzoklaw.com


BERKLEY COUNTY, SC: "Collins" Action Seeks to Recover OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Collins and Lee Jason Holbrook, Plaintiffs, v.
Berkeley County and H. Wayne Dewitt, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
04823-PMD (D.S.C., December 3, 2015), seeks award of compensatory,
liquidated damages and treble damages, unpaid overtime
compensation and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).

Plaintiffs claim to have regularly worked more than 171 hours in a
28-day period without compensation.

H. Wayne DeWitt is the former Sheriff of Berkeley County where
Collins and Holbrook worked as a law enforcement officers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
      Tel: (843) 849-1692
      Fax: (800) 385-8160
      Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

           - and -

      William C. Tucker, Esq.
      TUCKER LAW FIRM, PLC
      690 Berkmar Circle
      Charlottesville, VA 22901
      Tel: (434) 978-0100
      Fax: (434) 978-0101
      Email: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com


BLUE BUFFALO: "Jacobs" Suit Consolidated in Pet Food Sales MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Jacobs v. Blue Buffalo Pet
Products, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-13417, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01608-
RWS to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In Re: Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, Case No. 4:14-md-02562-RWS, for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations by
consumers that Blue Buffalo made false and misleading
representations about the ingredients in its pet food products, as
allegedly indicated by laboratory testing commissioned by the
Nestle Purina PetCare Company.

Buffalo Pet Products, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
corporate headquarters located in Wilton, Connecticut.  The
Company markets, distributes and sells various pet food products
nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          2 Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  pvallely@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Miranda P. Kolbe, Esq.
          Noah Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com
                  nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com


BMW: "DiMartino" Suit Alleges Spare Parts Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------
Joseph DiMartino, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW Of North America, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:15-cv-08447-WJM-MF (D.N.J., December 4, 2015), seeks
compensatory damages and an injunction in violation of Florida's
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act Sec. 501.201, et seq. and
Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Defendant allegedly sells replacement fuel injectors for the
factory-installed Index 10 fuel injectors used in BMW's N54
engines that are not compatible with the originally installed
parts, thus forcing the owner of the car to replace all fuel
injectors even if there are only one or two defective injectors.

BMW North America LLC, is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place
of business located at 300 Chestnut Ridge Road in Woodcliff Lake,
New Jersey, distributing BMW vehicles through its network of
dealers in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700
      Email: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
             LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

         - and -

     Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
     QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
     513 Central Ave., Suite 300
     Highland Park, IL 60035
     Tel: (847) 433-4500

         - and -

     Jonathan Shub
     KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
     One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Tel: (215) 238-1700


BOATHOUSE AT FSV: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Hicks v. The Boathouse at FSV, LLC, Charles Oliver, II, and
Eugene Speed, Case No. 4:15-cv-00170-FL (E.D.N.C., October 23,
2015), seeks to recover earned, but unpaid, overtime wages
guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act.

The Boathouse is a North Carolina Limited Liability Company that
conducts business and engages in commerce by offering a yacht
club, marina and a boat storage facility to customers throughout
North Carolina and the Southeastern United States.  The Boathouse
offers certified technicians, who service boats and dockhands, who
clean, maintain, supply and fuel boats.  The Boathouse also
provides food, food services, supplies, fishing tackle, bait, ice,
apparel and dry goods to their customers and boating patrons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Cushman, Esq.
          Raymond E. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          DUNN, PITTMAN, SKINNER & CUSHMAN, PLLC
          3230 Country Club Road/P.O. Drawer 1389
          New Bern, NC 28563
          Telephone: (252)633-3800
          Facsimile: (252)633-6669
          E-mail: ccushman@dunnpittman.com
                  rdunn@dunnpittman.com


BRINK'S INC: "Thomas" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Demarcus Thomas, Plaintiff, v. Brink's Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-04224-SCJ (N.D. Ga., December 4, 2015), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of
litigation and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq.

DeMarcus Thomas worked as a messenger and driver for the
Defendant. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek without compensation.

Brink's Inc., is a corporation doing business in Georgia with
primary place of business at 1201 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta,
Georgia 30361.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Pankey, Esq.
      PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC
      1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200
      Atlanta, GA 30338-4122
      Tel: (770) 670-6250
      Fax: (770) 670-6249
      Email: lpankey@pankeyhorlock.com


C&J GROUP: "Roesler" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Roesler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. C&J Energy Services, Inc. and C&J Well
Services, Inc. formerly Nabors Completion & Production Services
Co., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00483 (S.D. Tex., Corpus Christi
Division, December 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid and/or
underpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Roesler was an equipment operator on the hydraulic fracturing crew
of the Defendant and claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours
per week without compensation.

C&J Energy Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Houston, Texas.

C&J Well Services, Inc., formerly Nabors Completion & Production
Services Co. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Houston, Texas.

They provide well construction, well completions and well services
to the oil and gas industry and operate throughout the United
States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael K. Burke, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
      3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
      McAllen, TX 78501
      Tel: (956) 682-5999
      Fax: (888) 317-8802
      Email: mburke@mmguerra.com

         - and -

      Raphael Thomas Khirallah, Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
      3707 N. St. Mary's St., Suite 200
      San Antonio, Texas 78212
      Tel: (210) 802-6095
      Fax: (888) 317-8802
      Email: ray@mmguerra.com


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Bail Bond System
----------------------------------------------------
Paul Elias, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
state of California is facing a class action.

Crystal Patterson didn't have the cash or assets to post $150,000
bail and get out of jail after her arrest for assault in October.

So Ms. Patterson, 39, promised to pay a bail bonds company $15,000
plus interest to put up the $150,000 bail for her, allowing her to
go home and care for her invalid grandmother.

The day after her release, the district attorney decided not to
pursue charges.  But Ms. Patterson still owes the bail bonds
company. Criminal justice reformers and lawyers at a nonprofit
Washington, D.C., legal clinic say that is unconstitutionally
unfair.

The lawyers have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of inmates
who argue that San Francisco and California's bail system
unconstitutionally treats poor and wealthy suspects differently.

The lawsuit filed by the Equal Justice Under Law in San Francisco
federal court in October seeks to abolish the cash bail system in
the city, state -- and the country.  It's the ninth lawsuit the
center has filed in seven states.

Wealthy suspects can put up their houses or other valuable assets
-- or simply write a check -- to post bail and stay out of jail
until their cases are resolved.  Poorer suspects aren't so lucky.
Many remain behind bars or pay nonrefundable fees to bail bonds
companies.

"The bail system in most states is a two-tiered system," said
Equal Justice Under Law founder Phil Telfeyan.  "One for the
wealthy and one for everyone else."

The center has settled four lawsuits, convincing smaller jails in
states in the South to do away with cash bail requirements for
most charges.

Mr. Telfeyan said a win in California could add momentum to the
center's goal to rid the country of the cash bail system, which
the lawyers say is used by most county jails in all 50 states.
The federal system usually allows non-violent suspects to go free
without bail, pending trial, and denies bail to serious and
violent suspects.

Mr. Telfeyan said it's not his goal to put out of business the
classic neon-advertising bail bonding industry, but conceded the
business model would become obsolete if he convinces courts that
the cash bail system is unconstitutional.

The industry didn't acknowledge Mr. Telfeyan's first lawsuits
filed in early 2014.

But on Dec. 21, lawyers for the California Bail Agents Association
filed court papers seeking to formally oppose the San Francisco
lawsuit.  The association argues that government lawyers for San
Francisco and the state are offering only "tepid" opposition to
the California lawsuit.

San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi argues that most jail inmates
are awaiting resolution of minor, non-violent crimes and that
letting them free while awaiting court hearings will save the city
millions of dollars.  Mr. Mirkarimi said non-violent suspects can
be monitored electronically and with frequent visits from law
enforcement officials to ensure they don't flee the area and
attend all their court hearings.

Maggie Kreins, who is president of bail agents group, says the
longtime system of putting up money or an insurance-backed bail
bond is better at getting people to show up in court and it saves
the public the costs of monitoring defendants or hunting down bail
jumpers.

Ms. Kreins said that California's "bail schedule" could be
reformed to lower bail amounts for minor crimes, but that
scrapping the system completely would be a mistake.

"What is the incentive to go to court if you don't lose anything
for failing to appear?" Ms. Kreins said.


CHINA TELECOM: Bronstein, Gewirtz Mulls Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is investigating potential
claims on behalf of purchasers of the securities of China Telecom
Corp. Ltd.  Such investors are advised to contact Peretz Bronstein
or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz at info@bgandg.com
or 212-697-6484.

This investigation concerns whether China Telecom Corp. Ltd. and
certain of its officers and/or directors have violated the Federal
Securities Laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

On December 27, 2015, the ruling Communist Party, led by Chinese
President Xi Jinping, announced the investigation of Chang
Xiaobing, chair of China Telecom, for suspicions of corruption.
As Beijing is expanding its anti-corruption campaign, the party's
disciplinary arm, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection
announced that Xiaobing is suspected of having "severely violated
disciplines."

Chang Xiaobing was chairman of China Unicom, China's second
largest mobile operator, before being named as head of China
Telecom in August 2015.

If you are aware of any facts relating to this investigation, or
purchased shares of China Telecom Corp. Ltd., you can assist this
investigation by contacting Peretz Bronstein or his Investor
Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman,
LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com.  Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
email and telephone number.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  The firm's primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit
of litigation claims on behalf of its clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


CINQUE CORP: "Arenillas-Agudo" Action to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Hugo Arenillas-Agudo, Luis Antonio Uzhca Juncal, Pedro Mora
and Olger Segarra Escandon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cinque Corp. d/b/a Va Bene Restaurant
and Giuseppe Lattanzi, individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
09392-GBD (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2015), seeks compensatory and
liquidated damages for unpaid overtime pay,  and spread of hours
compensation, violation of the Notice and Recordkeeping
Requirements of the New York Labor Law, Wage Statement
Requirements of the New York Labor Law and in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Arenillas-Agudo was employed by Defendants as a chef and cook,
Juncal worked as a food preparer, Mora worked as a chef assistant
and Escandon was a dishwasher.

Cinque Corp. is a New York corporation doing business as Va Bene
Restaurant located at 1589 2nd Avenue, New York, New York, 10028.
It is owned and managed by Giuseppe Lattanzi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Helen F. Dalton, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCLATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Tel: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598
      Email: HFDalton6912@gmail.com


CLASSIC LANDSCAPE: "Flores" Action Seeks OT Recovery
----------------------------------------------------
Juan Flores, on behalf of himself, and all other similarly
situated plaintiffs known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Classic
Landscape, LTD., Timothy Hund, individually, Jeffrey Hund,
individually, Keith Hund, individually, and Dan Hund,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-10912 (N.D. Ill.
Eastern Division, December 4, 2015), seeks damages, recovery of
unauthorized deductions and attorneys' fees, costs and litigation
expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et
seq., Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 Sec. 105/1 et seq. and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act Section 115/14(a).

Flores worked for the Defendants as a landscaping and maintenance
worker. He claims to have worked in excess of forty hours in any
week for the past two years of his tenure without compensation and
alleges illegal unauthorized pay deductions.

Classic Landscape, Ltd., provides landscaping and maintenance
services with Timothy Hund, Jeffrey Hund, Keith Hund and Dan Hund
as owner/operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 853-1450

         - and -

      Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 784-3541
      Email: asossa@flapillinois.org


CLAWSON MEDICAL: "Kosmala" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Kosmala and Sarah Vinette, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Case No. v. Clawson Medical
Center, P.L.L.C. and Dr. James Zelch, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-
cv-14230-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich., December 3, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Kosmala and Vinette worked as Medical Assistants for the
Defendants. They claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek without compensation.

Clawson Medical Center, P.L.L.C. is a Michigan professional
limited liability company which conducts business in Clawson,
Centerline and Livonia, Michigan as ACE Medical Centers with Dr.
James Zelch as the owner.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq.
      David A. Hardesty, Esq.
      GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
      2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400
      Troy, MI 48084
      Tel: (248) 275-5200
      Email: cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com
             dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com


COLLECTION BUREAU: Illegally Collects Debt, "Katzoff" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham R. Katzoff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06748-ENV-VMS (E.D.N.Y., November 24, 2015) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley, Inc. operates a debt
collection firm in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMPUTER CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Dagostino, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Computer Credit, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
06752-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., November 24, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Computer Credit, Inc. provides hospitals with comprehensive
solutions deployed from their patient accounting systems to
improve revenue cycle collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


CUSTOM CONTROLS: "Fernandez" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Fernandez, Lazarro Gutierrez, Luis Carballo, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Custom Controls Technology,
Inc., and Garardo Gallo, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-
cv-24412-JEM (S.D. Fla., November 30, 2015), seeks to recover
overtime pay, monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests,
costs and attorney's fees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219.

Plaintiffs worked as assemblers and claimed to have rendered more
than 40 hours per work week without compensation.

Custom Controls Technology, Inc. is located in 705 West 20 Street
Hialeah, Florida 33010 and is involved in design, fabrication, and
integration of industrial control systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
      Aventura, Florida 33180
      Tel: (786) 923-5899
      Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Mamane, Esq.
      MAMANE LAW LLC
      1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Tel. (305) 773-6661
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


D&A SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Weiss, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. D&A Services, LLC, formerly known as: Dynia &
Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-06101 (E.D.N.Y., October 23,
2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

D&A Services, LLC, formerly known as Dynia & Associates, LLC,
provides customer service and compliant collection remedies.  The
Company is based in Des Plaines, Illinois.


DAHYARAM CORP: "Chastain" Suit Seeks Recovery of Wages, Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Chastain, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dahyaram Corp. d/b/a Days Inn, Jayantilal
D. Patel, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-00918 (N.D. Tex., Fort
Worth Division, December 3, 2015), seeks recovery of minimum
hourly wage, overtime compensation for all unpaid hours worked in
excess of forty hours per work week, all non-discretionary
bonuses, liquidated damages, punitive damages and reasonable
attorney's fees in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 206, as well as personal injury damages as a result of
negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was paid $30 to $35 per day as a maintenance worker for
Day's Inn, 7 days a week and, on average, worked 10-12 hours a
day. He sustained injuries falling off a ladder while painting the
hotel building in allegedly hazardous conditions.

Dahyaram Corp. is a Texas Corporation located at 4213 South
Freeway, Fort Worth, Texas 76115. It does business as Days Inn
with Jayantilal D. Patel as principal executive officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg Jackson, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF GREG JACKSON, PLLC
      201 Main Street, Suite 600
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Tel: (817) 926-1003
      Fax: (817) 886-3653
      E-mail: gjackson@gregjacksonlaw.com


DAIICHI SANKYO: Settles Sales Employees' Wage Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq., of The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr.,
in an article for Asian Journal, reports that Daiichi Sankyo, a
Japan-based pharmaceutical company with about 3,000 employees in
the United States, has settled a class action filed by its former
sales employees.

The federal judge handling the case granted certification,
allowing the employees to proceed to trial as a class.  Rather
than proceed to trial, the company has agreed to pay $8.2 million
to settle the class action suit, of which more than $4.6 million
will go to the class members.

Sarah Wellens works as a sales representative for Daiichi Sankyo.
The company hired Ms. Wellens, an experienced sales rep, in
September 2009.  Upon her hiring, she was assigned to a lower
level position and lower compensation tier than similar male
employees.  Over time, she received lower merit increases,
bonuses, and other compensation perks compared to male sales
representatives, and was passed over for promotion for less
qualified male sales reps.  After she became pregnant in 2010 and
took maternity leave in 2011, she was again passed over for
promotion.  While on maternity leave, her male supervisor
commented to another male sales employee that Ms. Wellens was a
"baby-maker."  This same supervisor regularly praised male sales
employees for their accomplishments and supported their careers,
but failed to extend the same recognition and support to female
sales representatives, especially those with children.  Worse,
this supervisor made disparaging and offensive remarks regarding
pregnancy and motherhood.  When Ms. Wellens complained about
gender and pregnancy discrimination, the supervisor called her a
"disgruntled employee."  Another female sales rep, Kelly Jensen,
started working for Daiichi Sankyo in August 2008. Like
Ms. Wellens, Ms. Jensen was assigned to a lower level position and
lower compensation tier in comparison to similar male employees.
She was paid a lower salary, and received lower merit increases,
bonuses, and other compensation perks than similar male sales
reps.  In August 2011, Jensen became pregnant and went on
maternity leave.  After the male sales leadership team learned of
Ms. Jensen's pregnancy, they took away a high performing product
from her and gave it to a male sales rep. As a result, the male
sales rep's sales rankings, bonus opportunities, and promotion
prospects increased, while Ms. Jensen's sales rankings and
employment opportunities decreased.  When they each returned from
maternity leave, Ms. Wellens' and Jensen's regular paychecks were
dramatically decreased, allegedly as a post- maternity leave
compensation offset.  The HR department apparently mismanaged
their disability/maternity leave benefits and claimed that Wellens
and Ms. Jensen were overpaid during their respective maternity
leaves. Ms. Wellens and Ms. Jensen are but two of six employees
who sued the company for gender and pregnancy discrimination, on
behalf of themselves and other female employees who were similarly
mistreated by the company.  The employees claimed that the "glass
ceiling" at the company is indisputable, and that while female
employees dominate rank-and-file sales positions, male employees
control all levels of management, and there are no women at the
top executive level.  The women accused the company of, among many
things, tolerating and cultivating a hostile environment in which
women and mothers are openly devalued, and where female employees
who complain of gender discrimination are retaliated against and
pushed out of the Company.

California has prohibited gender-based wage discrimination since
1949.  To bolster existing laws, a new law in 2016 provides that
an employer shall not pay any of its employees at wage rates less
than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for
substantially similar work, and performed under similar working
conditions.  "Substantially similar work" may mean the employees
may have different titles or work at different sites but their
work are essentially the same.  In other words, the lower paid
employee doesn't have to prove that the higher paid employee of
the opposite sex has exactly the same job as she (or he) does.  If
differences in wages exist, the difference must be legally
justified based on one or more of the following factors: a) A
seniority system b) A merit system c) A system that measures
earnings by quantity or quality of production d) A bona fide
factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience.
Discriminated employees will be entitled to damages as well as
appropriate equitable relief.


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Wax" Suit Alleges Rigging in Online Games
----------------------------------------------------------
Barry Wax and Kenneth Rosen, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fanduel, Inc., Draftkings,
Inc., Saahil Sud, Drew Dinkmeyer, Ethan Haskell, Matthew Boccio,
Visa, Inc., Mastercard, Inc., American Express Credit Corporation,
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Merrick Bank, Capital One Bank,
Paysafecard.Com USA, Inc., Vantiv, Inc., Paypal, Inc., National
Basketball Assocation, Inc., Turner Sports, Bullpen Management
LLC, Comcast Ventures LLC, Google Capital Management LLC, HDS
Investment Advisory LLC, HDS Investment Management LLC, Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., NBC Sports Ventures LLC, Pentech
Ventures LLP, Piton Capital LLP, LEK Consulting LLC, Scottish
Investment Bank, Shamrock Capital Advisors LLC, Time Warner, Inc.,
d/b/a Time Warner Investments, Tusk Ventures, 21st Century Fox
America, Inc., Atlas Ventures Associates III, Inc., BDS Capital
Management LLC, DST Global, a/k/a Digital Sky Technologies, Fox
Sports Interactive Media LLC, GGV Capital Holdings LLC, Jason
Robins, Hub Angels Management LLC, Jordan Mendell, Kraft Group
LLC, Legends Hospitality LLC, MSG Sports & Entertainment LLC,
Major League Baseball Ventures, Major League Soccer LLC, Melo7
Media Partners LLC, NHL Enterprises, Inc., NHL Enterprises Lp,
Redpoint Ventures I LLC, The Raine Group LLC, Wellington
Management Company LLC, Defendants., Case No. 1:15-cv-24450-JAL
(S.D. Fla., December 2, 2015), seeks to recover damages resulting
from negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violation
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1962, civil conspiracy, Violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and as well as to seek
supplementary and injunctive relief.

The class action complaint arises out of an alleged internal
rigging of online gaming website, Daily Fantasy Sports, an online
game that allows paying participants to engage in virtual athletic
drafting with data tied to actual player statistics that allows
game simulations. Draftkings, Inc. and Fanduel, Inc. entice
participants to play by offering cash winnings.

DraftKings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located at 225 Franklin St., 26th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts. FanDuel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th
Floor, New York, New York.

Saahil Sud, Drew Dinkmeyer, Ethan Haskell and Matthew Boccio are
bettors in Daily Fantasy Sports.

Visa, Inc., Mastercard, Inc. and American Express Credit
Corporation are credit card companies that facilitate payments for
Daily Fantasy Sports.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Merrick Bank and Capital One Bank are
commercial banks that issue loans to Daily Fantasy Sports players.

Paysafecard.Com USA, Inc., Vantiv, Inc. and Paypal, Inc. are
payment processing agents that serve player banking function,
receiving a fee as the financial intermediary between FanDuel and
DraftKings and its customers.

National Basketball Assocation, Inc., Turner Sports, Bullpen
Management LLC, Comcast Ventures LLC, Google Capital Management
LLC, HDS Investment Advisory LLC, HDS Investment Management LLC,
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., NBC Sports Ventures LLC,
Pentech Ventures LLP, Piton Capital LLP, LEK Consulting LLC,
Scottish Investment Bank, Shamrock Capital Advisors LLC, Time
Warner, Inc., d/b/a Time Warner Investments and Tusk Ventures are
investors of Fanduel's operations.

21st Century Fox America, Inc., Atlas Ventures Associates III,
Inc., BDS Capital Management LLC, DST Global, a/k/a Digital Sky
Technologies, Fox Sports Interactive Media LLC, GGV Capital
Holdings LLC, Jason Robins, Hub Angels Management LLC, Jordan
Mendell, Kraft Group LLC, Legends Hospitality LLC, MSG Sports &
Entertainment LLC, Major League Baseball Ventures, Major League
Soccer LLC, Melo7 Media Partners LLC, NHL Enterprises, Inc., NHL
Enterprises Lp, Redpoint Ventures I LLC, The Raine Group LLC and
Wellington Management Company LLC are investors of Draftkings's
operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christos Lagos, Esq.
      John Priovolos, Esq.
      LAGOS & PRIOVOLOS PLLC
      66 West Flagler Street, Suite 1000
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 960-1990
      Fax: (305) 891-2610
      Email: Lagos@attainjustice.com
             john@priolaw.com

         - and -

      Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq.
      Patrick S. Montoya, Esq
      COLSON HICKS EIDSON COLSON MATTHEWS
      MARTINEZ GONZALEZ KALBAC & KANE
      255 Alhambra Circle Penthouse
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 476-7400
      Fax: (305) 476-7444
      Email: Ervin@colson.com
             Patrick@colson.com


DXP ENTERPRISES: "Bouchard" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bouchard v. DXP Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No. 5:14-cv-01089, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (Houston).  The Southern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-03118 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by improperly failing to pay Safety Technicians and
other workers overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

DXP is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas.  DXP
provides well-site and safety services to oil companies.  DXP
employs individuals, including the Plaintiff, as Safety
Technicians, who check site visitors' credentials, record hydrogen
sulfide readings, and monitor other chemical readings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
                  ahartry@themoralesfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: ADunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com
                  mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

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


The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Carter Crow, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 651-5218
          Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
          E-mail: carter.crow@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Romero, Esq.
          Mario Alberto Barrera, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          300 Convent St., Suite 2100
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 270-7128
          Facsimile: (210) 270-7205
          E-mail: stephen.romero@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  mario.barrera@nortonrosefulbright.com


ELDORADO LOUNGE: "Braxton" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maurlanna Braxton, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Eldorado Lounge, Inc., Four
One Four, LLC and Kenneth Jackson, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03661-ELH (D. Md. December 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidate damages and attorney's fees in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Maryland Wage and Hour Law and
the Maryland Wage Payment and Wage Collection Law.

Braxton works as a dancer for the Defendant and claims to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without compensation
and was not paid the mandated minimum wage.

Eldorado is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of
Maryland with its principal place of business in 4100 E. Lombard
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21224 and operates Eldorado Lounge
Gentlemen's Club and King and Diamonds Gentlemen's Club in
Baltimore City, Maryland. Jackson was the President, Managing
Member and primary owner and operator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg C. Greenberg, Esq.
      Jason D. Friedman, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
      836 Bonifant St.
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Tel: (301) 587-9373
      Fax: (301) 587-9397
      Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
             jfriedman@zagfirm.com


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
NorthJersey.com reports that a shareholder is suing Hindi language
film company Eros International Plc and three senior executives,
alleging they defrauded investors by overstating the company's
performance.

Shares in Eros, which has its U.S. executive offices in Secaucus,
plummeted after Alpha Exposure, part of the online equity research
firm Seeking Alpha, published articles by an anonymous author this
fall that questioned some of the revenue, cash flow and film-
release figures the company had disclosed.

Eros has characterized the reports as "false rumors" and
"misinformation," but shareholder Rajiv Sharma cites those
articles in the federal lawsuit he filed in Newark.  The complaint
said Eros made false or misleading statements and "failed to
disclose material adverse facts."

Mr. Sharma seeks class action status on behalf of "hundreds or
thousands" of other Eros shareholders, and an unspecified amount
in damages.  Mr. Sharma paid as much as $32.94 a share this summer
for Eros stock, and received only $9.44 a share when he sold
shares in November, a court document showed.

Eros, which could not be reached to comment on Dec. 28, had issued
a news release in November in response to what it called "a
vicious campaign of false rumors and misinformation" and said its
accounting practices were in line with industry standards.

The company also retained the Manhattan law firm Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP to do "an independent internal review."

Seeking Alpha did not immediately respond to a request for an
interview with the anonymous author of the Alpha Exposure articles
cited in the lawsuit.  It could not be learned on Dec. 28 if the
author owns Eros shares or has shorted the stock -- a bet that it
would decline in value.

Founded in 1977, Eros, which is incorporated in Isle of Man, has
helped produce some of the highest-grossing Bollywood films,
including "Om Shanti Om" and "Love Aaj Kal."  The company, which
raised $55 million in a 2013 stock offering, reported on Nov. 17
net income of $11 million for the quarter ended Sept. 30, up from
$4.3 million in the year-earlier period.

It was "a blockbuster quarter," Eros CEO Jyoti Deshpande said at
the time.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Ojeda" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Francisco Ojeda v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-04704, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Western Division - Los Angeles).  The Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-08311-MWF-E to the
proceeding.

On October 1, 2015, Experian and T-Mobile announced that
Experian's computer system had been breached, compromising the
sensitive personal information of approximately 15 million T-
Mobile customers and applicants.  The Plaintiff is a T-Mobile
customer, who brings the proposed class action lawsuit on behalf
of T-Mobile customers and applicants nationwide, whose personal
information has been compromised as a result of the data breach.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is a corporation organized
under the laws of the state of Ohio, with its principal place of
business in Costa Mesa, California.  Experian is one of the three
major credit bureaus that conduct credit checks on individuals
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          David M. Berger, Esq.
          Linh G. Vuong, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  dmb@girardgibbs.com
                  lgv@girardgibbs.com


FAIRWAY GOLF: "Medina" Action Seeks to Recover Withheld Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Medina, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fairway Golf Management, LLC, Mill Pond
Country Club Caterers Inc., John Rossi, Anthony Gillespie, Anthony
J. Frick, Linda Nuccitelli, Michael Danon, Agnes M. Frick, and any
other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 607829/2015 (N.Y.
Sup., December 4, 2015), seeks to recover withheld gratuities from
the Defendant in accordance to the New York Labor Law Sec. 190 and
196-d et seq. and the New York State Department of Labor
Regulations.

Medina claims not to have received his portion of the Service
Charge that is included in the customer billings.

Fairway Golf Management, LLC and Mill Pond Country Club Caterers
Inc. are domestic limited liability companies organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York, with principal
place of business located at 300 Mill Road, Medford, New York
11763. Both are co-owned/managed by John Rossi, Anthony Gillespie,
Anthony J. Frick, Linda Nuccitelli, Michael Danon and Agnes M.
Frick.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550


FAMILY PRACTICE AND INJURY CENTER: "Pinckley" Seeks Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Pinckley, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Family Practice and Injury Center, Inc., Case No.
8:15-cv-02764-SDM-MAP (M.D. Fla., Tampa Division, November 30,
2015), seeks recovery of wages owed and equal amount in liquidated
damages as well as attorney's fees and costs in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(a) and 216(b).

Plaintiff alleges she has not been paid any overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek especially in the
course of running errands off the clock.

Defendant is a Florida corporation located in 5778 5th Avenue
North Saint Petersburg, FL 33710 and is in the health care
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. John Gadd, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD, PA
      2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Tel: (727) 524-6300
      Email: wjg@mazgadd.com


FANDUEL INC: "Backer" Suit Alleges Illegal Gambling
---------------------------------------------------
Martin Backer and Rebecca McGuire, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fanduel, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-01432 (M.D. Tenn., December 3, 2015),
seeks damages, declaratory, retrospective and prospective
injunctive relief as well as restitution of all monies obtained by
Defendant and attorneys' fees.

The class action complaint arises out of an alleged illegal
gambling website, Daily Fantasy Sports, an online game that allows
paying participants to engage in virtual athletic drafting with
data tied to actual player statistics that allows game
simulations. Fanduel allegedly accepts wagers for such activities
using such a scheme and entices participants to play by offering
cash winnings.

Fanduel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th Floor, New York,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Coleman, Esq.
      HUGHES & COLEMAN
      2333 Alexandria Drive, Suite 118
      Lexington, KY 40504
      Tel: 859-260-1722
      Email: BColeman@hughesandcoleman.com

           - and -

      W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
      Christopher Hood, Esq.
      Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 326-3336
      Fax: (205) 326-3332
      Email: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
             chood@hgdlawfirm.com
             taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

           - and -

      Lee L. Coleman, Esq.
      HUGHES & COLEMAN
      446 James Robertson Pkwy, Suite 100
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 255-9100
      Email: LColeman@hughesandcoleman.com

           - and -

      James F. Mcdonough, III, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Tel: (404) 996-0869
      Fax: (205) 326-3332
      Email: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com


FANDUEL INC: "Herod" Suit Alleges Illegal Online Gambling
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Whitfield Herod v. Fanduel, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:15-
cv-00173-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., Greenville Division, December 2,
2015), seeks punitive damages, injunctive relief, declaratory
relief, reasonable attorney's fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, retrospective and prospective injunctive relief
enjoining Defendants from continuing their alleged illegal
gambling operations in violation of the Mississippi Code 97-33-1
and/or 97-43-5 et seq.

The class action complaint arises out of an alleged illegal
gambling website, Daily Fantasy Sports, an online game that allows
paying participants to engage in virtual athletic drafting with
data tied to actual player statistics that allows game
simulations. FanDuel allegedly accepts wagers for those activities
using such a scheme and entices participants to play by offering
cash winnings.

Fanduel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th Floor, New York,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Edwards, Esq.
      Marc L. Boutwell, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF MARC BOUTWELL, PLLC
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Tel: (662) 834-9029
      Fax: (662) 834-3117

           - and -

      Stephen L. Gowan, Esq.
      GOWAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
      Post Office Box 629
      Kosciusko, MS 39090-0629
      Tel: (662) 290-0042
      Fax: (662) 289-3749


FLOWERS FOODS: "Noll" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Noll, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Flowers Foods, Inc., LePage Bakeries
Park Street LLC, and CK Sales Co., LLC,, Case No. 1:15-cv-00493-
JAW (D. Me., December 3, 2015), seeks reimbursement of unpaid
overtime pay, reimbursement of illegal deductions, equitable
restitution, payment of any penalties or other amounts under any
applicable laws, statutes or regulations, including but not
limited to liquidated damages, obtain declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief in violation of violations of the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq., Maine
Independent Contractor Law, 26 Maine Revised Statutes Sec.
1043(11)(E) and 591-A, Maine Employment Practices Laws and Maine
Common Law.

Timothy Noll works as a distributor for Flowers in Maine. He
performs delivery and merchandizing services to local retailers of
bakery and snack food products. He claims to have worked 50-60
hours per week without overtime premium pay in excess of 40 hours
per work week.

Flowers Foods, Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its principal
place of business at 1919 Flowers Circle, Thomasville, Georgia.

LePage is a Maine Limited Liability Company with its principal
place of business at Country Kitchen Plaza, PO Box 1900, Auburn,
ME 04211-1900. LePage operates three bakeries, two in Lewiston,
Maine and one in Brattleboro, Vermont. LePage is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Flowers Foods, Inc.

CK Sales Company is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its
principal place of business at 11 Adamian Drive, Auburn, Maine
04210.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rebecca S. Webber, Esq.
      SKELTON, TAINTOR & ABBOTT
      95 Main Street
      Auburn, Maine 04210
      (207) 784-3200
      Email: rwebber@sta-law.com

           - and -

      Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
      Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq.
      Patricia A. Bloodgood, Esq.
      BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
      100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 252-3570
      Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
      Email: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
             cdjozwiak@baillonthome.com
             pabloodgood@baillonthome.com

           - and -

      Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
      Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Esq.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: seellingstad@locklaw.com
             rakitzecollins@locklaw.com


FLOWERS FOODS: "Carr" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Carr, Terry Carr, David Tumblin, and Gregory Brown
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, individuals,
v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, LLC, Case
No. 2:15-cv-06391-LS (E.D. Pa., December 1, 2015), seeks recovery
of unpaid wages, illegal deductions, equitable restitutions,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 and Pennsylvania
Wage Laws, 43 P.S. Sections 260.1 et seq. and Maryland Wage Laws.

Matthew Carr, Terry Carr, Gregory Brown and David Tumblin work as
distributors for the Defendant, and delivers and merchandizes to
local retailers of bakery and snack food products manufactured or
sold by the Defendant.

Flowers Foods, Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its principal
place of business at 1919 Flowers Circle, Thomasville, Georgia,
31757.

Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, LLC is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business at 700 Lincoln Street, Oxford, PA
19363. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Flowers Foods, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Schaffer, Esq.
      LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN AND BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street. Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Fax: (215) 592-4663
      Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

         - and -

      Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
      Patricia A. Bloodgood, Esq.
      Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq.
      BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
      100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 252-3570
      Fax: (612) 252-3571
      Email: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
             pabloodgood@baillonthome.com

         - and -

      Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
      Rachel A. Kitzc Collins, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE. GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: seellingstad@locklaw.com
             rakitzecollins@locklaw.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Aluminum Sulfate Overpriced, ERD Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Research and Design, Inc., individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank A.
Reichl, General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance
Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund,
Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation,
Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC, Geo Specialty Chemicals, Defendants,
Case No. 2:15-cv-06421-PD (E.D. Pa. December 3, 2015), seeks
treble damages and injunctive relief in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act
15 U.S.C.

Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum
sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum
sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive
prices.

Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General
Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of
Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road,
Parsippany, New Jersey.

General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the
laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300,
155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario.

General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability
company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place
of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey.

GenTek Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek manufactured and
supplied water treatment chemicals throughout the United States.
It owned and controlled Defendants General Chemical Performance
Products LLC and General Chemical Corporation.

Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under
the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals
and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United
States and Europe.

Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade
Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province
of Ontario.

Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a
subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq.
      BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 320
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 814-6750
      Fax: (215) 814-6764
      Email: ABolognese@bolognese-law.com

         - and -

      Paul J. Geller, Esq.
      David W. Mitchell, Esq.
      Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: PGeller@rgrdlaw.com
             DavidM@rgrdlaw.com
             PatC@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
      200 S.W. 1ST Avenue, 12th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 525-4100
      Fax: (954) 525-4300
      Email: gilbert@kolawyers.com

         - and -

      Kenneth G. Oertel, Esq.
      OERTEL, FERNANDEZ, BRYANT & ATKINSON, P.A.
      2060 Delta Way
      Tallahassee, FL 32303
      Tel: (850) 521-0700
      Fax: (850) 521-0720
      Email: koertel@ahfc.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Columbia, SC Sues Over Aluminum Sulfate Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
City of Columbia, South Carolina, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Reichl,
General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance
Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund,
Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation,
Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC, Geo Specialty Chemicals and John Does
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-08429-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. December
3, 2015), seeks treble damages in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act 15 U.S.C.

Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum
sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum
sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive
prices.

Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General
Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of
Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road,
Parsippany, New Jersey.

General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the
laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300,
155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario.

General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability
company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place
of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey.

GenTek Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek manufactured and
supplied water treatment chemicals throughout the United States.
It owned and controlled Defendants General Chemical Performance
Products LLC and General Chemical Corporation.

Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under
the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals
and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United
States and Europe.

Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade
Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province
of Ontario.

Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a
subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Tel: (973) 623-3000 Ext. 3820
      Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
             jdepalma@litedepalma.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Cox" Suit Alleging Zofran Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Cox and Anthony Cox, each Individually and on Behalf of
M.C., their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-
01872-MHH (N.D. Ala., October 23, 2015), arises from alleged
injuries to M.C. as a result of his prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R),
also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
with the most severe nausea as a result of chemotherapy or
radiation treatments in cancer patients.  GlaxoSmithKline marketed
Zofran "off label" as a safe and effective treatment for
pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting, commonly called "morning
sickness."

GSK is a Delaware limited liability company.  GSK's sole member is
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation,
and which has identified its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK is the successor in interest to Glaxo,
Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the
original New Drug Application for Zofran.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Munson, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Matt.Munson@BeasleyAllen.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
          Kathleen R. Kerner, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 365
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  BKetterer@myadvocates.com
                  kkerner@myadvocates.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Johnson" Suit Alleging Zofran Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberlee Johnson and Bradley Johnson, each Individually and on
Behalf of J.J., their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-01866-TMP (N.D. Ala., October 23, 2015), arises from
alleged injuries to J.J. as a result of his prenatal exposures to
the generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R),
also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
with the most severe nausea as a result of chemotherapy or
radiation treatments in cancer patients.  GlaxoSmithKline marketed
Zofran "off label" as a safe and effective treatment for
pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting, commonly called "morning
sickness."

GSK is a Delaware limited liability company.  GSK's sole member is
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation,
and which has identified its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK is the successor in interest to Glaxo,
Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the
original New Drug Application for Zofran.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Munson, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Matt.Munson@BeasleyAllen.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
          Kathleen R. Kerner, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 365
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  BKetterer@myadvocates.com
                  kkerner@myadvocates.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Zofran-Related Injury Suit in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Johnson and Robert Johnson, each, Individually and on
Behalf of D.J., their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No.
7:15-cv-01865-JHE (N.D. Ala., October 23, 2015), is brought for
compensatory and punitive damages arising from the alleged
injuries to D.J. as a result of his prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R),
also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
with the most severe nausea as a result of chemotherapy or
radiation treatments in cancer patients.  GlaxoSmithKline marketed
Zofran "off label" as a safe and effective treatment for
pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting, commonly called "morning
sickness."

GSK is a Delaware limited liability company.  GSK's sole member is
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation,
and which has identified its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK is the successor in interest to Glaxo,
Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the
original New Drug Application for Zofran.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Munson, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Matt.Munson@BeasleyAllen.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
          Kathleen R. Kerner, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 365
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  BKetterer@myadvocates.com
                  kkerner@myadvocates.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Sued in Alabama Over Zofran-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Lenseigne and Phillip Lenseigne, each Individually and on
Behalf of B.L., their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No.
7:15-cv-01870-JHE (N.D. Ala., October 23, 2015), arises from
alleged injuries to B.L. as a result of his prenatal exposures to
the generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R),
also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
with the most severe nausea as a result of chemotherapy or
radiation treatments in cancer patients.  GlaxoSmithKline marketed
Zofran "off label" as a safe and effective treatment for
pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting, commonly called "morning
sickness."

GSK is a Delaware limited liability company.  GSK's sole member is
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation,
and which has identified its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK is the successor in interest to Glaxo,
Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the
original New Drug Application for Zofran.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Munson, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Matt.Munson@BeasleyAllen.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
          Kathleen R. Kerner, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 365
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  BKetterer@myadvocates.com
                  kkerner@myadvocates.com


GROUPON INC: Andrews & Springer Mulls Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is
investigating potential securities violations and breach of
fiduciary duty claims against Groupon, Inc.  Andrews & Springer is
a boutique securities class action law firm representing
shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct.


GUAM: Taxpayers Lose Court Challenge for Refunds
------------------------------------------------
Jojo Santo Tomas and Shawn Raymundo, writing for Pacific Daily
News, report that despite the slow pace in paying out tax refunds
in 2014, Gov. Eddie Calvo's administration fulfilled its court-
ordered obligation to refund all error-free filings by Oct. 15.

Following the summer months, when only $10.4 million in tax
refunds was released, the administration doled out $54.5 million
in September, covering all error-free returns that were filed by
April 15.

This tax season saw repeated concerns from lawmakers over the
Department of Administration's compliance with a local law that
required that 26 percent of income tax revenues be deposited into
the Income Tax Refund Efficient Payment Trust Fund -- the
government's account used to set aside money for tax refund
payments.

Based on government bank statements earlier in the fiscal year,
the department was depositing much less than 26 percent into the
account each month.

In March, Sen. Mike San Nicolas warned DOA Director Anthony Blaz,
who at the time was acting director, to pick up payments or his
confirmation wouldn't move forward.

The government's revenues and expenditures report for September
-- the end of the fiscal year -- show that income tax revenues
amounted to $475.9 million for the fiscal year, meaning at least
$123.73 million should have been deposited.

According to an examination of the Efficient Payment account bank
statements from October 2014 to September 2015, $123.38 million
was cumulatively transferred to the fund.

A 2013 federal injunction mandates the government of Guam to pay
out tax refunds for all status-A returns within six months of the
April 15 filing deadline.

Taxpayers whose filings had errors such as missing information
could get their tax refunds after the government's Oct. 15
deadline.  The administration is allowed to refund those returns
within six months from the date the Department of Revenue and
Taxation identifies and fixes the problem.

The injunction was the result of a 2011 class-action lawsuit in
which a few citizens sued the government for decades of delayed
tax refund payments.

U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall agreed with the plaintiffs
and ordered the administration to pay refunds in a timely manner
henceforth.  It also awarded $2 million to cover the plaintiffs'
legal fees.

The administration appealed the ruling in August, but the 9th
Circuit appellate court upheld the district court ruling.

In September, the governor's legal team filed a petition for a
rehearing with the appellate court but in early October, a panel
of 9th Circuit judges voted unanimously to deny that request.

According to a Sept. 30 report filed by Rev and Tax, $15.7 million
worth of refunds still was owed to several taxpayers.  The report
is another requirement of the injunction.

Most of that $15.7 million represents almost 2,000 filings that
had some discrepancy.  Those returns required resolution before
the administration can issue a refund.

One tax return awaiting a refund was filed as far back as 2010
while another two were filed in 2012.


HAIKU ASIAN 8: "Zhang" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yu Guang Zhang, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Haiku Asian 8 Inc., LLC. d/b/a
Haiku Asian Bistro & Sushi Bar, Sheng Lin, John Lin, Maggie Doe,
Kevin Doe, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-06821-
JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y., November 30, 2015), seeks an award for unpaid
overtime wages due under the Fair Labor Standard Act and New York
Labor Law, compensatory and liquidated damages, unpaid spread of
hours premium due under the New York Labor Law, damages arising
from the Defendants' failure to provide wage notice at the time of
hiring, liquidated and/or punitive damages and further legal and
equitable relief.

Plaintiff worked as delivery staff for the Defendant and claims to
have rendered in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime
compensation as well as unpaid spread of hours premium for each
day he worked ten or more hours.

Haiku Asian 8 Inc., LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at
8025 Jericho Turnpike, Woodbury NY 11797 under the name Haiku
Asian Bistro & Sushi Bar with John and Sheng Lin and Maggie and
Kevin Doe as co-owners, officers and directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


ICONIX BRAND: Faces SEC Probe Into Accounting Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Fickenscher, writing for New York Post, reports that the SEC
is tired of playing nice with the Iconix Brand Group.

The federal regulator, after weeks of an informal perusal of the
books of the New York-based licensor of Joe Boxer, Candie's,
Danskin and more than two dozen other brands, opened up a full-
fledged probe of the company, it was disclosed on Dec. 28.

News that Mary Jo White's Securities and Exchange Commission would
start to dig into Iconix's books sent shares of the company
tumbling 23.9 percent, to $5.67, after touching a 52-week low.

The SEC had been looking into the company's accounting practices
related to its joint ventures in China and Latin America, analysts
said.

But it's not clear whether the current probe is focusing on the
accounting issues, noted Brean Capital analyst, Liz Pierce.

The SEC could be looking at management changes at Iconix -- which
has had a complete turnover of its C-suite within the past couple
of years -- or the restatements, or a class action lawsuit "to
name a few" problems the company is facing, wrote Pierce in a
research note.

Iconix said it is cooperating with the investigation.

The company, which also owns the rights to Peanuts in a
partnership with the family of Charles M. Schulz, has had a series
of setbacks, including its dashed hopes that the popular "Peanuts"
movie, out in November, would spark sales of its licensed
merchandise.

But that didn't happen, the company said, because the "Star Wars"
movie was stealing its thunder in stores.

Some investors have questioned whether Iconix has tried to mask
the lack of growth in some of its brands by divesting or acquiring
its joint ventures to give its overall balance sheet a lift when
it came up short.


ILLINOIS: Private Property Owners File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Illinois property owners on Dec. 28 sued the state of Illinois,
Illinois' Gov. Bruce Rauner and other state agencies for
"undisputedly" appropriating private property for its own use
knowing that property owners would not be paid compensation,
according to plaintiffs' law firm, Hagens Berman.

According to the complaint, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, the state of Illinois and multiple other
agencies have illegally failed to pay any compensation for its
takings since at least July 1, 2015.  The complaint names Illinois
governor, Bruce Rauner, the comptroller of the state, Leslie
Geissler Munger and the Illinois Department of Transportation.

The suit states that in the midst of a budget impasse, ". . . the
Republican Governor and the Democrats who hold a supermajority in
both chambers of the state legislature have put their 'long-
simmering ideological and political dispute' ahead of the
Constitutional rights of private property owners."  The complaint
states that the state's seizure of property without compensation
violates basic state and federal laws stipulating that private
property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.

"Despite basic, longstanding federal and state principles barring
this kind of behavior, the state of Illinois has recklessly
violated the basic constitutional rights of its own citizens,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.  "We believe
that those who have been needlessly victimized and lost their
personal property with no compensation deserve what's legally
theirs under the federal and state Constitutions."

The suit's class of property owners seeks compensatory damages,
interest on the amounts the state agreed to or was ordered to pay
(but failed to pay) and attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the lawsuit, during the current budget impasse, many
social services are not being funded, and the state and its
agencies have "continued to take private property knowing they
cannot and will not pay contemporaneous just compensation because
no appropriations have been made."

"These property owners are caught in the middle of a broken
system, owed tens of thousands of dollars for their seized
property," Mr. Berman added.  "And it seems as though the state
and its governor view their rights as a casualty, as they continue
to sequester property with no intention of contemporaneous just
payment."

"Absent a Court Order, the State's unconstitutional takings will
continue," the suit states.  "Notwithstanding these clear and
long-standing federal and state constitutional rights, the State
of Illinois and other state agencies, including the Illinois
Department of Transportation, has taken property from Plaintiff
and the Class and failed to pay for the property since at least
July 1, 2015."

Find out more about the firm's class-action lawsuit on behalf of
Illinois property owners.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times.


JACKSON, MS: "Lewis" Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lewis, Tayrl Hoskin, Charles Ayers and all other similarly
situated employees and persons v. City of Jackson, Mississippi,
Tony Yarber, in his official capacity as the Mayor of the City of
Jackson, Mississippi, Gus McCoy, in his official capacity as the
Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Jackson, Mississippi
And Denise McKay, in her official capacity as the director of the
Department of Personnel Management of the City of Jackson,
Mississippi, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00876-CWR-FKB (S.D.
Miss., North Jackson Division, December 4, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Defendants are key officers in City of Jackson, Mississippi with
administrative authority over wages and employee concerns.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Wade Gilmer, Esq.
      Barry W. Gilmer, Esq.
      GILMER LAW FIRM
      Post Office Box 919
      Madison, MS 39130
      Tel: (601) 898-9130
      Fax: (601) 898-9785
      Email: mwgilmer@gilmerlawfirm.com
             gilmerlaw@gilmerlawfirm.com


JAPAN: Group Wants "Comfort Women" Talks to Include Taiwan
----------------------------------------------------------
Taipei Times reports that a women's rights group on Dec. 27 said
it hopes that the talks between Japan and South Korea over the
issue of "comfort women" could be expanded to include Taiwan.

Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Fumio Kishida was scheduled
to meet with South Korean Minister of Foreign Affiars Yun Byung-se
in Seoul on Dec. 28 to discuss the issue of women who were forced
into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II.

According to Japan's English-language Nikkei Asian Review, Japan
is to propose creating a government-backed fund to help former
South Korean comfort women.

Taipei Women's Rescue Foundation executive director Kang Shu-hua
said that she is happy to see Japan talking with South Korea to
resolve the issue.

If the two nations reach an agreement on paying compensation, the
decision should also apply to victims in other nations such as
Taiwan, China, Indonesia and the Philippines, Ms. Kang said.

She said about 2,000 Taiwanese women were forced into sexual
slavery during World War II, 58 of whom came forward to demand
compensation.

However, during more than 20 years of negotiations, many of them
died and only four remain, Ms. Kang said.

Taiwan previously filed a class action lawsuit with a district
court in Tokyo to demand compensation, but lost the lawsuit mainly
due to the statute of limitations, she said.

At a time when Japan is negotiating the comfort women issue with
South Korea, the Taiwanese government should propose that similar
issues faced by other nations be resolved together, Kang said.
She added that the compensation should be paid by the Japanese
government rather than a private foundation.


JET-PERU COURIER: Faces "Vargas" Action Over Unpaid Wages & OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfredo Vargas, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Jet Peru-Courier Corp., Jet Peru Money
Remitters Inc., Leonor F. Aguilar and Victoria Espana, Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06859-RRM-PK (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation and
unpaid "spread of hours" premium under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law as well as liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and as
a result of abovementioned.

Plaintiff works as a cashier/customer service attendant for the
Defendants' money exchange and transfer business. Plaintiff claims
to have worked over 40 hours per week without compensation and
claims to receive less than the mandated minimum wage.

Jet Peru-Courier Corp. and Jet Peru Remitters are domestic
business corporations organized under the laws of the State of New
York, with principal place of business at 40-06 81st Street,
Jackson Heights, New York 11372. Leonor F. Aguilar is the owner,
President, and Chief Executive Officer while Victoria Espana is a
member of the Board of Directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 1001a7
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102
      Email: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


JOHN SAMAKOVLIS: "Dawson" Action Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Dawson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. John Samakovlis, individually and Adamjohn
& Sons Corp., Defendants, Case No.: 1:15-cv-06905-MKB-RER
(E.D.N.Y, December 4, 2015), seeks recovery of unpaid wages and
related damages for unpaid overtime hours worked and for unpaid
prevailing wages and supplemental benefit pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201.

Dawson was employed as a plumber-mechanic for Defendant and claims
to have worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without
compensation.

Adamjohn is a plumbing company located at 450 81st Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11209 with John Samakovlis as owner/operator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren P. B. Rumack, Esq.
      THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
      11 Broadway Suite 960
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 344-9022
      Fax: (212) 344-0301


LIBERATO RESTAURANT: NLRB Refuses to Approve Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Vimbai Chikomo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently exercised its
authority in a settlement involving an employer's use of
confidentiality and non-disparagement language, and withheld its
approval of the settlement.

On Oct. 27, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, found that the settlement agreement between
Liberato Restaurant and a class of current and former employees
was fair, but noted that the NLRB would "have to approve the
dismissal of the NLRB actions," which was part of the settlement.

"In addition to filing the underlying lawsuit, a number of
employees also filed charges with the National Labor Relations
Board that were still pending at the time of the Court's order,"
Erin Fowler, an associate at Franczek Radelet, said.  "Because the
settlement agreement contemplated a global settlement of all
claims, including the dismissal of the NLRB Charges, the Court
required NLRB approval of the settlement agreement."

According to the settlement the employer agreed to settle the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class action lawsuit for $1 million.
The suit alleged that the restaurant failed to pay employees
overtime wages and tips.

As part of the agreement, the plaintiffs agreed to drop the
charges they had filed with the NLRB, and both parties promised
not to disclose the terms of the agreement to the public or
disparage the other party, which is often seen in settlements
involving labor and wages.

On Nov. 25, after reviewing the agreement, the NLRB informed both
parties that the Board would not approve the agreement, explaining
that the language in the non-disparagement and confidentiality
provisions restricted the employees from discussing their terms
and conditions of employment with other employees, which violated
their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA).

Ms. Fowler explained that the NLRB offered two options for
obtaining approval of the agreement.

"First, the parties could modify the non-disparagement and
confidentiality provisions in their proposed agreement.  The NLRB
withheld its approval of the agreement on the basis that the non-
disparagement and confidentiality provisions limited the
employees' ability to discuss with other employees their terms and
conditions of employment, which unlawfully impinged upon the
employees' Section 7 rights guaranteed under the National Labor
Relations Act," she said.

Ms. Fowler stated that although the NLRB did not specifically
address how the non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions
should be modified, it pointed the parties to a 2006 Memorandum
issued by the agency, which states that confidentiality agreements
that prohibit disclosure of an agreement's terms other than
financial terms go against the NLRB's core standards.

In addition, the memorandum states that an agreement limiting
employees' ability to make non-defamatory statements about their
employer to other employees is not in line with the NLRB's core
standards, Fowler said.

"The second option presented by the NLRB was that the parties
enter into the NLRB's informal settlement agreement.  With this
option, the NLRB would not be required to take into account the
terms of the parties' proposed settlement agreement," Ms. Fowler
said.

Ms. Fowler, whose practice areas include Labor & Employment, told
Legal News Line that this case highlights important points that
should be noted.

"This is not something we see regularly.  However, it is important
to be aware of this case and the NLRB's stance because many
settlement agreements, including FLSA settlement agreements,
contain the type of non-disparagement and confidentiality
agreements discussed in this case," she said.

Fowler also stated that when NLRB charges accompany federal wage
and hour litigation, NLRB will most likely be required to sign off
on the agreement before the court will approve any settlement.

"We do not know, at this time, how this may affect other types of
settlement agreements in the future," she said.


MASGAD CORP: "Membrives" Action Seeks Recovery of Withheld Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Membrives and Chassity Gonzalez, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Masgad Corp., Albion
Venue, LLC, Mikhail Zavolunov, Ilya Zavolunov and any other
related entities, Defendants, Case No. 607827/2015 (N.Y. Sup.,
County of Nassau, December 4, 2015), seeks to recover withheld
gratuities from the Defendant in accordance to the Labor Law Sec.
190 and 196-d et seq. and the New York State Department of Labor
Regulations.

Plaintiffs Membrives and Gonzalez allege they have not received
all of their tips to which they were entitled.

Masgad Corp. is a domestic business corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York with principal
place of business located at 102-39 Queens Boulevard, Forest
Hills, New York 11375 and is engaged in the hospitality industry.

Albion Venue, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York,
with principal place of business located at 79-17 Albion Avenue,
Queens, New York 11373.

Both are co-owned by Mikhail Zavolunov and Ilya Zavolunov.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen
      Jeffrey K. Brown
      Michael A. Tompkins
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550


METLIFE INSURANCE: Faces "Lau" Action Over ERISA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARI GROSS LAU, on behalf of Jupiter Center Retirement Plan and
all other similarly situated pension plans, Plaintiff, v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-
09469 (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2015), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages under Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiff alleges unfair discretion on the part of the Defendant
in determining the crediting rate by which retirement plan income
is invested into group annuity contracts. By setting the crediting
rate below its internal rate of return, it allegedly guarantees a
substantial profit for itself.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a legal reserve insurance
company authorized under the insurance laws of New York. Its
principal place of business is New York, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Barrett, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      I37 Betsy Brown Road
      Port Chester, NY 10571
      Tel: (646) 776-8580
      Email: kbarrett@baileyglasset.oom

           - and -

      Gregory Y. Poner, Esq.
      Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      1054 3lst Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 463-2l0l
      Fax: (202) 463-2103
      Email: gporter@baileyglasser.oom
             rjenny@baileyglasser.oom

           - and -

      Robert A. Izard, Esq.
      Mark P Kindall, Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Tel: (860) 493-6292
      Fax: (860) 493-6290
      Email: rizard@izardnoble.com
             mkindall@izardnoble.oom


METLIFE SECURITIES: "Creighton" Suit Moved From Illinois to N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Creighton v. MetLife Securities,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00959, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-08321-WHP to the proceeding.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is incorporated in New York
and its principal place of business is in New York.  MLIC conducts
business in all 50 states.  Since February 2012, the Plaintiff
served as executive vice president of MetLife Premier Client
Group, a division of MLIC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George S. Robot, Esq.
          Patricia A. Bronte, Esq.
          Suzanne E. Bish, Esq.
          Linda Debra Friedman, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
          303 W. Madison, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431-0888
          Facsimile: (312) 431-0228
          E-mail: grobot@sfltd.com
                  pbronte@sfltd.com
                  sbish@sfltd.com
                  lfriedman@sfltd.com

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is represented by:

          Steven J. Pearlman, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          70 West Madison, Suite 3800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 962-3545
          Facsimile: (312) 963-3551
          E-mail: spearlman@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Katharine Huth Parker, Esq.
          Keisha-Ann G. Gray, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: kparker@proskauer.com
                  kgray@proskauer.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: "Duck" Action Hits Broadcast Exclusivity
-----------------------------------------------------------
Duck Duck LLC; Dude-N Brah, Inc.; Longliners Cafe, LLC; All In
H.B., LLC; First Class Perks, LLC; Helen Back Again Crestview,
LLC; and Will Call Sports, LLC, for themselves and for all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Football League, Inc.;
NFL Enterprises LLC; DirecTV, LLC; and DirecTV Holdings LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-09366 (C.D. Cal., December 3, 2015),
seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to
pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 16 of the
Clayton Act.

Duck Duck LLC is a restaurant located in Destin, Florida under the
name Helen Back. Dude-N Brah, Inc. is a restaurant located in Fort
Walton Beach, Florida under the name Helen Back Cafe.

Longliners Cafe, L.L.C., is a restaurant located in Navarre,
Florida under the name Helen Back Cafe.

All IN H.B. LLC is a restaurant located in Niceville, Florida
under the name Helen Back Again. First Class Perks, LLC is a
restaurant located at the Eglin AFB in Florida under the name
First Class Perks.

Helen Back Again Crestview LLC, is a restaurant located in
Crestview, Florida under the name Helen Back Again. Will Call
Sports LLC was a restaurant located in Pensacola under the name
Helen Back Again Pensacola.

They all have purchased the NFL Sunday Ticket from DirecTV to
attract patrons to its establishment during the NFL's professional
football season.

The Defendant is alleged with unreasonable restraint of trade vis-
a-vis DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to broadcast all Out-of-
Market Games and charging premiums excessively by DirecTV for Out-
of-Market Games as a result of this unreasonable restraint of
trade.

DirecTV Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and
has its principal place of business at 2260 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California 90245. It is the U.S. operating arm of
DirecTV, Inc.

DirecTV, LLC is a California limited liability with its principal
place of business at 2260 East Imperial Highway, El Segundo,
California 90245.

NFL was an unincorporated association of 32 American professional
football teams in the United States.

NFL Enterprises LLC is a limited liability company with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. It has the
license to all television broadcasting rights of NFL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 398-8700
      Fax: (415) 398-8704
      Email: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

         - and -

      Tracy D. Rezvani, Esq.
      Richard M. Volin, Esq.
      REZVANI VOLIN, P.C.
      1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 500
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Tel: (202) 350-4270
      Fax: (202) 351-0544
      Email: trezvani@rezvanivolin.com
             rvolin@rezvanivolin.com

         - and -

      M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
      THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM P.C.
      55 N. Section Street
      P.O. Box 161 (36533)
      Fairhope, AL 36532
      Tel: (251) 929-0900
      Fax: (251) 929-0800
      Email: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: T-3 Restaurants Sues Over Exclusive Broadcast
----------------------------------------------------------------
T-3 Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Tyler's Tap Room, on behalf of itself
and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
National Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises LLC, Arizona
Cardinals Holdings, Inc., Atlanta Falcons Football Club LLC,
Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership, Buffalo Bills, LLC, Panthers
Football LLC, Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc., Cincinnati
Bengals, Inc., Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC, Dallas
Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., PDB Sports, Ltd. d/b/a Denver Broncos
Football Club, Detroit Lions, Inc., Green Bay Packers, Inc.,
Houston NFL Holdings LP, Indianapolis Colts, Inc., Jacksonville
Jaguars LLC, Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., Miami
Dolphins, Ltd., Minnesota Vikings Football Club LLC, New England
Patriots, LP, New Orleans Louisiana Saints LLC, New York
Football Giants, Inc., New York Jets LLC, Oakland Raiders LP,
Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc., Pittsburgh Steelers
Sports, Inc., Chargers Football Co., LLC, San Francisco Forty
Niners II, LLC, Football Northwest LLC, The Rams Football
Company LLC, Buccaneers Limited Partnership, Tennessee Football,
Inc., Washington Football, Inc., CBS Corporation, Fox Broadcasting
Company, NBCUniversal Media, LLC, ESPN Inc., DirecTV Holdings,
LLC, and DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-09443 (S.D.N.Y., December
2, 2015), seeks compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants
from restraining competition in the licensing and broadcasting of
live regular-season NFL games in violation of the Section 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act.

T-3 Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Tyler's Tap Room is a North Carolina
corporation with its principal place of business in Apex, North
Carolina. It purchased Sunday Ticket from DirecTV for the 2015
season and previous seasons.

Defendants' allegedly decreased the availability of live video
presentations of regular season NFL games, thus decreasing choice
among game broadcasts and among distributors and increasing the
cost of accessing live video feeds including that of DirecTV for
the Sunday Ticket. The Defendant is alleged with unreasonable
restraint of trade vis-a-vis DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to
broadcast all Out-of-Market Games and charging premiums
excessively by DirecTV for Out-of-Market Games as a result of this
unreasonable restraint of trade.

NFL Enterprises LLC is a limited liability company with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. It has the
license to all television broadcasting rights of NFL.

CBS Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in New York, New York. Fox Broadcasting Company is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New
York, New York. NBC Universal Media, LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business in New
York, New York. ESPN Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Bristol, Connecticut. These
networks have contracts with NFL to produce and broadcast live
regular season NFL games.

DirecTV Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and
has its principal place of business at 2260 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California 90245. It is the U.S. operating arm of
DirecTV, Inc.

DirecTV, LLC is a California limited liability with its principal
place of business at 2260 East Imperial Highway, El Segundo,
California 90245.

NFL was an unincorporated association of 32 American professional
football teams in the United States, namely Arizona Cardinals
Holdings, Inc., Atlanta Falcons Football Club LLC, Baltimore
Ravens Limited Partnership, Buffalo Bills, LLC, Panthers Football
LLC, Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc., Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.,
Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC, Dallas Cowboys Football
Club, Ltd., PDB Sports, Ltd. d/b/a Denver Broncos Football Club,
Detroit Lions, Inc., Green Bay Packers, Inc., Houston NFL Holdings
LP, Indianapolis Colts, Inc., Jacksonville Jaguars LLC, Kansas
City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., Miami Dolphins, Ltd., Minnesota
Vikings Football Club LLC, New England Patriots, LP, New Orleans
Louisiana Saints LLC, New York Football Giants, Inc., New York
Jets LLC, Oakland Raiders LP, Philadelphia Eagles Football Club,
Inc., Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., Chargers Football Co.,
LLC, San Francisco Forty Niners II, LLC, Football Northwest LLC,
The Rams Football Company LLC, Buccaneers Limited Partnership,
Tennessee Football, Inc., Washington Football, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
      Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 238-1700
      Fax: (215) 238-1968
      Email: rlarocca@kohnswift.com
             chillwig@kohnswift.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Boni, Esq.
      Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
      John E. Sindoni, Esq.
      BONI & ZACK LLC
      15 St. Asaphs Road
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Tel: (610) 822-0200
      Fax: (610) 822-0206
      Email: mboni@bonizack.com
             jsnyder@bonizack.com
             jsindoni@bonizack.com


NEA-BBQ LLC: "Olliff" Action Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Olliff, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NEA-BBQ, LLC d/b/a Sonny's BBQ, Defendant,
Case No. 1:15-cv-05657 (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2015), seeks unpaid
minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, expenses of
litigation, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief in
violation of Fair Labor Standards Act 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7434.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from March 2014 until
September 2015 as a server at Sonny's BBQ restaurant located in
Conyers, Georgia and was allegedly paid a sub-minimum wage hourly
rate of $2.13. Defendant also allegedly filed fraudulent returns
reflecting over-inflated tips.

NEA-BBQ, LLC is organized under the laws of the State of Georgia
and operates under the name Sonny's BBQ with corporate office at
5078 Bristol Industrial Way, Suite 200, Buford, Georgia 30518.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
      Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
      THE WEINER LAW FIRM LLC
      3525 Piedmont Road 7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Tel: (404) 205-5029
           (404) 254-0842
      Fax: (866) 800-1482
      Email: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
             js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


NESTLE USA: Court Dismisses Supply Chains Act Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Herling, Esq., and Joshua T. Foust, Esq., of Mintz Levin
Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, in an article for Lexology,
reports that on December 9, 2015, the Central District of
California dismissed the complaint in Barber v. Nestle USA, a key
bellwether case in a new wave of class action litigation related
to California's Transparency in Supply Chains Act.  The Barber
plaintiffs' theory was that Nestle had violated California's
panoply of consumer protection statutes by failing to disclose
that "some proportion of its cat food products may include seafood
[that] was sourced from forced labor."

Judge Cormac McCarthy disagreed, finding instead that Nestle's
disclosures under the Supply Chains Act were protected under
California's "safe harbor" doctrine.  And as the details of the
decision make clear, this is no one-off victory: the court's
reasoning sets the blueprint for companies defending against
similar suits going forward.

The Barber decision turned on the precise scope of the disclosures
that retailers and manufacturers must make under the California
Supply Chains Act.  As the court pointed out, neither side
disputed that "some proportion of the small fishing ships" that
catch and sell seafood from the waters of Southern Asia "use
forced labor," and that it is "virtually impossible to say how
pervasive the problem is."  The key question, then, is whether
companies like Nestle have a broad duty to disclose this
difficult-to-quantify risk to all consumers of their products?
simply because some of their suppliers (or their suppliers'
suppliers) likely obtained seafood from such ships.

Nestle successfully won the issue by turning the law itself into a
shield.  As the law firm noted before, the California Supply
Chains Act itself only "requires companies to disclose their
efforts to ensure compliance, but not to report every instance of
slave labor at the farthest reaches of their supply chains."
Nestle emphasized the limited scope of this disclosure requirement
in arguing that the law recognizes a "safe harbor" for companies
that do not go "above and beyond."  In other words, as long as a
company truthfully discloses what compliance efforts it is taking,
it need not disclose every potential risk of forced labor (no
matter how remote) in its supply chains.

The court agreed.  The California legislature, in passing the Act,
had officially decided what kind of information retailers and
manufacturers should be required to disclose--and, by implication,
which they should not.  While Nestle may not have disclosed the
full extent of the forced labor problem its suppliers faced in
Southern Asia, it had accurately detailed its compliance program
as required by the Act. For private plaintiffs to demand still
more information was, in the court's view, "precisely the sort of
legislative second-guessing that the safe harbor doctrine guards
against."

It remains to be seen whether other courts with similar class
actions on their dockets will follow suit.  But for the time
being, the Barber decision is a significant victory for industry
defendants in this new wave of disclosure-based class actions. And
it confirms that companies that take care to ensure and document
their compliance with the Supply Chains Act have a powerful tool
for rebuffing plaintiffs' attorneys who argue for far more
expansive disclosures.


NEW CHINA COUNTRY BUFFET: "Lopez" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN LOPEZ and MARTA ROQUE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW CHINA COUNTRY BUFFET, INC.,
and QUIN XI ZHENG and LIN YU LIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01449-CNC (E.D. Wis., December 4, 2015) seeks relief for unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs claim to have worked over 40 hours in a given workweek
without compensation.

New China Country Buffet, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation with its
principal place of business at 2830 South 108th Street, West
Allis, Wisconsin 53227. It is owned and operated by Qin Xi Zheng
and Li Yu Lin, as husband and wife.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Tel: (414) 271-8650
      Fax: (414) 271-8442
      Email: ljohnson@hq-law.com
             smurshid@hq-law.com
             tmaynard@hq-law.com


NEW YORK, NY: Rikers Island Faces Suit Over Female Inmate Rapes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Merlan, writing for Jezebel, reports that a female inmate at
Rikers Island told the New York Daily News that a correction
officer raped her in a padlocked storage room at the prison on
November 30.  New York City's Department of Corrections is
currently facing a federal lawsuit alleging that female inmates at
Rikers are routinely raped by COs.

Jacqueline Healy is currently awaiting trial on robbery charges at
Rikers' Rose M. Singer Center, the women's facility.  She told the
News that the officer ordered her into a "closet-sized room
surrounded by safety glass," padlocked the door, and raped her.
She said she waited two weeks to report the attack, fearing
retaliation from the CO, and sent her clothes to two female
relatives outside the jail, asking them to have them tested for
his DNA.  Ms. Healey also told the News an officer forced her to
perform oral sex in 2011, during a previous bid at Rikers, but
that authorities there didn't believe her due to a lack of DNA.

The Department of Corrections says there were 28 inmate rapes at
Rikers.  But New York City Public Advocate Letitia James said in
an affidavit her office believes that number is dramatically
undercounted, alleging that 98 percent of sexual abuse claims made
in 2013 to the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
weren't investigated at all.  The DOH is tasked with overseeing
healthcare at Rikers; James' office says they told the DOC about
116 sexual abuse allegations made by inmates in 2014, including 28
rape allegations, but that the DOC only reported two of them to
the NYPD.

Ms. James submitted that affidavit in support of a class action
lawsuit against the city and the Department of Corrections.  The
suit, brought on behalf of anonymous female inmates by the Legal
Aid Society, alleged that correction officers at Rikers "are
allowed to exploit the authority of their position to repeatedly
rape women in their care," according to Legal Aid.  It also
alleged that COs retaliated against women who made sexual abuse
claims, with tactics that included placing them in solitary or
depriving them of food:

This retaliation includes placing them in punitive segregation
based on false disciplinary charges, threats and other verbal
abuse, deprivation of food for extended periods of time, and
refusing to permit women to bathe.  "Sexual violence is at record
proportions in DOC, and rape and other sexual abuse of women are
endemic at the Rose M. Singer Center, the women's jail at
Rikers," said Seymour W. James, the Attorney-in-Charge of The
Legal Aid Society.  "According to a survey conducted by the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), RMSC is one of the twelve worst jails
in the country regarding rates of staff sexual misconduct.
Nationwide, 3.2% of jail inmates reported sexual victimization,
but at RMSC the rate was 8.6%, and sexual victimization rates were
higher at RMSC than at the other Rikers jails in the survey.
According to the DOJ survey, approximately 5.9% of RMSC inmates
reported sexual abuse by staff."

The suit asked the court to order the DOC to come up with a plan
to better protect female inmates. It's still continuing, very
slowly: in mid-December, according to court records, the judge on
the case, Alvin K. Hellerstein, wrote that it had become "bogged
down in untimely discovery proceedings and disputes."


NQ MOBILE: March 11 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Scott + Scott,
Attorneys At Law, LLP regarding the NQ Mobile, Inc. Securities
Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE NQ MOBILE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 1:13-cv-07608-WHP

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:     ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED NQ MOBILE, INC. ("NQ") AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES ("NQ
ADS SHARES") BETWEEN MARCH 6, 2013 AND JULY 3, 2014, INCLUSIVE,
AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS").

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  PLEASE READ IT
CAREFULLY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on March 11,
2016 at 2:00 p.m., before the Hon. William H. Pauley III of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, Courtroom
20B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007-1312 to determine
whether, among other things: (1) the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") with NQ and certain of its current and former
officers (the "Settling Defendants") for $5,100,000 in cash should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
the proposed Final Judgment, dismissing and releasing various
claims as provided for by the settling parties' Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation"), should be entered; (3)
the Proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved; and (4) an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement proceeds
should be made.

This litigation is a securities fraud class action brought on
behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired NQ ADS shares
during the Class Period and were damaged thereby (the "Class
Members") against, among others, NQ and five of its current and
former senior executives for allegedly issuing materially false
and misleading statements concerning NQ's financial performance,
assets, relationships with its biggest customer, market share, and
the functionality of its mobile security products.  Lead
Plaintiffs allege that these statements wrongfully inflated the
price of NQ ADS shares, causing damages to Class Members.  The
Settling Defendants deny all of Lead Plaintiffs' allegations.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.

To be eligible to share in the distribution of the proposed
Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights to do so by
submitting a Proof of Claim form no later than March 31, 2016.
Your failure to do so will preclude you from receiving any portion
of the Settlement.  Any objections to the proposed Settlement,
Plan of Allocation, or application for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses must be filed and delivered to Lead Counsel for the
Class at the address below no later than February 10, 2016, as set
forth in the full printed "Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action" (the "Notice").

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
WRITTEN REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY FEBRUARY 10, 2016, IN THE MANNER
AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.  IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER AND
DO NOT REQUEST EXCLUSION THEREFROM, YOU WILL BE BOUND BY THE
SETTLEMENT AND BY ANY FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THIS MATTER
WHETHER OR NOT YOU SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM.

If you have not received a Proof of Claim form or a copy of the
Notice (which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder), you may obtain these documents, as well as a
copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains
definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and
the proposed Final Judgment, online at
www.nqsecuritieslitigation.com, or by writing to:

NQ Mobile Securities Litigation
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
PO Box 8040
San Rafael, CA 94912-8040
Toll Free Number:  1-844-899-6216

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

SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
William C. Fredericks
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10174

Dated:  November 17, 2015
HON. WILLIAM H. PAULEY III

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


PARK WEST EXECUTIVE: Faces "Faroque" Suit Over Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed O. Faroque, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Park West
Executive Services d/b/a Town Car International, Town Car
International Holdings, LLC, Zachary Berman, in his individual and
professional capacities, John M. Ahern, in his individual and
professional capacities, Defendants., Case No. 1:15-cv-06868-DLI-
CLP (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2015), seeks damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Laws.

Faroque claims to be employed by Defendants as a driver and worked
between 80-90 hours per week and was not compensated for work in
excess of 40 hours per week. He also claims that he was not
reimbursed for work related expenses such car maintenance, toll
fees and fuel.

Town Car International is a New York corporation with principal
place of business at 36-36 33rd Street, Long Island City, New
York, 11106 and provides personnel transportation services to
companies. It is owned by Zachary Berman and John M. Ahern.
TCI Holdings is a company incorporated in Delaware with its
principal place of business at 36-36 33rd Street, Long Island
City, New York and is a subsidiary of Town Car International.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeanne Christensen, Esq.
      Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Tel: (212) 257-6800
      Fax: (212) 257-6845
      Email: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com
             trahman@wigdorlaw.com


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: "Niren" Seeks Overtime Wage Recovery
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Niren, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Tom Cortese, Yony Feng,
John Foley, Fred Klein, Hisao Kusi and Graham Stanton, Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-cv-09517-VEC (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2015), seeks
recovery unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, damages for retaliation, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with
the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et
seq., New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

Peloton Interactive, Inc. exists under the laws of the State of
Delaware, with principal place of business at 158 W. 27th Street,
4th Floor, New York, New York 10001. It provides fitness training
services, specifically indoor cycling training and sells indoor
cycling bicycles. Tom Cortese, Yony Feng, John Foley, Fred Klein,
Hisao Kusi and Graham Stanton are the owners and operators of
Peloton.

Lisa Niren works as a cycling instructor and head coach for the
Defendants. She generally worked 6-7 days a week, working
approximately 12-14 hours a day and claims not being paid in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph M. Labuda, Esq.
      Matthew A. Brown, Esq.
      John M. Harras, Esq.
      MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP, PLLC
      3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8
      Lake Success, NY 11042
      Tel: (516) 328-8899
      Email: joe@mllaborlaw.com
             matt@mmmlaborlaw.com
             john@mllaborlaw.com


POMPEI RISTORANTE: "Lazo" Action Seeks to Recover Tips Due
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Lazo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pompei Ristorante of West Hempstead,
Inc., Ada Rago; Jenny Rago; and any other related entities,
Defendants, Case No. 607830/2015 (N.Y. Sup., County of Nassau
December 4, 2015), seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities
owed to the Plaintiff pursuant to the New York Labor Law Sec 190,
196-d and the Hospitality Wage Order Sec. 146.

Jacqueline Lazo worked for the Defendants as a food service
provider and claims that she has not received her portion of tips.

Pompei Ristorante of West Hempstead is located at 401 Hempstead
Avenue, West Hempstead, New York 11552 with Ada and Jenny Rago as
co-owners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen
      Jeffrey K. Brown
      Michael A. Tompkins
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550


PRIME DENTAL LAB: "Salazar" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Geovany Salazar, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated and as class representative, Plaintiffs, v. Prime Dental
Lab, Inc. and Nicholas Fournaris, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
09366-CM (S.D.N.Y., December 1, 2015), seeks damages in the amount
of unpaid wages, including hourly wages and overtime premium pay
due, damages due to penalties and liquidated damages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and
statutory fines due to failure of the Defendant to provide wage
notices.

Salazar worked as messenger/delivery worker and eventually as
dental lab technician for the Defendant. He claims to have worked
in excess of 40 hours per work week without compensation.

Defendants allegedly did not have a time-keeping system such as a
punch card or computerized system employed in their establishment.

Prime Dental Lab, Inc. is based at 3013 Ave. J, Brooklyn, NY 11210
and is a full service dental lab fabricating dental prosthesis
with Nicolas Fournaris as the Chief Executive Officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lizabeth Schalet, Esq.
      MIRER MAZZOCCHI SCHALET & JULIEN, PLLC
      150 Broadway, Suite 1200
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (212) 231-2235
      Email: Lschalet@mmsjlaw.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Faces "Negron" Suit Over Insurance Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Lopez-Negron, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Progressive Direct Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. L-4577-15 (N.J. Super., Camden County
Division, December 4, 2015), seeks punitive damages and
consequential damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
including treble damages and attorneys' fees in accordance with
New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act,
including the minimum statutory penalties, prejudgment and post-
judgment interests as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiff was enrolled in a Progressive Auto Insurance policy with
the health first option with Progressive Direct Insurance Company.
She was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and the claims adjuster denied the medical bills
because Plaintiff was enrolled in a policy with the health first
option.

Progressive Direct Insurance Company is an Ohio corporation with
principal place of business located at 6300 Wilson Mills Road,
Cleveland, Ohio 44143. It is a subsidiary of Progressive
Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy E. Abay, Esq.
      Scott E. Diamond, Esq.
      John K. Weston, Esq.
      SACKS WESTON DIAMOND, LLC
      1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 925-8200
      Email: sdiamond@swmdlaw.com
             jabay@sackslaw.com
             jweston@sackslaw.com

         - and -

      Jerry R. DeSiderato, Esq.
      Thomas S. Biemer, Esq.
      DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
      457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 700
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
      Tel: (856) 675-1900
      Email: JDeSiderato@dilworthlaw.com
             tbiemer@dilworthlaw.com


PROPETRO SERVICES: "Nabarrette" Action Seeks OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Amado Nabarrette, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Propetro Services, Inc, Case No.
7:15-cv-211-RAJ (W.D. Tex., Midland-Odessa Division, December 8,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act 29
U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq.

Nabarrette worked for Defendant as a Field Supervisor. He claims
to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
compensation.

Defendant is an independent provider of oil and gas well drilling,
stimulation, cementing and coiled tubing services and maintains a
place of business in 1706 S. Midkiff, Bldg. B Midland TX 79701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AK 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


QUICKEN LOANS: "Orsatti" Suit Hits Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------
Julie Orsatti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v.  Quicken Loans Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:15-cv-09380 (C.D. Cal. December 4, 2015), seeks damages and
equitable remedies in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227).

Defendant uses an auto-dialer to make telephone calls to
Plaintiff's telephone numbers, often without the prior express in
order to sell their services.

Quicken Loans Inc. is a nationwide retail lender.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
             abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com

           - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Ave. D-1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com
             ml@kazlg.com

           - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel: (619) 233-7770
      Fax: (619) 297-1022
      Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


RALEIGH HOTEL: Faces "Membrives" Suit Over Withheld Tips
--------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Membrives, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Raleigh Hotel Resort LLC, Raleigh Hotel
Operations, LLC, Abraham Leser and any other related entities,
Defendants, Case No. 712587/2015 (N.Y. Sup., County of Queens,
December 4, 2015), seeks to recover withheld gratuities from the
Defendant in accordance to the New York Labor Law Sec. 190 and
196-d et seq. and the New York State Department of Labor
Regulations.

Membrives alleges he has not received all of the tips to which he
was entitled.

Raleigh Hotel Resort LLC is a domestic company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York with headquarters
and principal place of business located at 1630 43rd Street,
Brooklyn, New York 11219.

Raleigh Hotel Operations, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
York, with principal place of business located at 1481 47th
Street, Brooklyn, New York 11219.

Both companies are owned and operated by Abraham Leser.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550


REMINGTON LODGING: Faces "Membrives" Suit Over Withheld Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Membrives, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington
Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Mark A.
Sharkey, Archie Bennett Jr., Monty J. Bennett, Christopher
Peckham, and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No.
607828/2015 (N.Y. Sup., County of Nassau, December 4, 2015), seeks
to recover withheld gratuities from the Defendant in accordance
with the New York Labor Law Article 6, Sec. 196-d.

Membrives alleges he has not received all of the tips to which he
was entitled.

HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and is authorized
to do business in the State of New York with principal place of
business located at 1717 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, New York 11788.

Remington Holdings LLC is a domestic limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York
with principal place of business located at 1717 Motor Parkway,
Hauppauge, New York 11788. Its affiliate, Remington Lodging &
Hospitality, LLC is a Delaware corporation authorized to do
business in the State of New York.

Mark A. Sharkey, Archie Bennett Jr., Monty J. Bennett and
Christopher Peckham are co-owners and/or managers of these
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550


SAN JOSE WATER CO: "Figueroa" Suit Hits Unitemized Wage Record
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Figueroa, as an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, Plaintiff, v. San Jose
Water Company and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
115CV288483 (Cal. Super., County of Sta. Clara, November 25,
2015), seeks penalties injunctive and other equitable relief
resulting from failure by the Defendant to provide accurate
itemized wage statements pursuant to the California Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order 1-2001(7) and Labor Code Sec.
226(e).

San Jose Water Company is located at 110 West Taylor Street, San
Jose, CA 95110.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Tel: (818) 990-8300
      Fax: (818) 990-2903
      Email: eric@kingsleykingslcy.com
             kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com


SARUSSI CAFE: Faces "Aragon" Suit Over Unpaid Wages & OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Xiomara Aragon and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Sarussi 2012, Corp. d/b/a Sarussi Cafe Subs, Violeta D. Ruiz, Jose
Rodriguez, Victor E. Miranda, Defendants Case No. 1:15-cv-24449-
PAS (S.D. Fla., December 2, 2015), seeks to recover overtime
wages, unpaid minimum wages and damages as well as reasonable
attorney fees in violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C.

Plaintiff claims to have worked an average of 55 hours a week for
Defendants and was never paid overtime in excess of 40 hours per
week. She worked as a cook and baker and sometimes as waitress.

Sarussi 2012, Corp. is a Florida corporation that operates as
Sarussi Cafe Subs, a caf‚ in Miami with Violeta D. Ruiz, Jose
Rodriguez and Victor Miranda as corporate officers, co-owners and
managers of the company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL PA
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SATAY CORP: "Pan" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Tony Pan, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Satay Corp. d/b/a Satay Malaysian Cuisine,
Wai Kok Phoo, Xue Chen, Chun Cai Doe, A Liang Doe, John Doe and
Jane Doe # 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-06869 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law Sec. 650
et seq. and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Sec. 146 and
liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid "spread of hours"
premium and unpaid overtime pursuant to the NY Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery worker and
helped prepare the sauce and cutting paper boards to be used as
packaging. He claims to have worked at least 66 hours per week
without compensation for the excess of the 40 hours per work week,
was not required to utilize any time-keeping facility, was not
compensated for spread of hours premium for shifts that lasted
longer than 10 hours and was not provided with a wage notice at
the time of their hiring.

Satay Corp. owns and operates a restaurant under the name Satay
Malaysian Cuisine located at 46-01 Kissena Blvd., Flushing, NY
11355 with Wai Kok Phoo, Xue Chen, Chun Cai Doe and A Liang Doe as
co-owners, directors and principal officers of the company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


SEAWORLD: Judge Dismisses Patrons' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Mike Schneider, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge in San Diego has dismissed a class-action lawsuit
brought by SeaWorld patrons who claimed they were deceived about
how the marine park treats orcas and wanted refunds.

The federal judge said that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to
bring the lawsuit on behalf of patrons of SeaWorld parks in San
Antonio, San Diego and Orlando.  The plaintiffs claimed that
hundreds of thousands of patrons wouldn't have purchased tickets
to SeaWorld parks if they knew how orcas were treated, and they
were entitled to refunds.

The judge said the plaintiffs never showed that they had viewed
any deceptive statements by SeaWorld before buying tickets and
that they also lacked specificity in their claims that SeaWorld
made misrepresentations.

"Here, there is no chance of the plaintiffs being misled by
SeaWorld's alleged false statements and omissions concerned the
treatment of whales at SeaWorld parks as the (complaint) does not
allege that plaintiffs ever believed or relied on any statements
by SeaWorld concerning the whales, and it is clear that the
plaintiffs do not intend to visit the SeaWorld parks again," U.S.
District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo said in her order.

Paul Rothstein, a Gainesville, Florida attorney representing some
of the plaintiffs, was unavailable to immediately comment on
Dec. 28.  Steve Berman, an attorney in Seattle who represented
another group of plaintiffs, also was unavailable.

SeaWorld has been in the crosshairs of animal rights activists,
and experienced a drop in revenue, since the 2013 release of the
documentary "Blackfish."  The movie chronicled the case of
Tilikum, a killer whale that caused the death of trainer Dawn
Brancheau in 2010.

In a statement, SeaWorld officials said the lawsuit was part of a
series of efforts by activists to phase out zoos and aquariums.

"SeaWorld welcomes this significant decision, which threw out all
of the plaintiffs' claims, and which could signal the ultimate end
of this litigation," the statement said.


SERVICE FUSION: New United Sues in Chicago Over Unsolicited Fax
---------------------------------------------------------------
New United, Inc., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Service Fusion,
LLC and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-10724 (N.D.
Ill., November 30, 2015), seeks actual monetary loss arising
violations of Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 USC Sec. 227.

Plaintiff allegedly received unsolicited faxes from the Defendant
advertising its services without consent.

Service Fusion, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Colleyville, TX. It provides a
range of real property inspection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Tel: (847) 368-1500
      Fax: (847) 368-1501
      Email: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
             rkelly@andersonwanca.com


SOLARWINDS INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 28 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas on behalf of stockholders of
SolarWinds, Inc. ("SolarWinds") (NYSE: SWI) on December 14, 2015,
in connection with the proposed acquisition of SolarWinds by Thoma
Bravo and Silver Lake Partners and Project Aurora Holdings, LLC
("Parent") and Project Aurora Merger Corp. ("Merger Sub"), which
were formed by affiliates of Thoma Bravo and Silver Lake
(collectively all four entities are referred to as the "Sponsors")
(the "Proposed Acquisition").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from December 28, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

The complaint charges SolarWinds, its Board of Directors (the
"Board") and the Sponsors with breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty and/or violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") in connection with
the Proposed Acquisition.  SolarWinds provides powerful and
affordable hybrid IT infrastructure management software to
customers worldwide from Fortune 500(R) enterprises to small
businesses, government agencies and educational institutions.

On October 21, 2015, SolarWinds and the Sponsors announced that
they had entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which the
Sponsors will acquire SolarWinds for $60.10 per share in cash for
each existing SolarWinds share.  Following the consummation of the
Proposed Acquisition, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the
Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

On November 17, 2015, defendants filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Form 14A and on December 15, 2015, a Definitive Proxy
Statement on Form 14A (collectively, the "Proxy") in connection
with the Proposed Acquisition. The complaint alleges that the
Proxy, which recommends that SolarWinds shareholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Acquisition, omits and/or misrepresents material
information regarding, among other things, the unfair sales
process for the Company, conflicts of interest that corrupted the
sales process, the unfair consideration offered in the Proposed
Acquisition, and the actual intrinsic value of the Company on a
stand-alone basis and as acquired by the Sponsors, in
contravention of Secs. 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and/or
certain of the defendants' fiduciary duty of disclosure under
state law.  Without this material information, the Company's
shareholders cannot make an informed decision on how to cast their
vote on the Proposed Acquisition.

Plaintiff seeks judgment and injunctive and equitable relief on
behalf of holders of SolarWinds stock on December 14, 2015. The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

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


SOUTHCOAST FINANCIAL: Investor Files Suit Over Proposed BNC Buyout
------------------------------------------------------------------
John McDermott, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that the
buyout of one of the few banks still headquartered in the
Charleston region is up for a shareholder approval.

But not every investor in Southcoast Financial Corp. will be
voting in favor of the deal.

One of them has filed a lawsuit to halt the sale before it closes
or rescind it afterward.

Matthew Sciabucuchi alleges in a complaint in U.S. District Court
in Charleston that the deal with BNC Bancorp is unfair, namely
because it undervalues the business and prevents the Mount
Pleasant-based lender from considering other buyout offers.

"The proposed transaction is the product of a flawed process and
deprives Southcoast's public stockholders of the ability to
participate in the company's long-term prospects," according to
the lawsuit.

The complaint added that the 17-year-old bank, which like many
lenders took a licking in the last recession and real estate
crash, "is positioned for future growth and success."

Mr. Sciabucuchi and his lawyers are seeking out other shareholders
to join the cause and request for class-action status in their
case against Southcoast and its board.  Also named as defendant is
BNC.

While the outcome is anyone's guess, the shareholder tiff
threatens at a minimum to disrupt and add extra legal costs to the
largest acquisition of a local financial institution since
Columbia-based SCBT bought First Federal of Charleston in 2013 to
form South State Bank.

The lawsuit also seeks to halt BNC's prolific dealmaking streak.
The acquisitive lender has completed about a dozen buyouts in the
past five years.

The High Point, N.C.-based bank expanded to the South Carolina
coastal market in 2010 when it took over the Grand Strand's failed
Beach First National.  It then moved south into Mount Pleasant and
Charleston in mid-2012 when it assumed the assets of the
government-seized Carolina Federal Savings.

With fewer wounded lenders left to buy, BNC set its sights on
healthy banks. One of them was Charleston's Harbor National, which
sold for $51 million in 2013.  More recently, BNC picked up seven
Upstate branches from the now-defunct CertusBank.

The Southcoast deal would give it a total of about $6 billion in
assets, $4.5 billion in loans, $4.9 billion in deposits and 67
branches.

The purchase also would make BNC a sizable local player with 15
retail offices in one of the hottest banking markets in the
Southeast.  The bank said it would rank among the top 5 in the
tri-county area based on deposits after the Southcoast buyout.
Its total assets in the region would swell to about $800 million.

"This partnership will allow us to expand our presence in one of
the fastest growing and most dynamic regions in the Southeast, the
Charleston and Mount Pleasant . . . markets," CEO Rick Callicutt
said when the deal was disclosed Aug. 14.

In the days after that announcement, at least eight law firms that
specialize in shareholder litigation announced they were
investigating the terms of the sale.

Rigrodsky & Long, Sciabucuchi's co-counsel, was among the first to
weigh in and recruit potential plaintiffs. It noted that the sale
originally was valued at $95.5 million, or $13.35 a share.

"The investigation concerns whether Southcoast's board of
directors failed to adequately shop the company and obtain the
best possible value for Southcoast's shareholders before entering
into an agreement with BNC," the Delaware-based law firm said in
statement on Aug. 19.  "According to Yahoo! Finance, at least one
analyst had issued a price target for Southcoast of $18.18 per
share."

The value of the stock swap has since climbed, to almost $107
million, or $15.05 a share, as of Dec. 21.

The BNC buyout is heading toward the closing table.  No hearings
were scheduled in the lawsuit, and Southcoast shareholders are set
to vote on the sale in Mount Pleasant on Jan. 29.  The deal would
be finalized shortly afterward unless Judge David Norton decides
otherwise.

The banks have asked that he dismiss the complaint.  Responses to
the request are due by Jan. 7.

"At this stage, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the
proceedings or their impact on BNC, Southcoast or the merger," BNC
told investors in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  "BNC and Southcoast believe that the claims asserted
are without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously."


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Action Mulled Over Natural Gas Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------
National class action firm Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is investigating
claims against Southern California Gas Co. on behalf of residents
of Porter Ranch, who have been living with the consequences of a
massive natural gas leak since late October.

Residents have complained about becoming sickened by the fumes
from the leaked natural gas and odorants, which reportedly can
cause headaches, nosebleeds, and other health problems.  And a
potential fix for the leaking injection well is still likely
months away.

According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
Southern California gas Company's Aliso Canyon Storage Facility
has the capacity to store over 80 billion cubic feet of natural
gas, and SoCal Gas operates about 115 injection/withdrawal wells
at the site.  One of those wells, Well SS-25, is the source of the
leak.

In addition to displacing residents and damaging their health, the
gas leak from the site is causing a massive environmental
catastrophe by releasing vast amounts of methane -- a greenhouse
gas -- into the atmosphere.  The Los Angeles City Attorney has
called the leak "potentially the biggest health emergency in the
history of Los Angeles."

Attorneys in Keller Rohrback's Complex Litigation Group have
successfully represented individuals and class members in
environmental litigation issues relating to toxic exposures and
environmental damage.  For example, Keller Rohrback represented
fishermen, landowners, and businesses located in Prince William
Sound in their action against Exxon to recover damages caused by
the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.  A federal jury awarded a $5 billion
judgment in favor of Keller Rohrback clients. Additional claims
against the pipeline owner were settled for $98 million.

Keller Rohrback has also handled environmental litigation
involving home heating oil, contaminated drinking water,
contaminated sediments, landfill leachate, metal smelting and
finishing wastes, tank farms, chemical plants, gas stations, and
major manufacturing concerns.

With offices in Santa Barbara, Oakland, Seattle, Phoenix, New
York, and Ronan, Keller Rohrback currently represents individual
and businesses affected by the May 19 oil spill in Santa Barbara
County.

If you believe that you have been affected by the SoCal Gas leak,
please contact attorneys Matthew Preusch or Daniel Mensher at
(800) 776-6044 or via email at info@kellerrohrback.com


ST. CROIX, VI: Implementation of Mental Health Plan Faces Delay
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Thomas Source reports that advocates seek funding to put the
long-awaited Mental Health Care Five-Year Plan into effect.

The plan calls for building a residential treatment facility on
St. Croix and for other bricks and mortar; for a significant
increase in services and in staff to provide those services; for
expanded education and awareness-raising efforts to reduce the
stigma of mental illness; and for heightened cooperation among
government agencies and related nonprofit organizations -- in
short, for an overhaul of the current system.

It took many years even to produce a plan acceptable to all the
parties involved.  It's likely to take years more to put it into
practice.

"I don't believe it's going to be done in five years,
realistically," said Liston Davis, the former senator who chaired
the commission that produced the plan.  He cited the territory's
history with consent decrees -- including those governing the
Bureau of Corrections and the Police Department -- that have
dragged on for decades.  "So, yes, there's a level of skepticism
as to how far it's going to go in five years," Mr. Davis said,
adding later, "Everyone seems to concur that funding is the key."

However, he said, it also can be done and he remains optimistic.

"It's going to require in the first two or three years at least $1
million-plus a year," he said.  Building a new facility will cost
far more.  And although it may be difficult for the Legislature to
appropriate the necessary money, it isn't impossible.

"They could find a million a year," Mr. Davis said.  "They could
find it."  If they don't, "you'll see the results out on the
streets," as more and more troubled people will be without a place
to go for help.

And, he said, if there's no funding, V.I. leaders also will find
themselves in contempt of court, since the plan was presented to
by District Court Judge Wilma Lewis as the settlement of a class
action suit.

The suit was filed in 2003 by advocate groups against the local
government for its failure to provide adequate mental health care
to its citizens.  In 2009, the parties entered into a consent
decree overseen by the District Court.  It called for the creation
of a commission to develop a plan to correct problems and fill the
existing gaps in care.

The commission comprised members from both sides of the lawsuit.
They paid a consultant to draft a plan, which they then revised.
They eventually came to agreement on the plan more than a year ago
and the private sector representatives signed off on it.  The
process hit a snag when administrations changed and new government
officials dragged their feet about signing.

There was also concern over who would be in charge of implementing
the changes.  The plan itself set up the membership of a group
that would replace the commission and would have responsibility
for implementation.

Originally the group was referred to as a "board."  But Mr. Davis
said the Governor's Office and the Attorney General's Office
argued that the sitting governor has the authority to appoint the
members of all boards.

So the group is now known as a task force.


SUBURBAN FORD: "Fernandez" Action Hits SMS Scam
-----------------------------------------------
Cara Fernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Suburban Ford of Sterling Heights LLC, a
Michigan limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-
10717 (N.D. Ill. Eastern Division, December 2, 2015), seeks actual
and statutory damages and an enjoinment requiring Suburban Ford to
cease all text message activities initiated without prior express
written consent, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in
accordance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 227.

Suburban Ford allegedly sent unsolicited text messages to the
wireless telephones of Plaintiff without prior express written
consent.

Suburban Ford is a limited liability company organized in and
existing under the laws of the State of Michigan with its
principal place of business located 1795 Maplelawn Drive, Troy,
Michigan 48084. It is an automotive dealership and service center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 236-0000
      Fax: (312) 241-1260
      Email: jsiprut@siprut.com
             isalam@siprut.com


SUNEDISON INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against SunEdison, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, and docketed under 15-cv-
01809, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased SunEdison securities between June 16, 2015
and October 6, 2015 inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


SUPER NICE STS: "Petit-Homme" Action Seeks OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Fedner Petit-Homme, Plaintiff, v. Super Nice Sts, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-24476-DLG (S.D. Fla.,
December 4, 2015), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and
reasonable attorneys' fee and costs for violations under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).

Super Nice Sts, Inc. is a Florida Corporation with principal
office located at 2766 N.W. 62nd Street, Miami, FL 33147.

Petit-Homme works for the Defendant as a driver and regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more work weeks during his
employment without compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Militzok. Esq.
      MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
      The Yankee Clipper Law Center
      3230 Stirling Road, Suite 4
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 780-8228
      Fax: (954) 791-4456
      Email: bjm@militzoklaw.com


TAM'S SUPER: Accused of Not Paying Overtime and Other Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Ivan Camacho Garcia, an individual v. Tam's Super Burgers,
Inc., a California Corporation d.b.a. Mr. V'S Bar & Grill, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC598984 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 27, 2015), is brought for alleged failure to pay all
wages, to provide meal and rest periods, to pay overtime wages and
to pay off-duty hours worked and split-shift wages.

Tam's Super Burgers, Inc., doing business as Mr. V'S Bar & Grill,
is a California Corporation.  The Defendants do business as a fast
food restaurant in the county of Los Angeles, state of California.
The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack D. Josephson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC
          3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 738-5225


TOTAL PETROCHEM: "Barton" Suit Hits Retirement Plan Mismanagement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Robert Barton, Jr., on behalf of himself and of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00471-RC (E.D. Tex., December 4,
2015), seeks monetary relief, injunctive and other equitable
relief, attorney fees, expenses, costs and interest resulting from
the breached their fiduciary duties in violation of the Section
502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 29 U.S.C. Sec.
1132.

Total and its executive officers allegedly made the decision to
require beneficiaries to divest Company Stock and Company Stock
Fund investments from their 401(k) resulting in a substantial loss
to beneficiaries of the plan. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant
forced the plan participants to sell their Company Stock and
Company Stock Funds at a loss.

Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc. is located at 1201 Louisiana
Street, Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77002. It is the plan administrator
of its employees' retirement fund.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jill Swearingen Pierce, Esq.
      BRADLEY, STEELE & PIERCE, LLP
      3120 Central Mall Drive
      Port Arthur, TX 77642
      Tel: (409) 724-6644
      Fax: (409) 724-7585
      Email: jpierce@bradlaw.net

         - and -

      Jane Swearingen Leger, Esq.
      DUGAS LEGER LAW FIRM
      805 Park Street
      Beaumont, TX 77701
      Tel: (409) 813-111
      Fax: (409) 813-1396
      Email: jleger@dugasleger.com


TRI-STATE PARKING: "Ditren" Action Seeks Minimum and OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ditren, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Tri State Parking Inc. and Nelson
(last name unknown), Defendants Case No.: 1:15-cv-09500 (S.D.N.Y,
December 4, 2015), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime,
unpaid spread of hours, compensation for uniform costs shouldered,
statutory penalties and liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201.

Defendant is a parking management company under the trade name
"Tri-State Parking" and is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York with main office
located at 156 Main Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601 with a certain
Nelson (last name unknown), is the owner and Chief Executive
Officer.

Ditren is a parking attendant working in Tri-State's Manhattan
facility. He allegedly was not paid proper minimum wage and
overtime premium in excess of 40 hours per workweek, not paid his
share of tips and was charged for the purchase, laundering and
replacement of their required work uniforms.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TUTTLE FAMILY: "Presuel" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Bertha Presuel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tuttle Family Enterprises, Inc. dba
Peerless Building Maintenance Co. and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC602416 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles,
November 25, 2015), seeks compensatory damages, meal and rest
period compensation pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 226.7
and Wage Order No. 5-2001, liquidated damages pursuant to
California Labor Code Sections 1194.2 and 1197.1, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from further
violating the California Labor Code, waiting time penalties
pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 203, statutory and civil
penalties and interest on unpaid wages pursuant to California
Labor Code Sections 218.6, 1194, and 2802 and California Civil
Code Sections 3287 and 3288.

Defendant is located in 4665 Mountain Lake Blvd. Redding, CA 96003
and is involved in cleaning solutions for property management and
commercial buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Launa Adolph, Esq.
      Deanna S. Leifer, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Tel: (310) 531-1900
      Fax: (310) 531-1901
      Email: info@maternlawgroup.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Averts TCPA Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy H. Koo, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. Dec. 11 escaped a putative class action alleging
it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
automated phone calls with prerecorded messages opposing a certain
legislation supported by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (Bank
v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2015 BL 407419, E.D.N.Y., No. 1:15-cv-04858-
JG-JO, 12/11/15).

Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York said that Uber's robocalls "clearly adhered
to" the Federal Communications Commission's requirements for
political speech exemptions under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Sec 227.

According to pro se plaintiff Todd Bank, in July 2015, he received
four robocalls from Uber on his residential telephone line, with
prerecorded messages urging people to oppose de Blasio's "anti-
Uber bill."  According to the plaintiff, Uber made "thousands of
robocalls" to purported class members without their prior written
consent.

Seeking to dismiss the suit, Uber argued that the robocalls were
"noncommercial, political calls exempt from TCPA liability."  The
court agreed.

Although the TCPA doesn't identify specific exemptions to
liability, it authorizes the FCC to prescribe implementing
regulations, the court said. In 2012, the FCC determined that
calls made for political reasons are exemption from the TCPA,
provided that the caller abides by certain identification
requirements (11 PVLR 1408, 9/17/12)(179 Privacy Law Watch,
9/17/12).

Specifically, the court said, to be exempt from liability, the
caller must provide: (1) the name or entity responsible for the
calls at the beginning of the message; (2) the business entity's
official name; and (3) the telephone number of the entity or
person responsible for the call.

The court concluded that Uber's calls were political in nature
that satisfied all of the requirements set forth by the FCC. The
court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that certain portions
of the robocalls qualified as advertisements under the TCPA.
"Such a broad reading of the term 'advertisement' would gut the
exemption the FCC carved out for political speech," the court
said.

Bank represented himself.  Morrison & Foerster LLP represented
Uber.


USFIA SINGAPORE: Director Faces Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Zaihan Mohamed Yusof, writing for The New Paper, reports that an
investment company -- USFIA Singapore -- was placed on the
Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) Investor Alert List on
Dec. 15.

USFIA Singapore, which sells amber products, was in the news early
in November when The New Paper reported that one of its directors,
Steve Chen, a US citizen, had been taken to court in the US by the
country's Securities and Exchange Commission.

The MAS had previously told TNP that "USFIA is neither licensed
nor regulated by MAS".

In September, Los Angeles-based USFIA Inc. was raided by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in a pyramid scheme probe.

Interestingly, the report said that when the raid was conducted at
the USFIA company offices, Mr. Chen, who had arrived later, "was
wearing a security guard uniform and carried a loaded gun, which
was not concealed".

US Marshals seized the weapon and found US$46,150 in cash in
Mr. Chen's car.

A US court then froze US$32 million (S$44.9 million) of Mr. Chen's
assets and bank accounts, placing them under receivership.

In November, the appointed receiver, Thomas A. Seaman, an
independent entity tasked to look into Mr. Chen's assets and
business dealings, filed its First Report.

It uncovered a few key findings in the 36-page report, including
the recovery of more than US$20 million.

The report stated: "At this point there is no indication of any
legitimate Gemcoin or other viable business.  There is also no
indication the Receivership Entities had any significant sources
of income other than monies raised from investors."

The findings were based on reviewing business records, interviews
with employees and digital data extracted from 240 seized computer
devices.

At least 28 business entities in the US and overseas were
identified to be linked to Mr Chen, a shareholder of USFIA
Singapore, which was registered here in April of 2013.

Mr Chen has also been named in a US$100 million class action
lawsuit filed by LA-based lawyer Long Liu, who accuses Mr. Chen of
"fraud, breach of contract and negligent representation".

Mr. Long told TNP he is in touch with "a few hundred claimants"
through e-mails from countries such as Singapore, Thailand,
Malaysia, France and China.

Mr. Long said in a telephone interview: "The issuance of the First
Report as a factual matter will help in my class action suit
(against Mr. Chen and his associates).  I don't have to wait for
another report to proceed."

Before the probe in the US, USFIA sought investments in amber
mines and Gemcoin, a virtual currency.

Court documents previously filed by the SEC alleged that some of
the "false and misleading representations" Mr. Chen has made were
claims that USFIA owns several large amber mines in the Dominican
Republic and Argentina.

The receiver was unable to substantiate his claims.

The First Report stated: "Instead of mines located around the
world, millions of dollars in precious gems, and houses and cars
available to investors, the Receiver has found only costume
jewellery and bins filled with rings of nominal value."

The receiver has seized properties like the USFIA building in LA,
a hotel, an apartment building, a warehouse, several single family
homes and parcels of undeveloped land, including a proposed golf
course.

The receiver said it would continue in its probe.  Investors who
want to file complaints can do so at www.usfiareceiver.com

Two Singaporeans with business interests in USFIA Singapore said
they were anxiously monitoring developments in the US court.


V.C. LAUDERDALE: "Stanton" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Recovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seleta Stanton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. V.C. Lauderdale, Inc. d/b/a Vegas Cabaret,
Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-62549-WJZ (S.D. Fla., December 4,
2015), seeks unpaid minimum wage and overtime, recovery of
misappropriated tips, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and expenses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

V.C. Lauderdale, Inc. is a Florida corporation operating an adult
entertainment club, Vegas Cabaret, where the Plaintiff works as a
dancer.

Plaintiff claims that they were compensated exclusively by tips
from customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chad E. Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
      915 Middle River Drive, #518
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304
      Tel: (954) 763-5722
      Fax: (954) 763-5723
      Email: chad@levylevylaw.com


VALERO ENERGY: "Bautista" Action Hits Discount Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------
Faith Bautista, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Valero Energy Corporation, CST Brands
Inc., Valero Marketing and Supply Company and CST Marketing And
Supply Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05557-EDL (N.D. Cal.,
December 4, 2015), seeks damages, restitution and disgorgement of
Defendants' revenues to Plaintiff, declaratory, injunctive and
other equitable relief as well as attorneys' fees and costs in
violation of the Consumer's Legal Remedy Act Sec. 1750, False
Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code Sec.
17200 & 17500 and Unfair Competition Law.

The action arises from the Defendant's treatment of debit card
purchases as credit, considering that they give a discount for
cash purchases. Plaintiff claims that debit card purchase are
still cash purchases given than their account is charged in real
time and not paid at some later time.

Valero Energy is a manufacturer and marketer of transportation
fuels, other petrochemical products and power based in San
Antonio, Texas.

Valero Marketing and Supply Company is a subsidiary of Valero
Energy. Its operations include refining operations, wholesale
marketing, product supply and distribution, and transportation
operations, primarily in the Gulf Coast, Mid-Continent, West Coast
and northeast regions.

CST Brands is a subsidiary of Valero Energy and was created as a
spinoff of Valero Energy's retail operations. CST Marketing and
Supply Company operates as a subsidiary of CST Brands. It
distributes Valero-branded gasoline and diesel products in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rafael Bernardino, Jr., Esq.
      Jason A. Hobson, Esq.
      HOBSON, BERNARDINO & DAVIS, LLP
      725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3230
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 235-9190
      Fax: (213) 235-9197
      Email: rbernardino@hbdlegal.com
             jhobson@hbdlegal.com

         - and -

      Patrick W. Daniels, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: patrickd@rgrdlaw.com


VANGUARD GROUP: "Fee" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Fee, Jr. individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Vanguard Group, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-06566-LDD (E.D. Pa., December 3, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act, Pennsylvania Wage
Payment & Collection Law and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Vanguard Group is an investment firm in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

Fee worked as an investment consultant where he claims to have
rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. DelGaizo, Esq.
      KRAEMER, MANES & ASSOCIATES LLC
      Parkview Tower
      1150 First Ave, Suite 501
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Tel: (610) 844-1779
      Fax: (610) 646-7436
      E-mail: cd@lawkm.com


VERDE ENERGY USA: "Bowser" Action Hits Telemarketing Scam
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Bowser, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Verde Energy USA, Defendant., Case No.
7:15-cv-09471 (S.D.N.Y. December 3, 2015), seeks treble and
statutory damages as well as injunctive relief and award of
attorneys' fees and costs in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227).

Defendants use an auto-dialer to make telephone calls to cellular
telephone numbers, often without the prior express consent of the
persons using those cellular telephone numbers in order to sell
electricity, according to the Complaint.

Verde is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 101 Merritt 7, Norwalk, CT 06851. Defendant operates
as an electricity supply company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Tel: (818) 990-1299
      Fax: (818) 501-7852
      Email: dparisi@parisihavens.com
             shavens@parisihavens.com

          - and -

      Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
      PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
      7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505
      Los Angeles, CA 90046
      Tel: (917) 657-6857
      Fax: (877) 501-3346
      Email: ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com


VIRGINIA: 4th Cir. Upholds Inmates' Parole Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Green, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that in
2008, the Legal Aid Justice Center picked 11 Virginia inmates who
committed violent crimes but had at least two decades' worth of
good prison records to file a class-action challenge against the
Virginia Parole Board.

One of them was Monty King, sentenced to life plus 12 years for a
1986 murder, robbery and attempted robbery.

Mr. King had no prior record.  His last prison infraction was in
1994, for sleeping through a roll call.  By 2008, the parole board
had turned him down seven times.

The suit complained that the inmates were not told what they
needed to do to win parole -- the most frequent explanation for
rejection was the one thing the inmates were powerless to do
anything about, the serious nature of their crimes.

The suit was tossed out by a federal judge and upheld by the 4th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  In a 2-1 decision, the appeals
court, while noting that it was sympathetic with the inmates over
the lack of information offered by the parole board, agreed with
the lower court that there is no due process right to parole.

Mr. King is being reviewed for parole yet again, and a decision
already may have been reached.  Parole for a life sentence for
murder requires the approval of four of the five parole board
members.

"It's hard to be hopeful," Mr. King, 49, said in a recent
interview. He said he tries to keep his expectations realistic.

Among other accomplishments over the decades, Mr. King has earned
an associate degree and received substance abuse treatment.  He
believes he can be released safely, remain off drugs and alcohol,
and be a productive member of society.

Stephen A. Northup, a lawyer working with Mr. King and his family,
said: "Monty's got a solid release plan."  He can live with family
members and has job opportunities waiting.

The parole board's mission is to grant parole to offenders whose
release is compatible with public safety -- and Hicks more than
qualifies, Mr. Northup argues.
Parole ended in Virginia for crimes committed on or after Jan. 1,
1995.  However, there still are about 4,000 state inmates eligible
for parole under the old law.

The board does not discuss individual pending cases but says the
low annual grant rate, now at 3 percent, is largely because less-
risky parole-eligible inmates already have been released.  That
leaves, for the most part, those who have committed violent
crimes.

A board representative said the panel considers factors such as
program participation and institutional infractions to determine
an offender's suitability for parole.

"The serious nature of the offense cannot be ignored and is always
relevant.  Serious offenses require serious consequences," the
representative said.

On Nov. 21, 2005, not long after Mr. King reconnected with his
birth mother, a chaplain at the Greensville Correctional Center
wrote to the parole board on Hicks' behalf.

"I see no indication that this offender would pose a threat to
society," the Rev. Majorie H. Holm wrote.  "He now has a
supportive family and the necessary social and occupational skills
to succeed in civilian life."


VISITING NURSE SERVICE: "Savino" Action Seeks to Recover OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Savino and Luis Colon, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Visiting Nurse Service
Of New York, and VNSNY Choice, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-09451
(S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages in violations of the
notice and recordkeeping requirements of the New York Labor Law,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, equitable and injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs in accordance to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs are Community Outreach Coordinators and are tasked to
promote health insurance programs during health fairs, galas, and
community. They claim to have rendered over 40 hours per work week
without compensation especially when they were required to work
off-the-clock.

Visiting Nurse Service Of New York and its affiliate, VNSNY Choice
Health Plans, are health care service providers based in 107 East
70th Street, New York, New York 10021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
      Marijana Matura, Esq.
      Garrett Kaske, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 499-9100


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Kirkman" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Kirkman, Tim Kirkman, Bernie Williams and Melanie Rodd,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG,
Audi AG, Audi of America LLC and Audi of America, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-14192-LJM-MJH (E.D. Mich., November
30, 2015), seeks damages, punitive damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, diminution of value, reasonable attorneys' fees
as a resuly of Breach of Contract, Breach Of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability, Magnuson - Moss Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301, et
seq.) and Breach Of State Consumer Fraud Acts.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
the Turbocharged Direct Injection variants of the light passenger
vehicles made by Defendants called a defeat device that allegedly
turns on the emission controls during mandated testing but turns
it off during regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant
to emission standards set by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon,
Virginia. Their operations in the United States include research
and development, parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution,
sales, marketing and service offices, financial service centers
and manufacturing.

Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing under
German law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt,
Germany and is a 99.55% owned subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group
and manufactures luxury vehicles under the Audi brand.

Audi of America, LLC is a subsidiary of Audi AG that sells Audi
Vehicles in the United States and is based in Hemdon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
      Tana Lin, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio. Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
             tlin@kellerrohrback.com
             gcappio@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      William M. Audet, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
      San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
      Tel: (415) 568-2555
      Fax: (415)568-2556
      Email: waudet@audetlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Ligeti" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Ligeti and Meaghan Webster individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group Of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01598-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., Alexandria
Division, November 30, 2015), seeks to enjoining Volkswagen from
selling and/or leasing out allegedly defective vehicles,
injunctive relief in the form of a recall or free replacement,
costs, restitution, damages, disgorgement, treble and/or punitive
damages and attorneys' fees resulting from unjust enrichment,
fraudulent concealment, Breach of Express Massachusetts Emissions
Warranties (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 90, Sec. 7N 14 et seq.) by the
Defendant and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A).

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
the Turbocharged Direct Injection variants of the light passenger
vehicles made by Defendants called a defeat device that allegedly
turns on the emission controls during mandated testing but turns
it off during regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant
to emission standards set by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.

Ligeti purchased a 2015 Volkswagen Golf TDI from Wellesley
Volkswagen, an authorized Volkswagen dealer in Wellesley,
Massachusetts.

Webster purchased a 2010 Jetta from Kelly Volkswagen, an
authorized Volkswagen dealer in Danvers, Massachusetts.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon,
Virginia. Their operations in the United States include research
and development, parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution,
sales, marketing and service offices, financial service centers
and manufacturing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen E. Baril, Esq.
     Gray B. Broughton, Esq.
     KAPLAN VOEKLER CUNNINGHAM & FRANK PLC
     1401 East Gary Street
     Richmond, VA 23112
     Telephone: 804-823-4000
     Facsimile: 804-823-4099
     Email: sbaril@kv-legal.com
            gbroughton@kv-legal.com

         - and -

      Michael P. Thornton, Esq.
      David J. McMorris, Esq.
      Leah M. Carlsen, Esq.
      THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
      100 Summer Street, 30th Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 720-1333
      Fax: (617) 720-2445
      Email: mthomton@tenlaw.com
             dmcmorris@tenlaw.com
             lcarlsen@tenlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Olsen" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom And Kathy Olsen, Clare Cooper, and Joseph Robin, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi of America,
LLC, Audi AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. and Porsche AG,
Case No. 2:15-cv-14224-GER-APP (E.D. Mich., December 2, 2015),
seeks injunctive relief in the form of a recall or free
replacement and treble and/or punitive damages caused by Fraud by
Concealment under Michigan Law, Breach of Contract, Breach of
Express, Implied and Written Warranty under Magnuson - Moss
Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq.), Unjust Enrichment
and in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
the Turbocharged Direct Injection variants of the light passenger
vehicles made by the said car companies called a defeat device
that allegedly turns on the emission controls during mandated
testing but turns it off during regular operations thus rendering
it non-compliant to emission standards set by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources
Board.

Tom and Kathy Olsen, residents of Marlborough, New Hampshire,
purchased a new 2012 Volkswagen Jetta TDI. Clare Cooper, a
resident of Seattle, Washington, purchased a new 2010 Volkswagen
Golf TDI. Joseph Robin, a resident of Bellevue, Washington,
purchased a new 2012 Volkswagen Golf TDI.

Volkswagen AG is an automotive company organized and existing
under German law with its principal place of business in
Wolfsburg, Germany and is the parent company of Audi AG. It
manufactures vehicles under the Volkswagen brand.

Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing under
German law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt,
Germany and is a 99.55% owned subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group
and manufactures luxury vehicle under the Audi brand.

Porsche AG is an automotive company under the Volkswagen Group
organized and existing under German law, with its principal place
of business in Stuttgart, Germany. It manufactures luxury sports
cars under the Porsche brand.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon,
Virginia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Their
operations in the United States include research and development,
parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution, sales, marketing
and service offices, financial service centers and manufacturing.

Audi of America, LLC is a subsidiary of Audi AG that sells Audi
vehicles in the United States and is based in Hemdon, Virginia.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Porsche AG that sells Porsche vehicles in the United States and is
based in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
      Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
      Tana Lin, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel Mensher, Esq.
      Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
             awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
             tlin@kellerrohrback.com
             gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
             dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
             rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Matthew Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Tel: (805) 456-1496
      Fax: (805) 456-1497
      Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


VTECH ELECTRONICS: Faces "Bran" Suit Over Tablet PC Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heber Bran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VTECH Electronics North America and VTECH
Holdings Limited, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-10891 (N.D. Ill.,
December 3, 2015), seeks appropriate damages and restitution,
injunctive and equitable relief and attorneys' fees as a result of
breach of contract and unjust enrichment/restitution in violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act 815 ILCS 505.

The class action arises out of an alleged lack of data security of
the Defendant's tablet PC toy. Plaintiff was required to input
personal information as part of the registration process. VTech's
databases were allegedly hacked on November 24, 2015.

VTech Electronics North America, LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company with its headquarters located at 1156 West Shure
Drive, Suite 200, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004.

VTech Holdings Limited is a Hong Kong company with its
headquarters located at 23/F, Tai Ping Industrial Centre, Block 1,
57 Ting Kok Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Alexander T.H. Nguyen, Esq.
      Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Fax: (312) 589-6378
      Email: jedelson@edelson.com
             anguyen@edelson.com
             bthomassen@edelson.com


W.R. GRACE: Manitoba Woman Calls for Inquiry Into Zonolite
----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Manitoba advocate for people who
suffered from illnesses linked to vermiculite insulation has died
of a cancer closely associated with asbestos, her daughter says.

Raven ThunderSky grew up in a home on Poplar River First Nation
with asbestos-laced insulation and lost several family members to
related illnesses.

Her daughter, Raven-Dominique Gobeil, says Ms. ThunderSky died on
Christmas Eve of mesothelioma at the age of 50.

In 2008, Ms. ThunderSky said she wrote then-prime minister
Stephen Harper asking for a public inquiry into Zonolite, the
insulation that was frequently made from Montana-mined vermiculate
and found to contain naturally occurring asbestos.

Ms. ThunderSky was also critical when a settlement was offered in
a class-action lawsuit against the American company that made
Zonolite, saying the amount wouldn't begin to cover the costs of
removing the insulation from homes.

Zonolite was popular in Canada from the 1950s until the 1980s, and
homeowners were eligible for federal grants to install the
insulation from the late 1970s until the early 1980s.

"In the past eight weeks it kind of got the best of her, and in
the past two weeks she was just bedridden," Ms. Gobeil said of her
mother's illness, noting she chose to spend her final moments at
home.

"Hospitals are where her sisters and parents died and she decided
she didn't want that for herself," Ms. Gobeil said in an interview
on Dec. 20.

Zonolite insulation was used in housing on military bases and on
First Nations reserves.

Mesothelioma is a rare type of cancer that is often linked with
exposure to asbestos.  The World Health Organization maintains all
types of asbestos can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of
the larynx and ovary, and asbestosis.

Ms. ThunderSky was also active in campaigning for a national
inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women.

Ms. Gobeil said her mother was too ill to fully comprehend the
announcement earlier in December by the federal Liberal government
that an inquiry will be held.  But she said she was able to
understand, and was happy, when a second-degree murder charge was
announced in the death of 15-year-old Tina Fontaine, whose body
was found wrapped in a bag in Winnipeg's Red River in 2014.

"Even if her activism brought closure to one family, that's one
family that can rest easy and doesn't have to wonder forever,"
Ms. Gobeil said.


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine MacDonald, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
eighteen families on Dec. 28 sued the Wayne County Treasurer's
office and several Metro Detroit cities in U.S. District Court,
arguing their properties were illegally foreclosed on and sold to
developers.

The families are asking a judge to grant a temporary restraining
order to prevent the developers from evicting them from properties
in Garden City, Dearborn, Lincoln Park, Redford Township and the
city of Wayne.

Attorney Tarek Baydoun, who represents the families, alleges the
treasurer's office led owners to believe they still had time to
save their homes before the county foreclosure auction, while
county officials worked with the cities to illegally take the
homes.

Mr. Baydoun says the treasurer's office failed to send out
foreclosure notices by first-class mail, as it has in past years.
And the contractor tasked with making personal visits to the homes
to notify residents of the impending foreclosure never showed up,
the complaint alleges.

Mr. Baydoun also says the county blocked his clients from signing
up for payment plans that would have removed them from the threat
of auction.

"County defendants recklessly, knowingly and/or maliciously
engaged in a conspiracy to withhold the required notices and deny
payment plans in a manner that was neither lawful nor rational,"
the complaint states.  "As a result, the plaintiffs and similarly
situated individuals lost record title to their properties."

The lawsuit names the cities of Garden City, Dearborn, Lincoln
Park, Redford Township and Wayne, saying officials in each
"illegally bid, purchased and sold the properties."  In addition
to the county treasurer, the lawsuit names retired Treasurer
Raymond Wojtowicz and former Chief Deputy Treasurer David
Szymanski.

Mr. Szymanski wrote in an email to The Detroit News on Dec. 28
that his office is clear with homeowners that not complying with
payment plans could mean the loss of property.

"It is my firm belief that we acted properly in providing notice,
explaining taxpayer options, and assisting as best we could in
foreclosure avoidance," Mr. Szymanski wrote.  "It is indeed
unfortunate that property is lost when taxes are not paid but such
is the legislatively mandated process.  It is not fair to those
who do pay taxes to support government services that others
receive those services when their taxes go unpaid."

Calls and emails from The News to city officials involved weren't
immediately returned.

An official from Dearborn declined comment on Dec. 28, saying the
city hadn't been served with the lawsuit.  After pleas to the City
Council, the city resold several occupied tax-foreclosed homes to
former owners this fall with restrictions.

A growing number of Wayne County suburbs are buying tax-foreclosed
homes and selling them to developers, saying they want to prevent
blight and discourage absentee landlords from acquiring the
properties through the auction.

The auction is held in September and October for properties
typically owing three years in unpaid taxes, but cities can take
properties in July by exercising their right of first refusal.
Taylor bought 106 properties; Lincoln Park, 90; Redford Township,
76; Dearborn, 35; and Garden City, 28, according to county
records.

But many homeowners, who were on payment plans, said they weren't
aware the properties were sold until served with eviction notices
from developers.  Some acknowledged missing required payments but
said county staffers led them to believe they had more time to
save their homes.

Mr. Baydoun said he believes more than 1,000 property owners could
have had property taken illegally by the county and given to
cities.  He is asking the U.S. District Judge Judith E. Levy to
designate the case as a class action.

The controversy over the foreclosures exploded in November in
Garden City when seven families, who wanted to plead their cased
before its city council, were blocked from speaking at a public
meeting.  Mayor Randy Walker would later say he cut the meeting
short because officials had a pizza party planned after that
council meeting.

The developers generally buy the properties from the cities for
the price of the unpaid taxes and are required to invest a certain
amount in rehab costs.  The developers keep any profits. The goal
is to sell them to owner-occupants, city officials have said.

In the lawsuit filed on Dec. 28, Mr. Baydoun also named the three
development companies who bought the homes from the cities.


WILMINGTON SAVINGS: Sued Over Illegal Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
full-service bank has filed a class action lawsuit against a
specialty financing company that buys delinquent receivable
accounts from condominium and homeowners associations, alleging
the company's practices are illegal.

Plaintiff Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as trustee of the
Primestar-H Fund 1 Trust, sued Business Law Group PA, or BLG; LM
Funding LLC, or LMF; and Bruce Rodgers, who is set to become
chairman of the board and CEO of LM Funding America Inc. and will
remain a substantial stock owner after the company goes public.

Wilmington Savings filed its class action in a Florida circuit
court Oct. 28.

The bank, which does business in Hillsborough County and in the
state of Florida, purchases notes and mortgages securing
residential properties in the state. According to the bank's
lawsuit, it then improves and sells the residential properties.

"Plaintiff is in the business of purchasing distressed assets,
which include the notes and mortgages on properties either in
default or currently in foreclosure," the lawsuit states.
"Plaintiff then receives an assignment of the note and mortgage
and prosecutes the foreclosure action."

LMF, which is based in Hillsborough County along with the other
defendants, buys delinquent receivable accounts from condominium
and homeowners associations.

A delinquent account occurs when an owner within an association
fails to pay the monthly assessments required for membership.  In
exchange for funding each of its association clients, LMF receives
an assignment of the delinquent receivable, which includes rights
to collect the receivable and which is secured by a super priority
lien against the unit or parcel.

According to Wilmington Savings' complaint, LMF earns most of its
revenue by collecting or recovering the interest, late charges and
fees on the outstanding assessments, rather than the outstanding
assessments themselves.

In Florida, condominium and homeowners associations are governed
by state statutes, which grant particular protections to first
mortgagees and their successors and assignees who obtain a
judgment of foreclosure against an association member who
defaulted on his or her mortgage and assessments.

Specifically, even though an association's lien is generally
superior to a first mortgage, state statutes limit a first
mortgagee's or its successors' or assignees' liability to an
association to an amount known as the "safe harbor."

"Despite their knowledge of the 'safe harbor' limitation,
Defendants, as a matter of course and consistent with their
business model, demand sums in excess of the 'safe harbor' from
first mortgagees and their successors and assignees," Wilmington
Savings alleges in its 24-page complaint.

The defendants' practice essentially holds first mortgagees and
their successors and assignees "hostage" because they cannot
obtain clear title and dispose of a property until they satisfy
the association's lien, the bank contends.

"Defendants' practice is 'illegal' and results in Defendants being
'unjustly enriched' at the expense of first mortgagees and their
successors and assignees," Wilmington Savings alleges.

The proposed class is defined as follows:

"All first mortgagees and their successors or assignees who joined
an LMF Association client in a foreclosure action in Florida,
obtained title to the property at issue through a foreclosure
judgment or deed in lieu of foreclosure, and to whom BLG, on
behalf an LMF Association client, provided an estoppel certificate
claiming entitlement to more than the limit" provided by two
sections of Florida statutes, on or after Oct. 28, 2011.

Wilmington Savings, in its complaint, says the exact number of
class members is unknown at this time; however, there are "likely
hundreds or perhaps thousands" that fit the proposed definition of
the class.

The proposed class seeks to enjoin the defendants' practice and
recover damages sustained as a result.

Kenneth G. Turkel -- kturkel@bajocuva.com -- and Brad F. Barrios
-- brad.barrios@bajocuva.com -- of Bajo Cuva Cohen Turkel in Tampa
and J. Daniel Clark of Clark & Martino PA, also in Tampa, are
representing Wilmington Savings.

Earlier in December, the defendants filed a notice of removal in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division.

In their seven-page notice, filed Dec. 10, they argue the federal
court is the more appropriate venue because: 1) the number of
members of the proposed plaintiff class is more than 100; 2) at
least one member of the proposed plaintiff class is a citizen of a
state different from at least one of the defendants; and 3) the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million,
exclusive of interest and costs.

Tampa-area law firm Trenam Kemker Scharf Barkin Frye O'Neill &
Mullis PA is representing the defendants.


WINDSOR REGIONAL: Cardiac Programs to Get Share in Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Sacheli, writing for Windsor Star, reports that Cardiac
programs at four Canadian hospitals -- including one in Windsor --
will split a pot of unclaimed money from a class-action settlement
over potentially defective pacemakers and defibrillators.

Windsor Regional Hospital's cardiac wellness program at the former
Hotel-Dieu site on Ouellette Avenue will share the windfall with
hospitals in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, said Windsor lawyer
Jay Strosberg.

There is about $100,000 left over from funds set up in 2014 to
compensate patients.  With interest on the funds, each hospital
will initially receive between $20,000 and $25,000.  They may get
additional money in the future once the final accounting on the
funds is complete.

The money comes from a settlement in excess of $3 million of a
class-action suit against Guidant Corporation, Guidant Canada
Corporation, Guidant Sales Corporation and Cardiac Pacemakers Inc.

The companies were sued in 2005 over potential battery shorting
problems in their implantable devices.  The companies settled the
lawsuit without any admission of liability.

Terms of the settlement included setting up a $1,272,000 fund to
compensate patients who had to the have the devices surgically
removed.  Another $800,000 was to go to patients who suffered what
the court termed "extraordinary injury."

The rest of the money went to OHIP, lawyers' fees and
administration costs.

Patients had until December 2014 to make claims. There were 141
claimants, Mr. Strosberg said.  With money left over, the court
had to determine "what's the next best use" for the funds.

Mr. Strosberg said he negotiated to put money back into the hands
of some of the hospitals where the allegedly defective devices
were implanted into patients in the first place.  Mr. Strosberg
said he argued that the money should not go to the large centers
only, but to Windsor as well.

Of the 11 representative plaintiffs in the lawsuit, six were from
the Windsor area.  It's only right that some of the money come to
the city, Mr. Strosberg said.

"The case was started in Windsor.  The settlement was approved in
Windsor . . . There's definitely a Windsor connection."

Mr. Strosberg said about $130,000 has been dispersed to Windsor
agencies from funds set up as part of class-action lawsuits he
litigated.  WEtech Alliance, a Windsor agency that helps
technology startups, received $80,000 earlier in 2015 as part of a
settlement of a securities class-action.


* Background Screening FCRA Suits Expected to Rise in 2016
----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for Employment Screening Resources, reports
that class action lawsuits involving the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) that governs the use of background checks for
employment purposes in the United States will continue to increase
in 2016 since background screening is a target rich environment
even if technical FCRA violations are restricted.  This is the
number 2 trend selected by Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR)
Founder and CEO Attorney Lester Rosen for the 9th annual ESR Top
Ten Background Check Trends for 2016.

"Most FCRA class action lawsuits against employers are over
alleged violations of basic black letter law that could have
easily been avoided by a review of forms and processes.  It is
often FCRA 101 type allegations," says Rosen, author of 'The Safe
Hiring Manual.'  "Lawsuits against background screening firms can
include highly technical claims, even where there is no indication
that anyone has actually been harmed, which means that legal
compliance has become one of the most critical parts of background
check services."

Mr. Rosen explains that the current trend of FCRA litigation over
pre-employment background checks is not limited to lawsuits
against background screening firms.  Class action lawsuits against
prospective or current employers requesting background checks on
applicants or employees are mushrooming.  These lawsuits are most
frequently brought under the FCRA that controls background checks
in the United States. Many lawsuits have been brought against
employers with well known names across the country.

According to Mr. Rosen, employers and background check providers
face legal risks involved in background screening due to the
increasing complexity of screening consent forms with regard to
compliance with FCRA requirements.  ESR News has reported on the
rise of FCRA class action lawsuits and nationally recognized
companies such as Food Lion, Home Depot, Chuck E. Cheese, BMW,
Whole Foods, and Calvin Klein paid settlements in FCRA lawsuits
ranging from $716,400 to $3 million in 2015 alone.

In December 2015, ESR News reported that a class action lawsuit
settlement of $716,400 was reached with Van Heusen, Izod, G.H.
Bass, and Calvin Klein over allegations that they obtained
background check reports without complying with the FCRA. The
lawsuit filed claimed that Calvin Klein, Inc. and PVH Corporation
allegedly illegally denied the plaintiff employment as a manager
at a Calvin Klein store based on an allegedly inaccurate
background check and did not allow the plaintiff a chance to
dispute the report.

In October 2015, ESR News reported that natural grocery store
chain Whole Foods Market Group Inc. agreed to pay nearly $803,000
to settle a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the FCRA
for improperly disclosing to job applicants that they would
undergo background checks.  Background checks are subject to
strict disclosure and authorization requirements under the FCRA
and the lawsuit claimed that the Whole Food application process
"violated the FCRA due to the inclusion of a liability waiver in
its FCRA disclosure".

In September 2015, ESR News reported that BMW Manufacturing agreed
to pay $1.6 million and provide job opportunities to the alleged
victims of race discrimination to resolve a lawsuit filed by the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that claimed
BMW's criminal record background check policy disproportionately
affected African-American workers at a South Carolina facility by
excluding these workers from employment during background checks
performed on them.

In July 2015, ESR News reported that Chuck E. Cheese paid $1.75
million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed
entertainment chain restaurant failed to provide job applicants
with proper background check disclosures.  As part of the class
action lawsuit settlement, Chuck E. Cheese -- also known as CEC
Entertainment Inc. -- agreed to change job applications used by
the company to better comply with FCRA requirements governing the
use of background check disclosure forms.

In April 2015, ESR News reported that a settlement of $1.8 million
was reached in a class action lawsuit against Home Depot that
claimed the home improvement and construction retailer allegedly
violated the FCRA by not having the proper forms for job
applicants to fill out in order to conduct background checks on
them.  The class action lawsuit claimed Home Depot "violated the
FCRA by including releases of liability in their preauthorization
background and/or credit check disclosure forms."

In March 2015, ESR News reported that east coast grocery store
chain Food Lion, LLC and its parent company Delhaize America, LLC
reached a settlement of $3 million in a class action lawsuit filed
by a group of job applicants over allegedly illegal background
checks in violation of the FCRA.  The class action lawsuit claimed
Delhaize violated the FCRA requirement for "a clear and
conspicuous disclosure" or "stand-alone disclosure" when a
background check report is "obtained for employment purposes."

Mr. Rosen notes that the FCRA disclosure requirement is one of the
most common reasons for a lawsuit.  Section 604(b)(2) of the FCRA
clearly states in part that a person may not procure a background
check report on a consumer unless "a clear and conspicuous
disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time
before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a
document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer
report may be obtained for employment purposes."

On November 2, 2015, ESR News reported that the Supreme Court of
the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments in the case of
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins which could decide whether or not a
plaintiff has the legal right, or "standing," to bring a class
action lawsuit for a technical violation of the FCRA if that
individual suffered no actual concrete harm from the violation.
An earlier lawsuit against Spokeo claimed the online people search
engine violated the FCRA by publishing inaccurate information.

According to analysis of the arguments, a ruling that plaintiffs
only have to allege a violation of a right created by a statute
without needing to show concrete harm from the violation "did not
seem likely."  Some Justices agreed that plaintiffs "need to be
able to point to actual harm from a violation of a statute, rather
than just the violation of the statute itself."  However, Justice
Elena Kagan focused on a third option where "Robins was actually
injured when Spokeo published false information about him."

The analysis of the arguments available on the SCOTUS blog stated:
"This would allow Robins's lawsuit to go forward, without forcing
the Court to choose between opening the federal courts to
frivolous but possibly massive class-action lawsuits (Spokeo's
prediction if Robins were to prevail) and closing the courthouse
doors to potentially important privacy, civil rights,
environmental, and patent lawsuits (Robins's prediction if Spokeo
were to prevail)."  A decision on the case is due in Spring or
Summer 2016.

"However, even if the Supreme Court rules that actual harm is
needed, that does not necessarily mean there will be less
litigation.  Many observers have predicted that lawsuits will
instead move to state courts which still means that employers and
screening firms need to pay the utmost attention to legal
compliance," says Rosen, a frequent speaker on FCRA issues.  "The
bottom line," concludes Rosen, "is that employers need to perform
due diligence in hiring, but they need to do it correctly."
Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR) has released a whitepaper
written by Mr. Rosen titled "Common Ways Prospective or Current
Employees Sue Employers Under the FCRA" in response to this rising
trend of class action lawsuits filed for alleged violations of the
FCRA that controls background checks for employment in the United.

In the whitepaper, Rosen explains how FCRA class action lawsuits
can be avoided: These suits against employers have become very
common. Ironically, these suits often could have been easily
avoided.  More often than not, employers are sued for violating
FCRA 101 -- simple rules and procedures that are clearly set out
in the law.  Most of the claims involve aspects of the employer's
screening process that could be easily remedied to comply with the
FCRA such as reviewing the forms used for background screening.
Rosen concludes the whitepaper this way: Any decision made by the
Supreme Court in the case of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins will have a
dramatic impact on future FCRA litigation.  However, given that
the majority of these cases are brought on grounds that employers
can easily remedy, any employer performing background checks is
well advised to review their procedures with a knowledgeable
screening partner or an attorney familiar with the FCRA.


* ERISA Medical Treatment Class Actions Hit Insurers
----------------------------------------------------
D. Michael Reilly, Esq., in an article for Lexology, reports that
insurers are getting hit with more class actions regarding the
denial of medical treatments, like behavioral therapy treatments
for autism spectrum disorders.  These can be expensive: In May
2015 ConAgra Foods Inc. and Blue Cross Blue Shield were sued in a
proposed class action in California, accused of denying behavioral
therapy treatments for autism spectrum disorders in violation of
the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and state
and federal mental health laws.  One insurer completed a $2.4
million settlement involving an estimated 350 to 400 class
members.

The enforceability of arbitration agreements and the class action
waiver.  The United States Supreme Court once again held that
class action waivers contained in arbitration agreements are
enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and cannot be
invalidated on state law grounds inapplicable to any other
contract. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, No. 14-462, 577 U.S. ___,
2015 WL 8546242 (2015).

So, what does this all mean for ERISA plans?  Can ERISA plans
include arbitration provisions?  YES!

Consider adding an arbitration provision with a class action
waiver.

Here's a case that highlights the point: Sanzone-Ortiz v Aetna
Health of California, Inc., 2015 WL 9303993 (N. D. Cal. December
22, 2015) (PDF).

FACTS:  This is a class action involving arbitration of ERISA
health benefits.  Ortiz, a plan participant under an ERISA-
governed health benefit plan insured by Aetna, has a son diagnosed
with autism.  Aetna authorized 20 hours per week of Applied
Behavior Analysis treatment for her son, but the treating
physician prescribed 36 hours per week of the treatment.  Aetna
moved to compel arbitration based upon an arbitration agreement
contained in the enrollment form for the health plan membership.
The arbitration agreement incorporated the Federal Arbitration
Act.

ISSUES:

Does the arbitration provision violate ERISA? NO.
Can Aetna enforce an arbitration agreement if it is not a party to
the arbitration agreement? YES.
DISTRICT COURT HELD:

"A plain reading of 29 C.F.R. Sec 2560.503-1(c)(4) indicates that
the limitations on arbitrability apply only to 'claims
procedures'. . . " Op. at 4.

"The Department of Labor explains that 'a plan may require
arbitration as one or both of the permitted levels of review of a
denied claim.'" Op. at 4.

"The Ninth Circuit recognized that 'in the past, [the U.S. Supreme
Court] expressed skepticism about the arbitrability of ERISA
claims, but those doubts seem to have been put to rest by the
Supreme Court's decisions[. . .]" Op. at 6 (citations omitted).
Aetna could move to enforce arbitration because it met the
definition of "Interested Party" provided in the "Evidence of
Coverage" documents. Op. at 10.

KEY TAKE AWAY:  Empirical studies indicate arbitrations can result
in "faster, fewer, cheaper" resolution of claims.  The key is to
incorporate the FAA into the arbitration agreement, and a very
mainstream arbitration agreement which contains a class action
waiver is recommended.


* Federal-Related Mass Torts Heart of Legal Settlements in 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that mass torts were at the heart of colossal legal settlements in
2015, particularly involving the federal government.

In October, BP PLC agreed to an unprecedented $20 billion deal
with the U.S. Justice Department to resolve environmental
violations that stemmed from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

In September, the Justice Department inked a $900 million
deferred-prosecution agreement with General Motors Co. to resolve
criminal penalties associated with its ignition-switch recalls in
2014.

And the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, under
pressure to increase its civil penalties against automakers with
safety defects, imposed record fines of up to $200 million in
November against Takata Corp. over faulty air bags and $105
million in July against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.

That's not to say there weren't large dollars to be had among
private litigants. GM also paid $575 million to settle 1,380
lawsuits in September and $595 million in a victim compensation
fund that wrapped up in December.  And Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA
Inc., on the heels of a pivotal $9 billion punitive damages --
verdict in 2014, paid $2.4 billion in April to settle 9,000 suits
linking its diabetes drug Actos to bladder cancer.

But the big deals with the government came as the Obama
administration wrapped up its final term, said David Logan, a
professor at Roger Williams University School of Law.  Although
the U.S. Supreme Court has made it difficult to pursue class
actions, the Obama administration has turned to its executive
powers to hold companies accountable.

"Among many parts of his coalition were people who championed
environmental and consumer rights," he said.  "The president and
his people know he's getting near the end of his trail, and
getting these buttoned up with big dollar figures help secure his
legacy as an aggressive president."

Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School,
said the Justice Department's actions weren't ideological at all
and are likely to continue regardless of who wins the 2016
election.  He noted that a House subcommittee's Republican members
led the congressional hearings in October involving Volkswagen
A.G., which DOJ began investigating after the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency found that its cars exceeded emissions
standards.

Mr. Henning attributed the large dollars instead to the standard
set by the DOJ's criminal fines against banks following the 2008
financial crisis.  "It has certainly created an expectation that
in any type of large-scale violation of the law, the fine will be
at or close to $1 billion," he said.  "Whenever a company finds
itself in hot water, the first question is, 'What are we going to
have to pay the Justice Department?' "

In 2015, the water was scalding.  What follows are several
highlights.

* BP's $20B settlement: The oil giant's $20 billion consent
decree caps five years of litigation over the oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico.  In 2012, BP agreed to resolve private claims by
local businesses as part of a class action settlement now worth
$9.9 billion, and more than $4 billion to resolve criminal
penalties with the Justice Department.

The deal includes $5.5 billion in civil claims under the Clean
Water Act, $7.1 billion in natural resources damages under the Oil
Pollution Act, $4.9 billion to five Gulf Coast states, and up to
$1 billion to local governments.  A final approval hearing is set
for March 23.

   * GM's guilty plea: In its agreement with the DOJ, General
Motors admitted to two charges: Wire fraud and scheming to conceal
information from regulators.

In 2014, the ignition-switch defect prompted recalls of 2.6
million vehicles worldwide.  GM paid a $35 million fine to NHTSA,
fired 15 employees and released an internal report that blamed the
problems on incompetence.  GM won a significant decision from a
U.S. bankruptcy judge in April that barred many class actions
filed by consumers and personal injury and wrongful-death
lawsuits, but many remain.  The first bellwether trial is
scheduled for Jan. 11.

   * NHTSA fines: In January, NHTSA fined Honda Motor Co. $70
million for failing to report deaths, injuries and warranty
claims.  The $105 million fine against Chrysler involved its
handling of 23 safety recalls over defects including faulty
ignition switches, suspension parts and fuel tanks.  It includes
$70 million cash and $20 million in performance requirements, plus
a potential $15 million more if an independent monitor discovers
additional violations in the next three years.  For failing to
disclose a defect that caused its air bags to rupture, Takata
agreed to pay $70 million in cash and another $130 million should
it fail to comply with the terms of its consent decree.

NHTSA has taken the unprecedented step of pushing Takata to speed
up its recalls, now totaling 19 million vehicles.  Takata still
faces more than 100 lawsuits over its air bags.


* London, Ont. Councilor Opposes Installation of Red Light Cameras
------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman DeBono, writing for The London Free Press, reports that
installing red light cameras at major intersections would be a
drain on London taxpayers and end up trading one kind of car crash
for another, a city politician warns.

Coun. Michael van Holst says the city should look at other options
instead of installing the devices.

If the cameras get the green light from city council, they would
generate $4.5 million annually, city staff say in a report that
goes to council's civic works committee Jan. 5.

But Mr. van Holst points out nearly $3 million would be shipped
out of London.  An estimated $1.25 million would go to the U.S.
company that installs and maintains the cameras, while the city of
Toronto would receive $1.1 million for issuing fines on behalf of
London and the province would rake in $600,000 in fines.

When all costs are factored in, that would leave about $200,000
for the city -- not enough, Mr. van Holst said, to justify the
work and limited effect the cameras would have on traffic safety.

London police and other supporters of red light cameras say they
reduce the number high-speed right-angle collisions at
intersections.  Drivers brake when the light changes instead of
racing through, they say.

Though right-angle crashes would decrease, rear-end collisions
could increase by 15 per cent, Mr. van Holst says.

"People will slam on the brakes to avoid a red light ticket and
get nailed from behind. We are trading one accident for another."

Some U.S. cities are unplugging red light cameras after a spike in
serious crashes, he said.

Mr. Van Holst also believes the city's annual $200,000 take from
red light cameras would shrink because the cost of processing and
other costs will increase.

A road safety committee with members from the city, Middlesex
County and London police is recommending London get the cameras
that are used in several Canadian municipalities, including
Toronto.

London police cite a Toronto police study that said red light
cameras reduced right-angle crashes by 40 per cent.

But Mr. van Holst said the cameras would be an expensive fix for a
problem that accounts for about 100 of the 3,000 traffic citations
a year in London.

Improving intersections and cracking down on aggressive drivers
should be priorities, he said, citing results of a road safety
study.

Or London could follow Detroit's lead, Mr. van Holst said.
Instead of red light cameras, Detroit improved its intersection
infrastructure by adding larger lights, resulting in a 50 per cent
drop in crashes, he said.

Ron Harper, who owns OTD Legal, a firm that fights traffic
tickets, said the safety argument for red light cameras is a red
herring.

"It is ultimately a tax and it does not do anything for road
safety," he said.

"You get tickets for red light cameras weeks later.  It's too
late, it doesn't change behavior.  You need boots on the ground to
do that."

Media reports south of the border suggest the cameras are little
more than another tax grab.

Studies conducted in Florida, California, Virginia and Illinois
and by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration conclude that red
light cameras almost always lead to a steep increase in rear-end
collisions.

With more people braking hard when the light turns yellow, there
was a 22 per cent increase in rear-end crashes at intersections in
Chicago with red light cameras, an investigation by the Chicago
Tribune revealed.

That same report states that in 12 years the lights have generated
$500 million in revenue for the city that is facing a class-action
lawsuit by ticketed drivers.

In 2011, Houston banned red light cameras after a study by police
showed a 116 per cent increase in total crashes and an 84 per cent
rise in major crashes at intersections with cameras between 2010
and 2014.


* Malaysian D&O Insurance Coverage Market Still Nascent
-------------------------------------------------------
Meena Lakshana, writing for The Edge Financial Daily, reports that
Hong Kong-based conglomerate Citic Pacific Ltd, now known as Citic
Ltd, was dealt a major blow when it suffered US$2 billion in
foreign-exchange losses on the Australian dollar, due to its
investment in the Sino Iron ore mine project in western Australia.

In 2013, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) reportedly
took the company and its five former directors to court on behalf
of 4,500 investors whom it said lost money due to bad hedges made
by the company on the Australian dollar.  The case is still
pending in court, seven years after it blew up.

It is cases like this that call for the need for protection of a
company's interest, in the face of litigation that could costs
millions of US dollars, AIG vice-president and Asia Pacific
Financial Lines head Jason Kelly told The Edge Financial Daily in
an interview recently.

The directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance coverage is
insurance payable to directors and officers of a company, or to
the organization itself, as reimbursement for costs incurred from
legal actions taken against alleged wrongful acts, while in their
capacity as directors and officers.

Mr. Kelly said the D&O insurance coverage market in Malaysia is
still nascent.  Worth about US$10 million (RM42.9 million) to
US$15 million now, he said it is projected to grow at an annual
rate of 10%.

Aside from greater corporate governance awareness, market growth
may be partly driven by fear of regulatory actions over the
implementation of the goods and services tax (GST).

Mr. Kelly said AIG had seen a significant jump in D&O insurance
uptake since the new tax was enforced.

"Regulatory claims are probably more frequent now with the GST.
AIG saw a double-digit rise in claims from pre-GST to post-GST.  A
lot of them (claims) were on the back of enforcement by
regulators.

"They (regulators) have spent more money building up their
agencies.  They have brought in better people; they are smarter.
They have invested in technologies, giving them the tools
necessary to investigate companies that have potentially done
something wrong," he added.

In fact, the biggest chunk of claims in Asia -- 40% -- is related
to regulatory actions initiated by agencies such as the SFC in
Hong Kong, monetary authorities or independent commissions against
corruption, rather than shareholders", said Mr. Kelly.

Other claims are related to third-party claims (25%), inclement
practices (19%), shareholder claims (9%) and a small basket of
various others, he added.

In contrast, the United States -- where D&O insurance coverage was
instituted by London-based insurers following the Great Depression
-- sees significantly more claims from class action suits
initiated by shareholders, he said.

This is due to the structure of the legal system rather than
shareholders' lack of awareness of their rights, said Mr. Kelly.

"The US legal framework makes it very easy for a single
shareholder to bring a class action claim [against a company].
That framework has existed for a long time.  In Asia-Pacific,
except for Australia and Taiwan, we don't have class action laws.

"So if you, as an individual, feel you have been aggrieved in some
type of shareholder loss, generally you will find you need to fund
that entire legal process from your pocket.  Most people won't
have the financial resources to do that," he added.

In terms of Malaysia, Mr. Kelly said the exposure of companies to
risks is higher here, compared to some other Asian countries.

"Malaysia has a lot of companies focused on natural resources.
That involves a lot of cross-border exposure and additional
exposure relating to commodity price volatility," he added.

But how does D&O insurance coverage help improve good corporate
governance if the weight of the risk of being held accountable for
decisions by directors and officers is partly covered by
insurance?

"Specifically for unethical behavior, AIG and other D&O insurance
companies can't provide insurance if you have done something
wrong," he said.

"We would be jeopardizing our insurance license if we do so.  So,
if someone is criminally liable for some kind of conduct, the
insurance does not respond," he added.

He said the D&O insurance promotes transparency in an
organization, as the policy is in place to protect directors and
officers for the tough decisions they need to make in particular
circumstances.

With the safety net, a company is inclined to attract the best top
hats with the necessary skills and knowledge to steer a company to
greater profitability, he added.

"So, as a director or officer, I think you will have more
confidence in making those tough decisions, knowing there's an
insurance policy backing up those decisions," he said.


* More Companies Use Mandatory Arbitration, Carlton Fields Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Johnston, writing for Boston Globe, reports that in January
of 2014, a worker at a New Bedford seafood processing plant died
after becoming entangled in a shellfish-shucking machine.

As with many workplace fatalities, the death was followed by a
change in policy for the workers. But not the kind you might
expect.

The Rhode Island temporary agency that provides much of the
workforce for the shellfish company asked employees to sign
waivers agreeing they would not sue the plant if they were injured
on the job.

Workers are increasingly being required to sign documents like
this that waive or limit their right to take legal action under
certain circumstances, such as in discrimination or pay disputes,
labor lawyers and advocates say.

Some documents require them to submit instead to mandatory
arbitration that keeps employees' complaints out of court and
often precludes class-action lawsuits.

The number of companies using such agreements more than doubled
between 2012 and 2014, according to a recent survey by Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, a law firm that represents management on
employment issues.

These types of job-related waivers echo the surge in contracts
containing arbitration agreements that companies such as credit
card issuers and cellphone providers have used to prevent
consumers from suing them over billing disputes.  The US Supreme
Court has upheld such agreements several times in recent years,
shooting down a consumer class action against DirecTV earlier in
December.

Limiting workers to arbitration is problematic, the advocates
said, because that process keeps private the complaints that might
otherwise have been made public in the court system.  And barring
class-action lawsuits prevents workers from banding together over
violations that, individually, might not generate a big enough
award to make a suit worthwhile.

The Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association said companies
are also imposing other restrictions on workers, such as
shortening the time they have to file a claim or moving disputes
to other states -- where headquarters are located, for instance --
that may be more favorable to employers.

"It's a huge problem," said Lori Jodoin, president of the
Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association, an organization of
attorneys who represent employees.  "It gives [companies] a legal
loophole where they can make up their own rules."

Business groups say these agreements are intended to manage
complaints in a timely, cost-effective manner and are not about
shielding companies from lawsuits. Companies don't always
necessarily want to avoid court, added Matt Moschella --
mcmoschella@sherin.com -- a partner at Sherin and Lodgen in Boston
who represents employers.

"There's a deterrent effect when an employee sees another employee
bring a claim and lose," he said.

Nonetheless, advocates say more workplace claims of
discrimination, sexual harassment, and wage violations are being
handled privately, or not being reported at all, which they argue
means employers are held less accountable for treating workers
unfairly.

"The real concern for a lot of people is what we don't see, and
that is people who opt out of the process altogether because the
procedural hurdles appear or are in fact so insurmountable that
folks are deterred from exercising their rights," said
David Lopez, general counsel for the US Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, which enforces antidiscrimination laws.
"You're not really able to shine the sunshine on unlawful
practices."

In the past, such arrangements were aimed at executives, but now
they are spreading through the ranks.  Low-wage workers are
particularly vulnerable, lawyers and advocates say, because they
tend to be more in need of work and less inclined to object.

Even temporary workers are being targeted, such as those at the
seafood processing plant in New Bedford.  The plant is owned by
Sea Watch International of Maryland, but many of its line workers
are supplied and employed by Workforce Unlimited, a temp agency in
Johnston, R.I.

After a supervisor was killed there in 2013, the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration in June 2014 fined
Sea Watch and the temp agency for multiple safety violations,
noting that both companies shared responsibility for the safety of
the temp workers.

About a year after the death, Tomasa Ventura, who makes about $9
an hour disposing of shells, said she and her coworkers were asked
to sign waivers pledging not to sue Sea Watch if they are hurt on
the job.  Instead, they could seek workers' compensation funds
from Workforce Unlimited.  Ms. Ventura said she did not sign the
waiver, but many other workers there have, according to advocates
at a community workers center in New Bedford that has represented
the temp employees.

A Workforce Unlimited executive said in an interview that the
waiver was ordered by Sea Watch.  The company did not return
multiple calls seeking comment.

Advocates say workers' compensation payments often don't fully
cover their expenses. More to the point, they added, workers
should have the right to seek damages from the company overseeing
the work site if something goes wrong.

"You're creating an atmosphere where the people who have direct
control over me don't really have any great incentive to provide
for my safety," said Claudine Cloutier, a personal injury lawyer
at Keches Law Group in Taunton.

Workers in the on-demand economy are also being given limited
access to the court system.  Thousands of Uber drivers in
California who signed arbitration agreements were initially
excluded from a class-action lawsuit brought by Boston lawyer
Shannon Liss-Riordan, over their status as independent
contractors.  But a federal judge in San Francisco ruled in
December that the arbitration clause was not enforceable due to a
technicality in California law.

A bill in the Massachusetts Legislature, recently approved by the
Labor and Workforce Development committee, would make it illegal
for companies to require employees to sign arbitration clauses and
waive other legal rights before a dispute arises.

Associated Industries of Massachusetts opposes it, saying it could
lead to more "drawn-out, frivolous, and full-blown court cases."

"All it would benefit is those attorneys who want to maximize the
possibility of getting damages and attorneys' fees," said
Joseph Ambash, an lawyer at Fisher & Phillips in Boston who
represents employers.

But worker advocates say that resolving workers' grievances
quietly without being able to hold companies publicly accountable
is unjust.

"Because no one finds out about it," said Cambridge lawyer Tyler
Fox, "what's the incentive for it not to happen again?"


* President Set to Unleash New Wave of Regulations in 2016
----------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reports that President Obama
is preparing to unleash a wave of new regulations in 2016 as he
looks to shore up his legacy on public protection issues during
his final year in office.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug
Administration and the Department of Labor are all expected to
finalize major federal rules that critics say are long overdue.
The regulations include a final rule from the 2010 Dodd-Frank
financial reform law that will force companies to compare the
paychecks of their top executives with company performance, final
rules for cigars and electronic cigarettes proposed well over a
year ago, and a final regulation to protect constructions workers
from deadly silica dust.

Here's a look at the top regulations expected to come from the
administration in 2016.

Pay for performance

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is expected to
finalize its "pay for performance" rule that will require publicly
traded corporations to disclose how much their top executives are
paid and compare that to the companies' overall financial
performance.

The agency, which first proposed the rule in May, set an October
2016 deadline for the final rule in November.  The SEC contends it
will allow shareholders to make more informed decisions when
electing directors.

Arbitration

Regulatory experts are expecting the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB) to propose new rules in 2016 to protect consumers'
right to file or join a class-action lawsuit against a financial
company.

More and more companies are adding arbitration clauses to
contracts that prevent consumers from resolving a dispute through
the court system.  Instead, the language, which can often be found
in credit card and cellphone contracts, typically states that
disputes about a product can only be resolved by privately
appointed individuals or arbitrators.

Dodd-Frank directed the CFPB to do a study of arbitration
agreements and issue a report of its findings to Congress. After
the agency completed the report in March, it announced plans to
proceed with a rulemaking.

E-cigarettes

Industry and health groups may not agree on the rules, but both
are exasperated by the delay in first-ever regulations from the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cigars and electronic
cigarettes.

Health groups were frantic in the days leading up to the release
of the $1.1 trillion government spending deal earlier in December,
fearing that industry had successfully lobbied for a change that
would have exempted many e-cigarette and cigar products from the
restrictions.

Industry groups, however, came up empty-handed and will now wait
to see if attempts to lobby the White House for last-minute
changes paid off.  Those organizations are most concerned about a
provision in the proposed rule that would require all products
that hit store shelves after Feb. 15, 2007, to apply retroactively
for approval, a process that companies say would put them out of
business.

The FDA originally said the final rules would be out last summer
but changed the deadline to November.  The White House Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), which is reviewing the final rule,
was still meeting with industry and health groups.

Silica dust

The Department of Labor is in the process of finalizing a years-
in-the-making rule to protect workers from silica dust.

Peg Seminario, the AFL-CIO's safety and health director, said the
labor group has been awaiting the rule since 1997.  Exposure to
silica dust, common at construction worksites and shipyards, can
cause an irreversible lung disease known as silicosis.

The Labor Department sent the final rule to the OMB for final
review, a process that can take up to 90 days.

"I'm sure they will give it a thorough review and it'll be issued
sometime, we hope, in the first quarter of the year," Mr.
Seminario said.

Workplace injuries

The DOL is gearing up for a busy year, with plans to also finalize
a rule that will require employers to report and keep records of
workplace injuries and illnesses.  Mr. Seminario said the draft of
the final rule went to OMB in October. Labor groups are hoping to
see a final rule in the first quarter.

Overtime pay

Perhaps the most sweeping action to in the new year will be a
final rule to extend overtime pay to nearly 5 millions white-
collar workers.  The Labor Department proposed the rule in June as
a result of an executive order President Obama issued in May.
Under the rule, any worker earning up to $50,000 annually would be
eligible for overtime.

Department spokesman Jason Surbey said the agency is reviewing the
more than 270,000 comments it received.

"We're on track to issue a final rule by July 2016, with an
effective date sometime after that," he said.

Predatory lending

The CFPB is planning a February rollout of its proposed rules to
crack down on predatory payday lenders.

The agency released a framework for the rules in March that
considered forcing lenders to ensure a borrower's ability to repay
a loan, limiting short-term credits to 45 days or less and
establishing a 60-day "cooling-off" period for borrowers who take
out three loans in a row.

Payday lenders have already balked at the rules, calling them
unnecessary and damaging for consumers who have nowhere else to
turn for their short-term lending needs.

Food safety

The FDA is expected to issue final requirements in March for the
sanitary transportation of animal and human food.

The rules, which were are mandated by the Food Safety
Modernization Act of 2011, establish requirements for shippers,
carriers and receivers to use sanitary practices to ensure that
that food does not become contaminated when being transported.
The final rules were originally expected to be released in April
2015.

Financial advisers

The Labor Department is also expected to issue a final rule in
2016 that would require financial advisers to disclose more
information to their clients about the compensation they receive.
In October, under mounting pressure from business groups, Labor
Secretary Tom Perez said the department planned to make some
changes to the contentious regulations -- commonly called the
"fiduciary rule" -- but would not detail what those changes would
be.

Methane

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to finalize new
rules to limit methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.  The
rule would require drillers to use new technologies to track and
block both accidental and purposeful leaks when producing and
transmitting oil and gas.  The EPA has set a June deadline for the
release of this final rule.


* Shareholders Balk at Use of US-Style By Laws by Canadian Cos.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet McFarland, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
shareholder representatives are protesting the growing number of
Canadian companies that are passing U.S.-style bylaws to make
their home province the only jurisdiction where investors can sue
in certain types of cases.

At least 14 Canadian companies adopted exclusive forum bylaws in
2015 to ensure an array of lawsuits -- many involving shareholder
issues -- must be heard in courts in their home province, arguing
that other jurisdictions carry too much cost and risk.

Lawyer Dimitri Lascaris of Siskinds LLP, who specializes in
launching class-action lawsuits, said the bylaws unduly limit
shareholders' legal options about where to sue a company, and
anticipates they will end up being appealed.

"There will be a big fight over this -- it will go all the way up
to the Supreme Court of Canada," Mr. Lascaris said.

While the exclusive forum trend is new in Canada, hundreds of U.S.
companies have already adopted similar bylaws, often insisting
that cases be heard in Delaware, which is the leading U.S. venue
for business-law matters.

Yamana Gold Inc. is the only Canadian company that has so far put
its bylaw amendment to a shareholder vote, winning a narrow 52-
per-cent support for the change.  The board of Dundee Corp.
approved a bylaw change that will require a shareholder vote in
2016.

Other companies -- including Hydro One Inc., Shopify Inc. and
Shred-It International Inc. -- adopted the bylaws when they went
public in 2015, so they did not need a shareholder vote to approve
an amendment.

Exclusive forum bylaws cover various kinds of litigation,
including shareholder lawsuits known as oppression and derivative
claims.  But they also encompass varying other types of legal
action, depending on their wording.

Yamana's bylaw, for example, says Ontario will be the exclusive
forum for lawsuits "regarding a matter of the regulation of the
business and affairs of the corporation, including (without
limitation) the articles, bylaws, internal affairs, governance,
status, internal controls and procedures of the corporation."

Mr. Lascaris believes the broad wording means the bylaws could
cover an array of cases, including some types of class-action
lawsuits as well as cases that are filed by employees or
creditors.

He said there are many procedural and substantive legal
differences between provinces, so investors need flexibility about
where to file cases.  British Columbia, for example, requires
people who don't live in the province to expressly opt-in to be
covered by a class action, which creates a major disincentive for
lawyers to pursue a large class-action in B.C. because they can't
assess up-front how big the class will be, he said.

Mr. Lascaris said companies that feel vulnerable to certain types
of litigation will be most likely to adopt exclusive forum bylaws
if they know their home province's laws are favorable in that
area.

"This is really just an invitation for defendants to forum-shop,"
he said.  "They're constantly complaining about plaintiffs forum-
shopping, but this seems to me like they're talking out of both
sides of their mouth."

Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), which advises large
investors on how to vote their shares, has recommended its clients
vote against almost all exclusive forum bylaws in the United
States in recent years, and opposed the bylaw change at Yamana in
Canada.

John Roe, executive director of ISS Corporate Solutions, said
shareholders are being asked to trade off a valuable right without
being clearly told what they are gaining in return.  He said many
companies haven't been hit with lawsuits filed in other regions,
and do not adequately explain why they need the bylaws and what
potential legal-cost savings could result.

"There hasn't been demonstrated economic harm for a company due to
having litigation coming in from other jurisdictions," Mr. Roe
said.

Corporate lawyers say the bylaws are intended to provide an extra
layer of protection from lawsuits in other regions where legal
regimes are different and outcomes can be far more costly.  But
they argue that the bylaws will not have a major impact because
most cases they cover are already being fought in a company's home
province.

Lawyer Allan Coleman, a litigator who works for companies facing
lawsuits, said the bylaws could be most useful for companies
incorporated under federal business legislation, because they can
clarify which province's courts must be used for shareholder
litigation.

He said he doesn't believe the bylaws are intended to be used for
securities class-action cases.  Companies would be unlikely to get
approval to shift typical securities class-action cases from the
U.S. to Canada, he said, because U.S. courts have made it clear
they have jurisdiction when shares are sold to Americans.
However, he said the bylaws could help companies get approval to
move other types of U.S. lawsuits to Canadian court.

"It just adds incremental certainty," Mr. Coleman said. "It may be
more belt and suspenders than anything else.  But it is an
additional layer of argument you could have if you were sued in
the U.S., in addition to the argument you would traditionally
make."

Lawyer Ed Waitzer said he expects more exclusive forum bylaws to
be adopted, particularly by companies concerned about foreign
litigation.  He said many companies don't want to be the first to
implement a new practice and draw attention to themselves, but
they will follow once it is established.

"From my perspective, it's a good precaution to put in," he said.
"It may well be the choice of forum would end up being Canada
anyway, but why not stick it in your bylaws just to remove
uncertainty?"

However, Victor Li, vice-president at Kingsdale Shareholder
Services, said companies seeking shareholder approval for a new
bylaw will have to maneuver in a complex environment.

Proxy firms like ISS and Glass Lewis will likely oppose the
proposals, he said, while shareholders are divided in their views.
Many large institutional investors will support the bylaws because
they are unlikely to ever sue and don't want the company to waste
money on excessive litigation, but others will want to keep their
legal options open.

"It makes it harder for the company to manage shareholders because
not only do you have to deal with ISS and Glass Lewis, but you
have to deal with many large shareholders who tend to have their
own opinions, and sometimes the opinions are different," he said.
"So how do you manage that? It's really hard to satisfy everyone
now."



                            *********

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  * * *