CAR_Public/160107.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, January 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 4


                            Headlines


ACTAVIS PHARMA: Recalls ACT Levetiracetam Tablets
ADM MILLING: Recalls Flour Products Due to Spoilage
AGFA HEALTHCARE: Recalls IMPAX Products
AIRSTREAM: Recalls Multiple Travel Trailer Models
ALLY FINANCIAL: "Gilmore" Suit Goes to E.D. New York

ALPHA & OMEGA TRANSIT: "Marshall" Moved From N.D. to C.D. Ill.
ALVEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Recalls Atropine Injections
AMERICAN HONDA: "Vasquez" Suit Transferred to Ohio MDL
AMERICAN WATER: Court Granted in Part Class Certification Motion
AMGEN INC: $612-Mil. Fraud Settlement Finalized

ANAVEX LIFE: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
APPLE INC: iPhone 4s Owners File Class Action Over iOS 9 Update
ASHLEY MADISON: Data Breach Suits Consolidated in St. Louis Court
AUDI: CVT Settlement Offers Extended Warranty, Reimbursement
BOYD BILOXI: Court Refuses to Approve TCPA Class Action Settlement

CANADA: Soldier Urges Review of Military Home Equity Assistance
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Facing Securities Actions in California
CRABBY BILL'S LLC: "Handley" Moved from Circuit Court to MD Fla.
CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schaechter" Suit Claims
CRESCENT HILLS: Sued in N.Y. Over Breach of Construction Contract

DEAL SAVINGS: Faces "Yan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
DELTA AIR LINES: "Brodsky" Suit Moved From E.D. Wisconsin to D.C.
DOVER, DE: Sued Over Code of Ordinances Zone R8 Violation
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Huizar" Suit Over False DFS Advertisements
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schorr" Suit Claims

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Alston" Suit Moved to Maryland Dist. Court
FACEBOOK INC: IPO Class Actions Can Proceed, Judge Rules
FLINT, MI: DEQ Direct Steps Down Over Drinking Water Crisis
FLINT, MI: City Council Members Vote to Approve Sewage Settlement
FLOOR & DECOR: Faces Class Action Over Laminate Flooring

FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Court Ends Stun Gun Settlement Agreement
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Sued in N.J. Over Aluminum Sulfate-Price Fixing
GREAT LAKES: Securities Litigation Now Concluded
GREEN TREE SERVICING: "Smith" Moved From N.D. Ill. to D. Minn.
GROUPON INC: Illinois Action in Discovery

GROUPON INC: Settlement in Calif. Case Pending Final OK
H & H POOL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
ILLINOIS: Land Owner Sues Over Failure to Pay Condemned Property
INTEL CORP: Payouts Begin in $415MM No-Poach Settlement
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Pending

KANSAS: Attorneys Want to Add Plaintiff in Voter Registration Suit
KNOWLES CORP: Settlement Reached in Audience IPO-Related Suit
KNOWLES CORP: Deal Reached in Suit Over Audience Acquisition
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defending Kiken & Hallandale Securities Cases
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settlement Payment in RWA Case Released

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Gold Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: E.D. Va. Court Trims Claims in MDL 2627
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defending Sarah Steele Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defending Litigation Relating to Abrasion
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defending "Morris" Suit in Illinois

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Deal Reached in Johnson & Dan Cases
MALEN & ASSOCIATES: Judge Dismisses Debt Collection Class Action
MILLER ENERGY: Shareholders File Class Action
MONTGOMERY, NC: Handy Sanitary District Residents Mull Suit
NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Action Over GWB Lane Closures

NEW YORK, NY: Ex-NYPD Commissioner's Emails Deleted
OREGON: Judge Okays Deal to Expand Job Options to Disabled
PAPA MURPHY'S: Defending TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
RBS CITIZENS: Employees Sue Over Unethical Payment Practices
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: January 18 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

SKYWEST AIRLINES: Flight Attendants File Wage Class Action
SOLARWINDS INC: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Proposed Sale
SPOKEO INC: Awaits Supreme Court Decision on Class Action
SPOTIFY: Faces $150MM Class Action Over Music Royalties
SPOTIFY: Faces Another Class Action Over Royalty Payments

SUPERCOM LTD: February 8 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on Arizona Owner-Operator Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on 9th Cir. Owner-Operator Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend Burnell Case
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Rudsell Case Stayed Pending Burnell Action

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Peck Case Stayed Pending Burnell Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Mares Case Remains at Pleading Stage
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: McKinsty Case Removed to Federal Court
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on NCS Misclassification Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on Washington Overtime Class Action

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on Indiana FCRA Class Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on Utah Collective Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on Pre-employment Testing Case
TCP INTERNATIONAL: Jan. 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline
TOPPERS INT'L: Ex-Dancer Files Class Action Over FLSA Violations

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Court of Appeals Has Not Yet Issued Ruling
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS: "Awai" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
TRI-COUNTY TELEPHONE: Faces Fraud Class Action Over BHT Sale
UNDER ARMOUR: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Class Action
UNITED STATES: Veterans Fight for Right to Bring Class Actions

UNITED STATES: Veterans Get Support in Bid to Bring Class Actions
VALE: Investors File Securities Class Action in New York
VIZIO INC: Smart TV Owners File Class Action in Indiana
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Diesel Engines
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hernandez" Suit in M.D. Fla. Faces Dismissal

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Jaffe" Moved from Superior Court to ND Cal.
VTECH ELECTRONICS: Keller Rohrback Files Class Action
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: 3 Families Avert Eviction Amid Foreclosure Suit
WELLS FARGO BANK: "Torres" Suit Moved to C.D. California
WP GLIMCHER: Final Judgment Entered on Plaintiffs' Fee Bid

XENCOR INC: Hearing Held on Class Action Settlement
XOOM CORP: Amended Complaints Filed in Liu and Barrett Actions
XOOM CORP: Plaintiffs in Stockholder Suit to Dismiss Case
YONGYE INTERNATIONAL: March 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ZYNGA INC: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Jan. 28

ZYNGA INC: Briefing on Motion for Class Certification Complete

* Issues Raised on Arbitration Process in Consumer Suits
* Personal Injury Lawyers Target Hoverboard Manufacturers
* Shannon Liss-Riordan Targets Food Delivery Start-ups





                            *********


ACTAVIS PHARMA: Recalls ACT Levetiracetam Tablets
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 16, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55910

This lot may contain foreign tablets (ACT LEVETIRACETAM 250 mg
tablets).

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and retailers across Canada

Affected products: ACT LEVETIRACETAM
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02274191
Dosage form: Film-coated tablets
Strength: Levetiracetam 500 mg
Lot or serial number: K40683

Recalling Firm: Actavis Pharma Company
                6733 Mississauga Road, Unit 400
                Mississauga
                L5N 6J5
                Ontario
               CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Actavis Pharma Company
                                6733 Mississauga Road, Unit 400
                                Mississauga
                                L5N 6J5
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


ADM MILLING: Recalls Flour Products Due to Spoilage
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: ADM Milling Co.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail,
Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10173

  Brand name   Common       Size     Code(s) on   UPC
  ----------   name         ----     product      ---
               ------                ----------
  Five Roses   All Purpose  1 kg     5252715,     0 51500 41043 1
               Flour                 5253715,
               - White               5254715
  Five Roses   All Purpose  2.5 kg   5257715,     0 51500 41042 4
               Flour                 5258715
               - White
  Five Roses   All Purpose  10 kg    5251715,     0 51500 41040 0
               Flour                 5252715,
               - White               5253715,
                                     5254715,
                                     5255715,
                                     5257715,
                                     5258715
  Five Roses   Specialty    1 kg     5254715,     0 51500 42055 3
               Flour                 5255715
               - Whole
               Wheat
  ADM Milling  Manoma       21.22 t  Flour         None
               Flour                 shipped
              (White)                from
                                     September
                                     10 to 15,
                                     2015,
                                     inclusive
  ADM Milling  Regal A.A.   96.81 t  Flour         None
               Flour                 shipped
              (White)                from
                                     September
                                     10 to 15,
                                     2015,
                                     inclusive
ADM Milling   Strong       47.34 t  Flour         None
               Bakers                shipped
               Flour #4              from
               (White)               September
                                     10 to 15,
                                     2015,
                                     inclusive
ADM Milling   Cav 50/50    20.05 t  Flour         None
               No ADA                shipped
               Flour Bulk            from
               (White)               September
                                     10 to 15,
                                     2015,
                                     inclusive
ADM Milling   Whole Wheat  72.48 t  Flour         None
               Flour #2              shipped
               Bulk                  from
                                     September
                                     10 to 15,
                                     2015,
                                     inclusive
ADM Milling   Bakers       633.77 t Flour         None
               Patent #2             shipped
               Flour                 from
               (White)               September
                                     10 to 15,
                                     2015,
                                     inclusive
ADM Milling   Hirise       36.12 t  Flour         None
               Whole                 shipped
               Wheat                 from
               Flour 11%             September
                                     10 to 15,
                                     2015,
                                     inclusive
ADM Milling   Hirise       69.75 t  Flour         None
               No ADA                shipped
               Whole                 from
               Wheat                 September
               Flour 5               10 to 15,
               Bulk                  2015,
                                     inclusive
ADM Milling   Fine Whole   124.44 t Flour         None
               Wheat Flour           shipped
               14% Bulk              from
                                     September
                                     10 to 15,
                                      2015,
                                     inclusive
  ADM Milling  Cavalier #2   321 t   Flour         None
               No ADA                shipped
               Flour Bulk            from
              (White)                September
                                     10 to 15,
                                     2015,
                                     inclusive
  Toppers      White Flour   2 x     5257715       None
                            24.5 lb


AGFA HEALTHCARE: Recalls IMPAX Products
---------------------------------------
Starting date: November 20, 2015
Posting date: December 23, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56418

When using the extended addendum workflow in impax 6.5.x and above
with embedded reporting there is potential for loss of report text
when validating addendums. This occurs when all of the conditions
listed below happen at the same time:

The dictation or report text is not started, as intended, at the
initial cursor location, and the keyboard arrow keys, mouse or
SpeechMike input are used to move the cursor in the addendum
before dictating or typing report text, and the "REPORTSTATUS"
bookmark is used to automatically add the status to the addendum,
and with respect to Impax 6.5.4 and prior 6.5.x versions, the
"BEGINPROTECT" and "ENDPROTECT" bookmarks have not been used to
protect the "REPORTSTATUS" bookmark.

If all of the above conditions are met, and the cursor is placed
at the "REPORTSTATUS" bookmark location when starting to dictate
or type report text, Impax will overwrite the text entered at the
"REPORTSTATUS" bookmark location with the addendum status when the
addendum is validated. As a result, some of the text of the
addendum is not saved in the validated addendum.

Affected products:
A. IMPAX
Lot or serial number: IMPAX 6.5.x and above
Model or catalog number: 6.X

Manufacturer: AGFA Healthcare N.V.
              Septestraat 27
              Mortsel
              2640
              BELGIUM


AIRSTREAM: Recalls Multiple Travel Trailer Models
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 24
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015539TC
ID number: 2015539

Certain travel trailers outfitted with Sturgis propane regulators
may have been assembled with an improper crimp of the retaining
cap for the regulator diaphragm. The regulator sight glass could
degrade, potentially causing a crack, which could result in a slow
leak of propane gas. Propane gas in the presence of an ignition
source, could result in a fire and/or an explosion causing injury
and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the
propane regulator and associated hoses.

  Make           Model             Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----             ----------------------
  AIRSTREAM      CLASSIC           2016
  AIRSTREAM      LAND YACHT        2016
  AIRSTREAM      INTERNATIONAL     2016
  AIRSTREAM      FLYING CLOUD      2016
  AIRSTREAM      EDDIE BAUER       2016
  AIRSTREAM      SPORT             2016


ALLY FINANCIAL: "Gilmore" Suit Goes to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gilmore v. Ally Financial Inc. et
al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00290, was removed from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York (County of Kings), to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The Eastern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-06240-ILG-RER to
the proceeding.

The defendants violated provisions of the Credit and Consumer
Protection Act.

Ally Financial provides financial products and services primarily
to automotive dealers, and is based in Detroit, Michigan. Ally
Bank operates as a subsidiary of IB Finance Holding Company, LLC,
and is based in Midvale, Utah. The bank provides banking services
and offers various savings products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Benjamin, Esq.
          JEFFREY BENJAMIN, P.C.
          118-21 Queens Blvd, Suite 509
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-1111
          Facsimile: (718) 425-0692
          E-mail: jbenjamin@nyfraudlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Martin Hendele, Esq.
          Ross Eric Morrison, Esq.
          BUCKLEY SANDLER LLP, Esq.
          1133 Avenue Of The Americas, Suite 3100
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 600-2394
          Facsimile: (212) 600-2405
          E-mail: jhendele@buckleysandler.com
                  rmorrison@buckleysandler.com


ALPHA & OMEGA TRANSIT: "Marshall" Moved From N.D. to C.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Marshall et al v. Alpha & Omega
Transit Network Inc, Case No. 1:15-cv-09243, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois
(Urbana). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-
cv-02257-CSB-EIL to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose due to defendant's alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Act.

Alpha & Omega Transit Network provides medical transportation to
medical providers, medical delivery in health industry, and
worker's compensation of non-emergency transportation. The company
is based in Decatur, Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terrence Buehler
          TOUHY BUEHLER TOUHY & WILLIAMS
          161 N Clark St, Suite 2210
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-2899
          Facsimile: (312) 372-2891
          E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


ALVEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Recalls Atropine Injections
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 19, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55944

One lot of Atropine Injection BP 0.4 mg/mL (DIN 02094681) (L)
50187 marketed and sold by Alveda Pharmaceuticals Inc. is being
recalled, due to an incorrect barcode on the ampoule label. The
barcode reads (01)00837641000591 which is that same barcode as on
the ampoule label of Alveda Epinephrine Injection USP 1 mg/mL (DIN
02325225).

Wholesalers and sub-recall to physicians, hospitals and hospital
Pharmacists in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Saskatchewan.

Affected products: Atropine Injection BP 0.4MG/ML
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02094681
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: Atropine sulfate 0.4 mg/mL
Lot or serial number: 50187

Recalling Firm: Alveda Pharmaceutical Inc.
                Suite 1100, 21 St. Clair Avenue East,
                Toronto
                M4T 1L9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Alveda Pharmaceutical Inc.
                                Suite 1100, 21 St. Clair Avenue
                                East,
                                Toronto
                                M4T 1L9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


AMERICAN HONDA: "Vasquez" Suit Transferred to Ohio MDL
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vasquez, et al. v. American Honda
Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00442, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus).
The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02952-MHW-
EPD to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from the Defendant's alleged failure to disclose
and repair a known defect in 2015 Honda CR-V vehicle. The defect
causes the vehicle to excessively rattle and vibrate.

American Honda Motor Company is a California corporation with its
national headquarters in Torrance, California.  American Honda is
a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, and
is one of the largest distributors of automobiles in the United
States.

The Vasquez case is being consolidated with MDL 2661 In re:
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., CR-V Vibration Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation.  The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 9,
2015.  It consists of product liability actions arising out of
allegations that the 2015 Honda CR-V's new "Earth Dreams" engine
and continuously variable transmission are the likely cause of
excessive vibration.  In its October 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this MDL "share factual questions" and
that "centralization under Section 1407 in the Southern District
of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation."

Presiding Judges in the MDL are Hon. Michael H. Watson, United
States District Judge; and Hon. Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers,
United States Magistrate Judge.  The lead case is 2:15-md-02661-
MHW-EPD.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David P. Healy, Esq.
          DUDLEY, SELLERS & HEALY, PL
          3522 Thomasville Rd., Suite 301
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 222-5400
          Facsimile: (850) 222-7339
          E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel A. Spira, Esq.
          J. Simone Jones, Esq.
          Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7274
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: dspira@sidley.com
                  simone.jones@sidley.com
                  lkiser@sidley.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com

               - and -

          Robin Wechkin, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 262-7680
          E-mail: rwechkin@sidley.com


AMERICAN WATER: Court Granted in Part Class Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
court has granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' class
certification motion in the West Virginia Elk River Freedom
Industries Chemical Spill.

Four of the cases pending before the federal district court were
consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended
consolidated class action complaint for those cases ("Federal
action") was filed on December 9, 2014 by several plaintiffs who
allegedly suffered economic losses, loss of use of property and
tap water or other specified adverse consequences as a result of
the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported class of
all persons and businesses supplied with, using, or exposed to
water contaminated with crude 4-methylcyclohexane methanol
("MCHM") and provided by West Virginia-American Water Company
("WVAWC") in Logan, Clay, Lincoln, Roane, Jackson, Boone, Putnam,
and Kanawha Counties and the Culloden area of Cabell County, West
Virginia as of January 9, 2014. The amended consolidated complaint
names several individuals and corporate entities as defendants,
including American Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC"),
WVAWC and the Company. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for
alleged business or economic losses; unspecified damages or a
mechanism for recovery to address a variety of alleged costs, loss
of use of property, personal injury and other consequences
allegedly suffered by purported class members; punitive damages
and certain additional relief, including the establishment of a
medical monitoring program to protect the purported class members
from an alleged increased risk of contracting serious latent
disease.

On April 9, 2015, the court in the Federal action denied a motion
to dismiss all claims against the Company for lack of personal
jurisdiction. A separate motion to dismiss filed by AWWSC and
WVAWC (and joined by the Company) asserting various legal defenses
in the Federal action was resolved by the court on June 3, 2015.
The court dismissed three causes of action but denied the motion
to dismiss with respect to the remaining causes of actions and
allowed the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the various claims
for damages alleged in their amended consolidated complaint.

On July 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of a class defined to include persons who resided in
dwellings served by WVAWC's Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant
("KVTP") on January 9, 2014, persons who owned businesses served
by the KVTP on January 9, 2014, and hourly employees who worked
for such businesses. The plaintiffs sought a class-wide
determination of liability against the American Water Defendants,
among others, and of damages to the three groups of plaintiffs as
a result of the "Do Not Use" order issued after the Freedom
Industries spill.

A court-directed mediation was held at the end of September 2015
with the assistance of private mediators. Representatives of the
American Water Defendants, Eastman Chemical, the Federal action
plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs in the 53 state court cases removed
to Federal court, as well as insurance carriers for certain of the
defendants, participated in the mediation. No resolution was
reached and no further mediation discussions have been scheduled
to date.

On October 8, 2015, the court in the Federal action granted in
part and denied in part the plaintiffs' class certification
motion. The court certified a class addressing certain liability
elements of the negligence claims against Eastman Chemical and of
the negligence and breach of contract claims against the American
Water Defendants. However, the court granted the joint motion by
defendants to exclude certain expert testimony, disallowing the
testimony of plaintiffs' economic damages experts, and denied
class certification as to any damages, including punitive damages.
Thus, determination or quantification of damages, if any, would be
made in subsequent proceedings on an individual basis.


AMGEN INC: $612-Mil. Fraud Settlement Finalized
-----------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. on Dec. 30 disclosed that a $612 million
settlement between Amgen Inc. and the United States Government
entered into in December 2012 has finally been resolved with the
federal and state governments collectively receiving over $500
million and various whistleblowers who brought the fraud to the
Government's attention collectively receiving over $90 million.
On December 19, 2012, Amgen pled guilty to criminal conduct
arising out of this matter.

All of the monies from the settlement had been held in escrow
pending a challenge by two whistleblowers, namely Dr. Joseph
Piacentile and Kevin Kilcoyne.  Mr. Kilcoyne, a former Amgen
employee, filed later and joined Dr. Piacentile's suit.
Dr. Piacentile and Mr. Kilcoyne claimed that the Government
improperly excluded them from obtaining an appropriate share of
the recovery under the False Claims Act (FCA) despite their
significant roles in first bringing the information to the
Government's attention that exposed major parts of Amgen's fraud.
In all, there were eleven cases filed by whistleblowers against
Amgen and other parties between 2004 and 2011, alleging illegal
kickbacks and off-label marketing of a series of cancer drugs
including Neupogen, Epogen, Enbrel, Neulasta and Sensipar.
Although Dr. Piacentile's case was the second filed of the
Eleven -- and the first to bring several of the frauds settled in
this matter to the Government's attention -- the Government
nonetheless had refused to provide either Dr. Piacentile or
Mr. Kilcoyne a portion of the settlement as the law requires.

The whistleblowers recently came to an agreement amongst
themselves that finally resolved the case against Amgen, in part
by allocating the sum of $8 million dollars of the total relator
share to the Piacentile/Kilcoyne case.  That settlement also
includes language acknowledging the contribution of Dr. Piacentile
and Mr. Kilcoyne to the ultimate settlement: "Relators Piacentile
and Kilcoyne brought information to the United States about the
conduct of Amgen, which information, along with the information
and efforts of the other Relators, contributed to the Amgen
Settlement."  The agreement resolves all disputes relating to the
Amgen settlement.  Dr. Piacentile and Mr. Kilcoyne have an ongoing
case against U.S. Oncology arising out of some of the same
conduct.  "We are pleased that this case against Amgen has finally
been resolved and that the contributions of the information we
first brought to the Government's attention have been
acknowledged," said Dr. Piacentile.  He continued: "When global
settlements such as this occur, it is important that all
whistleblowers who are first to bring evidence forward be
acknowledged as the law requires.  We stood up for the right of
all whistleblowers to have their contributions recognized."

The case was handled on behalf of the United States by the United
States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
Dr. Piacentile was represented by Eric L. Cramer --
ecramer@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague, P.C. in Philadelphia.  Mr.
Kilcoyne was represented by David Stone --
DStone@stonemagnalaw.com -- and Robert Magnanini of Stone &
Magnanini LLP.


ANAVEX LIFE: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Anavex Life Sciences Corp. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
15-cv-10162, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Anavex securities between May 17, 2013 and
December 28, 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.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Anavex securities during
the Class Period, you have until February 29, 2016 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Anavex is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery and
development of drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease,
central nervous system diseases, and various cancers.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Anavex had used a paid stock
promoter to artificially inflate the Company's share price; and
(ii) as a result of the foregoing, Anavex's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On December 29, 2015, pre-market, Anavex disclosed that it had
received a subpoena from the SEC on December 22, 2015.  Anavex
stated, in part, that "[t]he Company believes the subpoena and
investigation relate to the recent unusual activity in the market
for the Company's shares."  On this news, Anavex stock fell $0.72,
or 10.24%, to close at $6.31 on December 29, 2015.

On December 30, 2015, pre-market, Seeking Alpha published a report
by Melissa Davis entitled "Anavex: A Regulatory Target Damaged By
Incriminating Evidence".  On this news, Anavex stock fell $0.78,
or 12.42%, to close at $5.50 on December 30, 2015.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


APPLE INC: iPhone 4s Owners File Class Action Over iOS 9 Update
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Smith, writing for BGR, reports that a new class action
lawsuit against Apple alleges that the iPhone maker crippled the
2011 iPhone 4s with the iOS 9 update, demanding more than $5
million in damages.

The new suit was filed with a New York district court on Dec. 29,
Apple Insider reports and suggests that Apple willingly advertised
iOS 9 as backwards compatible with the iPhone 4s even though it
knew about the potential issues the update will cause.

As a result, iPhone 4s owners who have upgraded to iOS 9 were
forced to either use an operating system that can't be downgraded
to iOS 8 or iOS 7 -- because of the way Apple's iOS update work --
or spend hundreds of dollars on new iPhones that would better
handle the operating system.  The lawsuit says that existing
iPhone 4s users are more likely to buy a new iPhone to replace the
dated phone, to keep using purchased apps and other content that
wouldn't be available on other platforms.

The lawsuit includes more than 100 members who complain of a poor
overall iPhone 4s experience following the iOS 9 update.  The
plaintiffs say that Apple knew about the potential performance
issues but still chose to go forward with marketing claims that
touted the superior performance iOS 9 would deliver, including
better security and battery life.

Since unveiling iOS 9 at WWDC 2015, Apple did promote the new
iPhone and iPad operating system as an even better alternative
than iOS 8, saying iOS 9 will offer a more optimized experience to
customers who still own older hardware, including iPhone 4s and
iPad 2.

However, tests that followed after iOS 9 was released showed that
iOS 9 performed worse than iOS 8 on older devices.

Apple's decision to keep supporting four-year-old hardware is a
weapon against Google.  The company often compares iOS adoption to
Android adoption when delivering stats about its latest mobile
operating system to the public.


ASHLEY MADISON: Data Breach Suits Consolidated in St. Louis Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gallimore, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the court
in which class action lawsuits against the dating website Ashley
Madison were consolidated is outside of the jurisdiction of a
federal circuit that has allowed plaintiffs who experienced no
injuries to pursue similar data breach claims.

Class action lawsuits over privacy issues raised by this summer's
cyberattack on Ashley Madison, which targets married individuals
seeking to have affairs, will be consolidated in St. Louis federal
court, which has its appeals heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.

Andrew Phillips, senior counsel at McGuireWoods, previously
speculated that the plaintiffs would push to have the case
centralized in the Seventh Circuit due to the precedent set by
Remijas v. Neiman Marcus.

"Remijas was the first federal appellate court to find that
consumer data breach victims had Article III standing to pursue a
class action even in the absence of unreimbursed fraud or identity
theft," Mr. Phillips told Legal Newsline.

"In Illinois district court, Remijas would be controlling
authority."

With the case situated outside the Seventh Circuit, the court will
not be bound to the Remijas precedent.

"This may make it more difficult for Plaintiffs to get over the
initial standing hurdle," Mr. Phillips said.

Five cases filed against Avid Life Media, the Canadian company
that owns Ashley Madison, will be coordinated before U.S. District
Judge John Ross of the Eastern District of Missouri.  Judge Ross
is experienced in handling multidistrict litigations and presided
over the Schnuck Markets, Inc. case, which also concerned customer
data security breach issues.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation cited several
reasons for its choice of the Eighth Circuit -- it was the site of
the first filed case, had the highest level of support from both
plaintiffs and defendants, was centrally located and had a judge
who was both willing and experienced.

In July, a group of hackers known as "The Impact Team" stole
sensitive consumer data that included not just email addresses and
names, but also information about sexual preferences and other
private matters.

It threatened to post the information of all 37 million users
online if the website was not permanently shut down.

When Avid Life Media refused to give in to the demands, the
hackers followed through with their threat. Site users began
filing lawsuits within days.  The first was filed in the Eastern
District of Missouri.

Five lawsuits -- one in Missouri, two in the Central District of
California, one in the Northern District of Alabama and one in the
Northern District of Texas -- will be consolidated in the Missouri
court.

There are also 13 related actions pending in eight districts.
These are known as tag-along actions, civil actions that involve
common questions of fact with existing multidistrict litigations.
Right now, these actions are not included in the initial transfer
order.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation may choose to
transfer these actions at a later date.  Only the plaintiff in the
potential tag-along action in the District of Maryland has raised
opposition to including their action as a tag-along with the
centralized proceedings.


AUDI: CVT Settlement Offers Extended Warranty, Reimbursement
------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Carpenter, writing for Gran Fondo Online, reports that the
AUDI CVT class action settlement offers:

Extended Warranty -- the settlement provides for a ten year,
100,000 mile warranty for the CVT.  The warranty will apply
without you needing to file anything.

Reimbursement -- if had fix or replace your transmission because
of this defect within 10 years or 100,000 miles of the original
purchase then you are eligible for reimbursement of these
expenses.


BOYD BILOXI: Court Refuses to Approve TCPA Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Daly, Esq. -- Michael.Daly@dbr.com -- and Marshall L.
Baker, Esq. -- Marshall.Baker@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, in an article for the National Law Review, reports that the
Southern District of Alabama recently denied a plaintiff's motion
for preliminary approval of a proposed classwide settlement of
TCPA claims.  The plaintiff claims that he and some 70,000 other
people received unlawful telemarketing calls promoting the
defendant's casino, resort, and spa.  Describing the plaintiff's
motion as a "somewhat pro forma" submission that did not "come
close to bearing his burden of persuading the Court to certify the
proposed settlement class," the court sent him back to the drawing
board "to research and effectively present the legal argument . .
. needed to support certification."

While the court agreed that the plaintiff had identified many
common questions -- for example whether calls were telemarketing
and whether the recipients had consented to them -- it was not
satisfied that there were any common answers as required by Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).  Specifically,
the court found that the plaintiff had failed to address whether
the experience of the 70,000 class members and the content of the
more than 400,000 calls "varied in any meaningful way."  The court
was similarly skeptical that the experience of the plaintiff (who
received a few calls on a mobile number) was typical of the 70,000
or so putative class members (who received calls on mobile and
residential numbers over two years and provided consent by joining
the defendant's rewards program in a multitude of ways).  And
after estimating that the average class member's claim was worth
between $3,000 and $9,000, the court disagreed that certifying a
class action was ipso facto superior to allowing consumers to
control the prosecution of their own claims on an individual
basis.  Finally, the court questioned whether there would be a
feasible way to identify and provide notice to class members such
that the action would be manageable as a class action.

The decision is notable not only because the court clearly took
its gatekeeper role seriously, but also because the court's
concerns echoed arguments that the defendant had volunteered in an
attempt to explain the reasonableness of the settlement:

Defendant was fully prepared to challenge class certification.
Had the matter proceeded forward, Defendant expected through
discovery to explore whether the elements of commonality and
typicality could be met by the Settlement Class as a result of the
differing methods by which each class member joined the rewards
program at Boyd Biloxi and its predecessor entity.  These
differences alone may have given ample reason to deny
certification.  In addition, Plaintiff would have been required to
demonstrate class members are identifiable, a difficult and
cumbersome task in a world where cell phone subscribers frequently
drop and exchange cellular telephone numbers.  Finally, Defendant
continues to believe that the class mechanism here may not
constitute the superior method to resolution of these legal issues
. . . In light of these considerations a settlement with a certain
outcome was a prudent and reasonable method of resolving this
dispute.

Def.'s Brief in Supp. of Preliminary Approval at 4-6 (D.E. #85).
The decision is an important reminder that a settlement class must
still be certified as such, that arguments in favor of the
reasonableness of a settlement should focus on the plaintiff's
ability to state a claim rather than the plaintiff's ability to
certify a class, and that the defendant should consider letting
the plaintiff carry that water by himself.


CANADA: Soldier Urges Review of Military Home Equity Assistance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cuthbertson, writing for CBC News, reports that a Canadian
soldier at CFB Halifax is urging Canada's new Treasury Board
president, Liberal MP Scott Brison, to take a fresh look at a
dispute involving dozens of military members who suffered steep
financial losses when forced to sell their homes.

The request comes as federal government lawyers are pushing ahead
with their efforts to have the courts toss out a proposed class-
action lawsuit launched on behalf of those members.

The members claim they are entitled to compensation under a
federal home-equity assistance program after they were posted to
new locations and sold their homes during local housing market
downturns.  Many lost tens of thousands of dollars.

Under the rules, a military member can receive 100 per cent
compensation if they sell in a so-called depressed market.  The
dispute revolves around what is considered a depressed market and
the lawsuit claims the Treasury Board, which ultimately controls
compensation, is refusing to pay.

But as the proposed class action continues to grind through the
courts, some of those involved are hoping the new Liberal
government -- and King-Hants MP Brison -- will change the course.

"I would hope that Mr. Brison would look at the evidence before
him," says Maj. Marcus Brauer, a father of five who lost $88,000
when forced to sell his home in Bon Accord, Alta., after the
military posted him to Halifax.  He was only compensated $15,000.

"Instead of making soldiers go into court to get their
entitlements, that they would follow the applicable policy in the
way that it was intended so that soldiers wouldn't have to suffer
hardship when they're posted every two to three years."

Maj. Brauer has waged his own court battle against the federal
government.  In 2015, a Federal Court judge ruled the Treasury
Board was unreasonable in denying Maj. Brauer compensation,
sending his case back to be considered a second time.  Justice
Richard Mosley even ordered the federal government pay
Maj. Brauer's legal costs.

Maj. Brauer, however, will be back in court again on Jan. 19 after
the Treasury Board once again rejected his claims for compensation
earlier in December.

Also making its way through the courts is a proposed class action
lawsuit, launched by Master Warrant Officer Neil Dodsworth, who
now serves at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick.

He lost $72,000 when forced to sell his home in Morinville, Alta.,
after he was posted from CFB Edmonton to CFB Kingston by the
Canadian Forces in 2009.

In October, a Federal Court judge turned down a bid by lawyers
with the federal Justice Department, who said the proposed class
action should be struck down because the policy is clear and there
were no false statements made to personnel.

But the federal government quietly filed for an appeal in November
and continues to seek an order to strike the lawsuit.

"The way this is going, I believe they are just trying to . . .
get more time," Mr. Dodsworth said in an interview from his home
in Oromocto, N.B.  "In my view they're just seeing if anyone bows
out of this case."

A spokesperson for the Treasury Board says it will not comment on
the case as it is before the courts.


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Facing Securities Actions in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Castlight Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on April 2, April
16, April 29, and May 4, 2015, purported securities class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of
its current and former directors, executive officers, significant
stockholders and underwriters associated with the Company's
initial public offering (IPO).

"The lawsuits, which were consolidated on July 22, 2015, were
brought by purported stockholders of our company seeking to
represent a class consisting of all those who purchased our stock
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with our IPO," the Company explained.  "A
consolidated complaint ("Complaint") was filed on July 23, 2015,
which purports to allege claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933."

"On September 22, 2015 we filed a Demurrer to the Complaint. After
briefing and argument, the Court overruled the demurrer as to
Plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 15 and has not yet issued
a ruling as to Plaintiff's claims under Section 12(a)(2). The
Complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. We believe
that the claims are without merit and intend to defend the action
vigorously."


CRABBY BILL'S LLC: "Handley" Moved from Circuit Court to MD Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Handley et al v. Crabby Bill's St.
Pete Beach, LLC et al, Case No. 15-6023-CI-20, was removed from
Circuit Court of the 6th Judicial Circuit for Pinellas County,
Florida Civil Division, to U.S. District Court for Middle District
of Florida (Tampa).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:15-cv-02544 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit was brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum
wage compensation, recovery of employee tips, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief under Florida
Constitution, Fair Labor Standards Act, and Florida Minimum Wage
Act.

Crabby Bill's in St. Pete Beach is a Florida limited liability
company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley Paul Rothman, Esq.
          WELDON & ROTHMAN, PL
          7935 Airport Pulling Rd N, Suite 205
          Naples, FL 34109
          Telephone: (239) 262-2141
          Facsimile: (239) 262-2342
          E-mail: brothman@weldonrothman.com

               - and -

          Michelle E. Nadeau, Esq.
          KWALL SHOWERS BARACK & CHILSON, P.A.
          133 N Fort Harrison Ave
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Telephone: (727) 441-4947
          Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
          E-mail: mnadeau@ksbclaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
          KWALL SHOWERS BARACK & CHILSON, P.A.
          133 N Fort Harrison Ave
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Telephone: (727) 441-4947
          Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
          E-mail: rbarack@ksbclaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Colleen M. Flynn, Esq.
          Joan Marie Vecchioli, Esq.
          JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP
          911 Chestnut St., PO Box 1368
          Clearwater, FL 33757
             Telephone: (727) 461-1818
             Facsimile: (727) 441-8617
             E-mail: ColleenF@jpfirm.com
                     joanv@jpfirm.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schaechter" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Schaechter, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Control, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-06758
(E.D.N.Y., November 24, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Credit Control, LLC operates a credit collection service company
in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRESCENT HILLS: Sued in N.Y. Over Breach of Construction Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terra Verde Associates, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Crescent Hills Inc., Subhadra Nori,
Dattatreyudu Nori, Shahab Mairzadeh a/k/a David Mairzadeh and
"John Doe No.1" Through "John Doe No. 5", Case No. 607626 (N.Y.
Super. Ct., November 23, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid labor,
materials and equipment it provided under a construction contract
and an unpaid balance, in the total amount of $30,075.00, plus
interest from May 9, 2015, due and owing to the Plaintiff from the
Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate property located at 1
Red Ground Road, Old Westbury, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Parshhueram T. Misir, Esq.
      FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP
      Terraverde Associates, Inc.
      333 Old Country Road, Suite 1010
      Uniondale, NY 11553
      Telephone: (516) 248-1700
      E-mail: info@forchellilaw.com


DEAL SAVINGS: Faces "Yan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jieying Yan v. Deal Savings, LLC, Junlin Gu, and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. BC602105 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 23,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Deal Savings, LLC is a small, fairly new organization in the
business services industry located in Pasadena, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul P. Cheng, Esq.
      Peter Tran, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PAUL P. CHENG
      301 N. Lake Ave., Suite 810
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (626) 356-8880
      Facsimile: (888) 213-8196
      E-mail: ppc@paulchenglaw.com
              ptran@.paulchenglaw.com


DELTA AIR LINES: "Brodsky" Suit Moved From E.D. Wisconsin to D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brodsky et al v. Delta Air Lines,
Inc. et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-00902, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
District of Columbia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01843-
CKK to the proceeding.

The action alleges that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain, or stabilize prices of airline tickets through a number
of mechanisms.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Delta operates
more than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.
American Airlines Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas.
American is the largest airline in the world, operating nearly
6,700 flights per day to 339 locations in 54 countries.  Southwest
Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of
business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than
3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six
additional countries.  United Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal places of business located in
Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to more destinations than
any other airline in the world, operating more than 5,300 flights
per day to 369 locations across six continents.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          Guri Ademi, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: dmorris@ademilaw.com
                  gademi@ademilaw.com
                  sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James P. Denvir, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
          5301 Wisconsin Ave, NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: jdenvir@bsfllp.com
                  rparker@omm.com
                  rsiegel@omm.com

               - and -

          Benjamin G. Bradshaw, Esq.
          Richard G. Parker, Esq.
          Robert A. Siegel, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          1625 I Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5163
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: bbradshaw@omm.com

               - and -

          Paul T. Denis, Esq.
          DECHERT, LLP
          1900 K Street NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 261-3430
          Facsimile: (202) 261-3333
          E-mail: paul.denis@dechert.com

               - and -

          Vincent C. Van Panhuys, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6698
          Facsimile: (202) 478-0913
          E-mail: vvanpanys@velaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          601 Lexington Ave., 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 277-4001
          E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com


DOVER, DE: Sued Over Code of Ordinances Zone R8 Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Heininger-Trader, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Betty J. Henry, Robert D. Henry,
Brenda Redlich, and City of Dover, Case No. 11741 (Del. Ch. Ct.,
November 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the City of Dover's Code of Ordinances Zone R8, one-family
residence, in permitting the placement and construction of the
mobile home on the lot located at 823 E. Loockerman Street, Dover,
Delaware in Edgehill Acres, an area not zoned for its placement.

City of Dover is an incorporated municipality of the State of
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric M. Andersen, Esq.
      ANDERSEN SLEATER LLC
      3513 Concord Pike, Ste. 3300
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 595-9102
      Facsimile: (302) 595-9321
      E-mail: eric@andersensleater.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Huizar" Suit Over False DFS Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Huizar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Draftkings, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. BC602279 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 24, 2015) seeks to
remedy the unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business practices of
the Defendants with respect to the marketing, promotion and
advertising of its daily fantasy sports website.

Draftkings, Inc. offers its daily fantasy sports product for sale
through its internet site throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
      David C. Leimbach, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818)991-8080
      Facsimile: (818)991-8081
      E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
              kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
              dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com

          - and -

      Sahag Majarian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schorr" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sruly Schorr, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-06755-SJ-SMG (E.D.N.Y., November 24, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC operates a credit counseling
service company 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


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Alston" Suit Moved to Maryland Dist. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alston v. Equifax Information
Services, LLC et al, Case No. CAL-15-25268, was removed from
the Circuit Court of Maryland for Prince George's County to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The
Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-03343-TDC
to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly reported
erroneous mortgage delinquency and closed credit-card, in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Consumer Protection
Laws of Maryland.

Equifax is a global service provider with US $2.3 billion in
annual revenue and 7,000+ employees in 14 countries and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  TransUnion is an American
company that provides credit information and information
management services to approximately 45,000 businesses and
approximately 500 million consumers worldwide in 33 countries, and
is based in Chicago, Illinois.  Wells Fargo Bank Northwest,
National Association provides commercial banking services such as
deposits accounts and loans. The Bank is based in Salt Lake City,
Utah.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Candace Alston
          PRO SE
          10012 Cedarhollow Lane
          Largo, MD 20774

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nathan Daniel Adler, Esq.
          NEUBERGER, QUINN, GIELEN, RUBIN & GIBBER, P.A.
          One South St 27th Fl
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 332-8516
          Facsimile: (410) 332-8517
          E-mail: nda@nqgrg.com

               - and -

          Sandy David Baron, Esq.
          SHULMAN ROGERS GANDAL PORDY & ECKER, P.A.
          12505 Park Potomac Ave, 6th Floor
          Potomac, MD 20854
          Telephone: (301) 230-5200
          Facsimile: (301) 230-2891
          E-mail: sbaron@shulmanrogers.com

               - and -

          Henry Mark Stichel, Esq.
          GOHN, HANKEY, STICHEL & BERLAGE, LLP
          201 N Charles St., Ste 2101
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 752-9300
          Facsimile: (410) 752-2519
          E-mail: hmstichel@ghsllp.com

               - and -

          Charles S Hirsch, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
          300 E Lombard St., 18th Fl
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 528-5600
          Facsimile: (410) 528-5650
          E-mail: hirsch@ballardspahr.com


FACEBOOK INC: IPO Class Actions Can Proceed, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
BBC news reports that two US class action lawsuits against
Facebook by shareholders alleging it hid growth concerns ahead of
its 2012 public listing can now go ahead.

A federal judge certified the legal proceedings, Reuters reports,
saying investors who claim they lost money could pursue their
claims as groups.

Facebook told the BBC that it was disappointed with the decision
and it has launched an appeal against it.

The firm's initial public offering (IPO) in May 2012 raised $16bn
(GBP10bn).

The investors say that by purchasing the firm's shares at inflated
prices they lost money.

That year, its shares began trading on May 18 in New York at $38
per share, but the price fell to almost half the amount of $17.55
on September 4.

The price stayed below the IPO price for more than a year, but
shares ultimately rebounded and closed up at $107.26 on the Nasdaq
index on Dec. 29.

District judge Robert Sweet gave the lawsuits class action
certification on 11 December, but the order was made public on
Dec. 29, Reuters reports.

Concerns over revenue

Investors claim that Facebook omitted information about revised
revenue projections and the impact that increased mobile usage, at
a time when there was little advertising on mobile devices, would
have on its revenues.

But Mr. Sweet said Facebook provided "an impressive amount of
evidence" to indicate that shareholders knew how mobile usage
would affect the firm's revenue.

However, he rejected the tech giant's argument that shareholders
should pursue their claims individually.

In a 55-page decision, Mr. Sweet said that given the extraordinary
size of the case, allowing two subclasses "in fact adds more
weight to the predominance of common questions and answers,
practically negating the individualized questions raised".

Facebook told the BBC that it believes the class certification is
"without merit".

The tech giant also said the decision "conflicts with well-settled
Supreme Court and Second Circuit law", and it has already filed an
appeal seen by the BBC.

"The suggestion that class members' knowledge might be inferred on
a class-wide basis flouts due process," the appeal said.


FLINT, MI: DEQ Direct Steps Down Over Drinking Water Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Egan, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that Gov. Rick
Snyder apologized to the City of Flint on Dec. 29 for the drinking
water crisis that has left children poisoned by lead and announced
that he accepted the resignation of Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality Director Dan Wyant.

Mr. Snyder said in a news release that there will be other
personnel changes at the DEQ and that the moves he announced are
among "initial steps" he is taking to assure the safety of Flint
residents, with more action to come.

"I want the Flint community to know how very sorry I am that this
has happened," Mr. Snyder said.  "And I want all Michigan citizens
to know that we will learn from this experience, because Flint is
not the only city that has an aging infrastructure."

The governor, who previously stood by his DEQ director amid the
controversy, said, "Dan Wyant has offered his resignation, and
I've determined that it's appropriate to accept it."

Before joining the Snyder administration as DEQ director,
Mr. Wyant was president and chief operating officer of the Edward
Lowe Foundation, which promotes entrepreneurship and helps
business owners grow their companies.  Before that, he served as
director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture under Govs.
John Engler and Jennifer Granholm.

Brad Wurfel, the DEQ public information officer who apologized
after criticizing a researcher's reports of rising lead levels in
the blood of Flint children as irresponsible, also resigned on
Dec. 29, a spokesman for Snyder confirmed.

The governor said he acted based on interim findings of the Flint
Water Advisory Task Force, which he appointed Oct. 21 to
investigate the crisis and is continuing its work.  He received a
letter on Dec. 29 that was highly critical of the DEQ.

The letter from the task force said the "primary responsibility"
for what happened in Flint lies with the DEQ; the agency "failed
in its responsibility" to ensure safe drinking water for Michigan
residents and "must be held accountable for that failure."  It was
signed by task force members Matt Davis, Chris Kolb, Larry
Reynolds, Eric Rothstein and Ken Sikkema.

The Free Press reported on Dec. 24 that records obtained by the
Michigan ACLU and Virginia Tech researcher Marc Edwards show that
elevated lead levels in Flint's drinking water would have spurred
action months sooner if the results of city testing that wrapped
up in June had not been revised by the DEQ to wrongly indicate the
water was safe to drink.

Auditor General Doug Ringler said in a letter released on Dec. 28
that it was appropriate for the DEQ to disqualify two samples with
high lead levels that did not meet the sampling criteria.  But the
records obtained by the ACLU and Edwards also show that a DEQ
official sent Flint an e-mail saying that samples as of late June
showed Flint's water had lead levels above the "action level" that
would require public notice and remedial action, and he hoped the
city could send the remaining required samples quickly and that
they would be below the action level for lead.

The records also suggest the DEQ was not as strict in
disqualifying samples with low lead levels that did not meet the
testing criteria as it was in disqualifying samples with high lead
readings.

'It's . . . not enough'

Flint, which was under the control of a state-appointed emergency
manager at the time of the cost-cutting move, switched its
drinking water source, starting in April 2014, from Lake Huron
water supplied by Detroit to the much more polluted and corrosive
water from the Flint River.

The state has acknowledged that it misinterpreted a federal rule
and failed to require Flint to add needed corrosion-control
chemicals that would have prevented lead from leaching into the
drinking water from pipes, connections and fixtures.

That change in the drinking-water source brought immediate
complaints from Flint residents about the taste, smell and
appearance of the water.  The lead tests of the water could have
spurred action in July, but it was not until October -- after
blood test results analyzed by Hurley Children's Hospital
pediatrician Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha showed elevated lead levels in
Flint children  -- that the DEQ admitted making a mistake by
failing to require the addition of corrosion-control chemicals to
the Flint River water.  The state also then provided funds to help
Flint reconnect to Lake Huron water supplied by Detroit.

Lead can cause irreversible brain damage in children and has also
been linked to behavioral problems.

Melissa Mays, a Flint resident who drank the contaminated water
along with her three boys, said she was more shocked by Snyder's
apology than by Mr. Wyant's resignation.  She welcomed the
announcements but said more DEQ officials need to be removed
because Flint residents can't trust those officials to make sure
their water is safe to drink today.

"This all should have happened a long time ago, and it's also not
enough," she said.

Mays questioned why Snyder has not endorsed Flint Mayor Karen
Weaver's declaration of a state of emergency in Flint, which she
said would help secure federal funding to help rectify problems.

Snyder spokesman Dave Murray said "no formal request has been made
to the state" to declare a state of emergency in Flint.

"We are committed to working with Mayor Weaver and Genesee County
leaders," and the emergency management division of the Michigan
State Police is working with city and county officials on
potential avenues for federal aid, Mr. Murray said.

The crisis has prompted a federal class-action and calls for an
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Goals: Openness, trust

Mr. Snyder said "changes in leadership and staff are not enough. I
understand there can be disagreements within the scientific
community.  That is why I have directed both the departments of
Environmental Quality and Health and Human Services to invite
every external scientist who has worked on this issue to be our
partners in helping us improve Flint water."

Mr. Snyder said he wants to "share research on water and blood-
lead level testing so we can arrive at accurate and mutually
supported conclusions.  Together, we should work to affirm that
we're using the very best testing protocols to ensure Flint
residents have safe drinking water and that we're taking steps to
protect their health over the short and long term."

The other personnel changes at DEQ referenced by Mr. Snyder, aside
from Mr. Wurfel's resignation, have not yet been made, Mr. Murray
said.

"I know many Flint citizens are angry and want more than an
apology," Mr. Snyder said.  "That's why I'm taking the actions to
ensure a culture of openness and trust.  We've already allocated
$10 million to test the water, distribute water filters, and help
in other ways.  I called Flint Mayor Karen Weaver, and we're going
to meet soon to discuss other ways the state can offer assistance.

"These are only initial steps -- we fully expect to take more
actions following the recommendations of our task force.  When it
comes to matters of health and quality of life, we're committed to
doing everything we can to protect the well-being of our
citizens."

The letter from the task force said a minimalist culture of
"technical compliance" had developed in the DEQ's Office of
Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance and "it led to MDEQ's
failure to recognize a number of indications that switching the
water source in Flint would -- and did -- compromise both water
safety and water quality."

The office "must adopt a posture that is driven not by this
minimalist technical compliance approach, but rather by one that
is founded on what needs to be done to assure drinking water
safety," the letter said.

The letter also said that both the tone and substance of DEQ
statements to the public during the crisis were "completely
unacceptable," marked by a "persistent tone of scorn and
derision."

Task force members met with Mr. Wyant, and while he agreed with
many of the task force's interim conclusions, "it was
disappointing to hear his weak defense of the (corrosion control)
decision," the letter said.

Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich, D-Flint, said the personnel
changes Snyder announced could be a sign of progress if they "lead
to a more aggressive response and resources to improve public
health."

"I still believe that legislative hearings will be required to get
all the answers and help shape the necessary policy changes, and
ensure this never happens again," Mr. Ananich said in a news
release.

"Dan Wyant gets to walk away from this crisis, but the people of
Flint do not," said Lonnie Scott, the group's executive director.
"There's a lot we don't know about this man-made catastrophe.
What did Gov. Snyder know and when did he know it? We need
complete transparency so that justice for the families of Flint
can be realized and the proper people can be held accountable."


FLINT, MI: City Council Members Vote to Approve Sewage Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Acosta, writing for Mlive, reports that Flint City Council
members voted on Dec. 30 on a resolution they hope will clear the
city of paying a potential $15.7 million from the city's general
fund.

Council members voted 6-0 to approve a fund transfer for the same
amount dating back to 2007 when the amount was transferred out of
water and sewer funds to aid in settling a lawsuit over sewage
overflows.

"The audit showed it was there, but there was no resolution from
the council to say take the money," said Kerry Nelson, Flint City
Council President and 3rd Ward Councilman.  "Anytime that happens,
a money transfer, there must be a resolution from the council."

2nd Ward Councilwoman Jacqueline Poplar, 9th Ward Councilman Scott
Kincaid and 7th Ward Councilwoman were absent from the special
meeting.

The vote came following a 45-minute closed session regarding the
class-action water lawsuit, of which Genesee Circuit Judge Archie
Hayman had previously ruled the city to pay back the amount.

"If you realize one thing, he was saying you guys have to pay that
back.  We would have to pay that back from the general fund. That
would have been devastating," said Mr. Nelson, adding the burden
would have ultimately fallen onto the taxpayers.

"That would have just been something we would not even want to go
there.  We are trying right now to get back to total local control
and that wouldn't be a way to do it," he said.

Mr. Nelson expects Judge Hayman to rule on Jan. 4, 2016, on if the
council's action fulfills a portion of an August emergency
injunction by Judge Hayman that included payback of the $15.7
million amount, as well as rolling back water rates by 35 percent.

Mr. Nelson said he's in 100 percent agreement with the rate
rollback, although he's not yet sure what that total amount would
be with the move.

"We need to roll it back like the judge said give the people of
this city some relief and that's what I'm looking for," he said.
"Hopefully after January 4 we shall see some relief coming."

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver made a brief appearance during the
meeting, but she did not address the resolution.  She spoke of the
incident action plan put together that's set to go before the
Genesee County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 4 for approval.

The plan was submitted to the Genesee County Office of Emergency
Management and Homeland Security on Dec. 29, 15 days after Weaver
declared a State of Emergency over elevated lead levels in the
city's water.

A ruling by Judge Hayman in December called for shutoff notices to
be sent out to residents who had not paid their water bills after
September, but Mr. Nelson said he's been in discussions with the
administration to ensure residents are given every opportunity to
pay off their amounts due.

He pledged not to support any water rate increase in 2016 and was
not aware of any to come with the completion of the Karegnondi
Water Authority pipeline, while calling for transparency from all
parties involved for the sake of the residents.

"We've got to come to the junction where we tell the people what
it is lay it out on table tell us from the start line," said Mr.
Nelson.  "I don't want to get to the close of the Karengondi and
say oh, I forget to tell you all there's a pay increase."


FLOOR & DECOR: Faces Class Action Over Laminate Flooring
--------------------------------------------------------
Robertson & Associates, LLP, filed the first class action lawsuit
in the country against Floor & Decor Outlets of America, Inc., for
allegedly selling Chinese-made laminate flooring which contained
excessive levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.  The lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Atlanta, Georgia on behalf
of residents in California, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas and Georgia,
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated consumers in
the country who purchased certain laminate flooring from Floor &
Decor over the past four (4) years.

Testing performed by certified and independent laboratories on
laminate flooring purchased by Plaintiffs revealed formaldehyde
gas emissions more than triple the legal limit established by
California Air Resources Board's ("CARB") regulations.  The
lawsuit alleges that Floor & Decor falsely advertised that its
Chinese-made laminate flooring sold across the country complied
with the CARB formaldehyde emission standards, when it did not.
The Plaintiffs also allege that Floor & Decor fraudulently
concealed these material facts from consumers who purchased
Chinese-made laminate flooring from the Defendant.

Formaldehyde gas is known to cause cancer and can also cause
chronic respiratory irritation, burning eyes, nose and throat
irritation, coughing, headaches, dizziness, and nausea.
Formaldehyde has also been linked to the exacerbation of asthma in
sensitive individuals.  People may be exposed to formaldehyde gas
without knowing they are being exposed or that they are at risk.
The health risks are significantly greater for susceptible persons
such as children, the elderly or those with asthma.

Floor & Decor presently has 58 retail stores in 17 states,
including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

If you or someone you know purchased Chinese-made laminate
flooring from Floor & Decor, you may have been exposed to
formaldehyde. If you would like free information about your legal
rights and remedies, call Alex "Trey" Robertson, IV, Esq. of
Robertson & Associates, LLP. at (818) 851-3850 or go to
www.arobertsonlaw.com

Co-counsel for this case include Kenneth Canfield, Esq., of
Atlanta, Georgia, Dan Bryson, Esq. of Raleigh, North Carolina and
Robert Ahdoot, Esq. of West Hollywood, CA.


FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Court Ends Stun Gun Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Price, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that more
than five years after Franklin County was sued in a class-action
lawsuit over inappropriate use of stun guns, a federal court has
agreed to end the settlement agreement in the case.

The U.S. Justice Department said the move, finalized on Dec. 28,
recognizes successful reforms by the Franklin County sheriff's
office that have improved training and policies, and dramatically
reduced the use of stun guns in county jails.

The U.S. District Court in Columbus had approved the settlement
deal between the sheriff's office, the Justice Department and
state disability-rights advocates in February 2011.

That agreement was reached after Disability Rights Ohio filed a
federal lawsuit in July 2010.  The organization accused the county
of violating inmates' constitutional rights by using stun guns
excessively and inappropriately, including on inmates with mental
and physical disabilities.

Although the county agreed to implement reforms, and also settled
with several former jail inmates, it did not admit wrongdoing by
deputies or supervisors.

Since the settlement, stun-gun use has dropped from about 70
incidents per year to about five, Disability Rights said.

"I am proud of our efforts in representing the rights of our
clients to be free from abuse and neglect across all settings,"
Michael Kirkman, the executive director of Disability Rights, said
in a news release.  "And I am pleased with the successful
resolution of this case achieved through the collaborative efforts
of all parties to comply with the settlement agreement."

Although the termination ends specific case-monitoring, he said
legal advocates will continue routine monitoring and will
investigate incidents of abuse or neglect.

The Justice Department joined the county and Disability Rights in
filing a motion on Dec. 24 to end the settlement, citing the
sheriff's sustained compliance.

The head of the Justice Department's civil-rights division,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, said in
a news release that justice officials are pleased with Franklin
County's progress.

"The accountability mechanisms implemented through this agreement
will ensure that the positive outcomes will be sustained long
after the agreement is terminated," she said.


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Sued in N.J. Over Aluminum Sulfate-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of New Ark, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-08261-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., November 24, 2015) arises from
the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and
conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition for the sale of
liquid aluminum sulfate to municipalities and pulp and paper
companies.

General Chemical Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a
manufacturer of chemical products, including liquid aluminum
sulfate with its principal place of business located at 155 Gordon
Baker Road, Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Isabel, Esq.
      Eric E. Tomaszewski, Esq.
      GOLUB ISABEL & CERVINO, P.C.
      160 Littleton Road, Suite 300
      Parsippany, NJ 07054
      Telephone: (973) 968-3377


GREAT LAKES: Securities Litigation Now Concluded
------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
securities litigation against the Company is now concluded.

On March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former
executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern
District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The
lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013,
primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition
segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company's
announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second
and third quarter 2012 financial statements. Two additional,
similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and Connors v. Great
Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02450,
were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on March 28, 2013,
and April 2, 2013, respectively. These three actions were
consolidated and recaptioned In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02115, on June
10, 2013.

The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on August
9, 2013, which the defendants moved to dismiss on October 8, 2013.
After briefing and oral argument by the parties, the court entered
an order on October 21, 2014 denying that motion to dismiss. The
parties agreed to a settlement, which was paid by insurance. The
court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 12, 2015, and
granted final approval on September 17, 2015. The securities
litigation is now concluded.


GREEN TREE SERVICING: "Smith" Moved From N.D. Ill. to D. Minn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Smith v. Green Tree Servicing LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-07158, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota (DMN). The Minnesota District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-03961-PAM-HB to the
proceeding.

Green Tree Servicing LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its national headquarters in Torrance, California. The
defendant manages home loan online, and reviews mortgage
modification services, insurance options, and resources for
homeowners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON
          350 North La Salle St., 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6377
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chetan G. Shetty, Esq.
          Thomas J. Cunningham, Esq.
          James M. Goodin, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 443-0700
          Facsimile: (312) 443-0336
          E-mail: cshetty@lockeloerd.com
            tunningham@lockelord.com
                  jmgoodin@lockelord.com


GROUPON INC: Illinois Action in Discovery
-----------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is
currently a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to which, on
October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed against the Company, certain of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters that participated in the initial
public offering of the Company's Class A common stock.

Originally filed in April 2012, the case is currently pending
before the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation. The
complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Allegations in the consolidated
amended complaint include that the Company and its officers and
directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by
issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 and by failing to
disclose information about the Company's financial controls in the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering of Class A common stock and in the Company's
subsequently-issued earnings release dated February 8, 2012.  The
lawsuit seeks monetary damages, reimbursement for fees and costs
incurred in connection with the actions, including attorneys'
fees, and various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief.

On June 29, 2015, the parties concluded fact discovery, including
the depositions of fact witnesses. On July 30, 2015, class notice
was mailed to all identifiable members of the certified class and
subclass. On September 1, 2015, plaintiff filed an agreed motion
to dismiss without prejudice all claims against the Underwriters
defendants, which the court granted on September 10, 2015.

The parties are currently engaged in expert discovery, which was
scheduled to close on December 21, 2015, and dispositive motions
are scheduled to be filed by January 29, 2016. The district court
has not yet scheduled a trial date. The parties have participated
in mediations and settlement discussions during the three months
ended September 30, 2015 and thereafter but have not yet reached
any agreement regarding resolution of the litigation. As a result
of these settlement discussions, the Company increased its
contingent liability for this matter by $37.5 million during the
three months ended September 30, 2015. This expense is classified
within "Selling, general and administrative expense" on the
condensed consolidated statements of operations.


GROUPON INC: Settlement in Calif. Case Pending Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that parties in a class
action in California are currently engaged in complying with the
process for the district court to consider granting final approval
of the settlement.

In 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a series of class
actions that came to be consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California. The consolidated actions
are referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The Company denies liability, but the parties agreed
to settle the litigation for $8.5 million before any determination
had been made on the merits or with respect to class
certification.

On December 18, 2012, the district court approved the settlement
over various objections to the settlement lodged by certain
individual class members. Thereafter, certain of the objectors
filed an appeal, and on February 19, 2015, the Court of Appeals
vacated the settlement and remanded the case for further
proceedings concerning the proposed settlement consistent with the
Court of Appeals' opinion.

On June 22, 2015, the Company terminated the settlement agreement
as is permitted under its terms. In July 2015, the parties reached
an agreement in principle regarding a new settlement involving a
combination of cash and Groupon credits, worth a total of $8.5
million.

On October 22, 2015, the district court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement and the parties are currently engaged
in complying with the process for the district court to consider
granting final approval of the settlement. The Company continues
to deny liability and if the settlement is not approved by the
court or is not consummated for any reason, will contest the case
vigorously.


H & H POOL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Ramirez v. H & H Pool Services, Inc., David Hawes, and Does
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15794224 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 20, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a swimming pool repair service company
located at 6398 Dougherty Rd # 1, Dublin, CA 94568.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Venardi (SBN 173140)
      Martin Zurada (SBN 218235)
      VENARDI ZURADA LLP
      700 Ygnacio Vallex Road, Suite 300
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 937-3900
      Facs1mile: (925) 937-3905


ILLINOIS: Land Owner Sues Over Failure to Pay Condemned Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
property owner believes the state has wrongfully used
Springfield's ongoing budget dispute to improperly withhold
payment on land the Illinois Department of Transportation seized
for work on Route 59 in DuPage County, so the land owner has filed
a class action to force Illinois to pay up to all others who have
allegedly been similarly wronged.

Naper Corner, successor entity to North Star Trust, filed suit
Dec. 28 in Cook County Circuit Court seeking payment for land IDOT
condemned and took through its special so-called "quick take"
powers.  The complaint said the state has not completed paying for
the land, and has made no attempt to pay since at least July 1,
the first day of the new fiscal year.

The Naperville company named as defendants the state, Gov. Bruce
Rauner, Comptroller Leslie Munger and IDOT.  The complaint noted
that, although Rauner and the Democrats who control the
Legislature remain at odds about the state's future, and as a
result have failed to reach a compromise on a budget halfway
through the fiscal year, Illinois "is sitting on at least $4
billion in cash among hundreds of accounts."

The complaint cited a Munger report showing, as of Dec. 16, "the
state also had access to cash receipts in its general funds of
$246,564,402.90."  But on the same day, Illinois "reportedly owed
more than $4.7 billion, not including an estimated $3 billion owed
by other state agencies."

Yet the state has continued "to take private property knowing they
cannot and will not pay contemporaneous just compensation because
no appropriations have been made," Naper Corner's complaint
alleged, making such land acquisition unconstitutional.

Naper Corner's complaint invoked foundational legal documents,
such as the Magna Carta's prohibition on any "constable or other
bailiff" from taking "corn or other provisions from any one
without immediately tendering money therefor."

In this case, Naper Corner said IDOT used its "quick-take" powers,
which expand the state's eminent domain rules to let the
government "obtain title to property shortly after filing a
condemnation case by paying the approximate value of the property
to be taken and any resulting damages."  In most cases, this power
can be used to shorten the timeframe needed to complete land
acquisition for roads and other public infrastructure projects,
preventing, for instance, one recalcitrant landowner from holding
up needed highway work amid a years-long court fight over the
actual value of land.

After the land has been seized and the landowner issued a
preliminary payment, the two sides can reach a more formal
determination of the actual value of the land acquired, a figured
dubbed "final just compensation."  The property owner is then
entitled to the difference, plus interest from the date IDOT took
possession.

The complaint also cited the American Revolutionary War, noting
early Americans "struggled with appropriations of their personal
property."  But, Naper Corner noted, "the only war currently
occurring in the state of Illinois is between politicians (yet)
the state has reverted to 'the arbitrary and oppressive mode of
obtaining (land) by impressments . . .  without any compensation
whatever.'"

IDOT used "quick-take" to get land from Naper Corner and other
landowners in August 2012 for the three-mile Route 59 expansion
from Ferry Road to Aurora Avenue in Naperville.  After Naper
Corner balked at the initial offer of $135,000, IDOT took the land
in question -- a parcel at the south end of the project, where
Route 59 meets Aurora Avenue -- in July 2013 for "preliminary just
compensation" of $211,504.

In March 2015, the parties settled a lawsuit over the transaction
for $250,000, which left the state owing $38,496.  The state has
not paid.  Naper Corner said the process can take up to six
months, and that it expected payment no later than August.

Naper Corner asked the court to certify a class of plaintiffs,
believing a large number of other landowners have similarly not
been paid for land taken under quick take rules.  The complaint
detailed how the state's failure to pay violated both the federal
and state constitutions.  For its alleged injuries, Naper Corner
demanded compensatory damages, interest and legal fees.

Naper Corner is represented by Elizabeth A. Fehan --
beth@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Chicago, and
Steve W. Berman, of the firm's Seattle office.


INTEL CORP: Payouts Begin in $415MM No-Poach Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Glover, writing for Sacramento Bee, reports that employees at
Intel's campus in Folsom began receiving checks for thousands of
dollars as part of a $415 million settlement of a lawsuit
involving some of the tech industry's biggest players.

An attorney who represented plaintiffs in the 2011 class-action
lawsuit against California companies Intel, Apple, Google, Adobe,
Pixar, Lucasfilm and Intuit confirmed that checks were being
distributed to plaintiffs who participated in the class action.
The total number in the class totaled more than 50,000, according
to Joseph Saveri of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm in San Francisco.

Mr. Saveri said he did not know how many Intel workers on the
Folsom campus had received checks, and he declined to offer
details on the range of payment amounts.  Roughly 6,000 people
work at the Folsom site.

"Frankly, we've been trying to protect the privacy of these
people," he said.

The checks are believed to range from a couple thousand dollars to
nearly $10,000.

An employee at Intel's Folsom campus said the checks arrived in
the mail and were a surprise.  The employee, who received a check
and asked to remain anonymous, did not know how many Folsom
colleagues also received checks.

"A lot of us were pleasantly surprised," the employee said. "We
didn't quite expect this."

Officials with Santa Clara-based Intel declined to comment.

After the settlement agreement became public last spring, Intel
denied any wrongdoing and said it agreed to a settlement to avoid
prolonged litigation.

Some tech industry analysts speculated that the companies named as
defendants wanted to avoid trial because it would have exposed in
open court details of the cutthroat nature of competition among
firms vying for high-tech talent.  Analysts said the ultra-
competitive pursuit of talent involved some of the industry's
biggest names, including the late Apple chief, Steve Jobs.

A class-action civil suit filed in 2011 by a former Lucasfilm
software engineer and others accused the high-tech companies of
forging "no-poaching" agreements from 2005 to 2009.  The suit
accused the companies of agreeing not to "cold call" workers
employed by rivals.

The suit contended that these agreements not only kept the
companies from hiring talent away from one another, it also helped
them limit what they paid employees.  It was followed by other
class-action lawsuits by tech industry workers who claimed they
had been adversely affected by the alleged agreements.

Mr. Saveri speculated that "because of reduced competition for
their services, compensation for skilled employees at Adobe,
Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar was reduced by
10 to 15 percent" during the period of alleged anti-poaching
practices.

The class actions followed a 2010 Department of Justice antitrust
probe into the practices by the high-tech companies.  The federal
action resulted in a settlement in which the companies agreed to
not poach employees. However, class-action defendants continue to
pursue their claims because they received no compensation under
that settlement.

Various settlements were finalized -- $20 million in settlements
with defendants Pixar, Lucasfilm and Intuit -- but the major
settlement of $415 million was announced in early 2015.  That
settlement resolved all outstanding claims against Intel, Adobe,
Apple and Google and was more than the $380 million threshold
spelled out by Judge Lucy Koh with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

In court documents, the class eligible to receive settlement funds
included salaried workers in the "technical, creative, and/or
research and development field" at Intel, Adobe, Apple and Google
within the 2005-09 time frame.  Those excluded from the class
included "retail employees, corporate officers, members of the
boards of directors and senior executives of all defendants,"
according to court documents.

Judge Koh issued a final judgment on the settlement on Sept. 2.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Intralinks Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing was
scheduled in November to approve the settlement reached in a
securities class action.

On December 5, 2011, the Company became aware of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "SDNY" or the "Court") against the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers
(the "Securities Class Action"). The initial complaint (the
"Wallace Complaint") alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements or omissions about the Company's business
prospects, financial condition and performance in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages for the purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
February 17, 2011 through November 10, 2011 (the "Allegation
Period").

On December 27, 2011, a second purported class action complaint,
which makes substantially the same claims as, and is related to,
the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY against the Company
and certain of its current and former executive officers seeking
similar unspecified compensatory damages for the Allegation
Period.

On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff,
and also appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action
("Consolidated Class Action").  On June 15, 2012, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint ("Consolidated Class Action
Complaint") that, in addition to the original allegations made in
the Wallace Complaint, alleges that the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters in
IntraLinks' April 6, 2011 stock offering issued a registration
statement and prospectus in connection with the offering that
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material
information required to be stated therein in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The defendants filed motions
to dismiss the action on July 31, 2012.

On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims
based on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise
denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28, 2013,
defendants filed their answers to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification. On September 30, 2014, the Court issued an opinion
certifying a class of all persons who purchased IntraLinks stock
between February 17, 2011 and November 11, 2011 and a subclass of
persons who purchased IntraLinks stock pursuant or traceable to
the Company's April 6, 2011 offering.

On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal
the September 30, 2014 opinion granting plaintiff's motion for
class certification. On December 30, 2014, the Second Circuit
denied defendants' petition.

On March 12, 2015, the Court suspended the remaining deadlines in
the current scheduling order pending mediation. On July 30, 2015,
the Company and the other defendants entered into a stipulation
and agreement of settlement ("Settlement"), which was filed with
the Court on July 31, 2015. The Settlement provides for the
resolution of all of the pending claims in the Securities Class
Action, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or
liability by the Company or the other defendants.

The Company and the other defendants continue to maintain that
they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged in the
Securities Class Action. The Company and the other defendants
agreed to the Settlement to avoid further expense, inconvenience,
and the distraction and inherent risks of burdensome and
protracted litigation. Pursuant to the Settlement, the defendants
agreed to pay $14.0 million (the "Settlement Amount") for a full
and complete release of all claims that were or could have been
asserted against the Company or the other defendants in the
Securities Class Action.

On July 31, 2015, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement and setting a date of November 12, 2015
for the final approval hearing. The Settlement is subject to final
approval by the Court and certain other conditions. The full
Settlement Amount was paid for and covered by the Company's
insurers pursuant to the applicable insurance policies.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company's insurers had funded $13.9
million into the escrow account and as such, the Company had a
liability of $0.1 million, which was included within "Accrued
expenses and other liabilities" and a receivable of $0.1 million,
which was included within "Other current assets" on the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2015. As of October
30, 2015, the Company's insurers had fully funded the Settlement
Amount into the escrow account.


KANSAS: Attorneys Want to Add Plaintiff in Voter Registration Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys in a federal lawsuit
challenging Kansas' proof of citizenship voting law want to add
another plaintiff as part of their bid to make it a class action
case.

The lawsuit, originally filed by Lawrence attorney and former
state Rep. Paul Davis on behalf of two Lawrence residents,
challenges the constitutionality of the 2013 Kansas law requiring
new voters to document their U.S. citizenship when registering.

The lawsuit also seeks an injunction to prevent the state from
enforcing a regulation that requires county election officers to
cancel all incomplete applications after 90 days, The Lawrence
Journal-World reported.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their
complaint, adding a 20-year-old Kansas University student, Parker
Bednasek, as a plaintiff.  If approved, he would serve as a
representative of all members of the class of people whose voter
registrations are being blocked for failure to show valid proof of
U.S. citizenship.

Will Lawrence, one of the local attorneys involved in the case,
said Mr. Bednasek was born in Oklahoma and grew up in Texas before
moving to Douglas County to attend the University of Kansas.
Lawrence said Mr. Bednasek canceled his Texas voter registration,
then tried to register to vote in Douglas County on Dec. 3 but was
told his application would be placed "in suspense" for failure to
show valid proof that he is a U.S. citizen.

The effort to certify the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit is
aimed at preventing Mr. Kobach's office from fending off
challenges to the law by approving the registrations of anyone who
files a lawsuit, according to attorneys in the case.

A spokesman in the office of Secretary of State Kris Kobach said
their attorneys will seek an extension to respond to the motion to
add Mr. Bednasek as a plaintiff.  He would not say if Mr. Kobach
intends to challenge the attempt to certify the lawsuit as a class
action.


KNOWLES CORP: Settlement Reached in Audience IPO-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Knowles Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a settlement has
been reached in the Audience IPO-Related Litigation.

On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
for Santa Clara County against Audience, Inc., the members of its
board of directors, two of its executive officers and the
underwriters of Audience's initial public offering ("IPO"). An
amended complaint was filed on February 25, 2013, which purported
to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Audience's
common stock issued in or traceable to the IPO.

On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors of
Audience and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice.
The amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and
contains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 1, 2013, defendants responded to the amended complaint by
filing a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the
grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The
court overruled that demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed
a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on other
grounds. The court denied the demurrer on September 4, 2013.

On January 16, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
certify a class. A trial has been scheduled for January 25, 2016.

On July 23, 2015, an agreement in principle to settle the action
was reached. In exchange for broad releases from the Plaintiffs,
the settlement provides for the Plaintiffs to receive a cash
payment of $6.0 million (the "Settlement Amount"). The Settlement
Amount will be paid entirely by Audience's insurance carriers.
None of the individual defendants, Audience or Knowles admitted
any wrongdoing in conjunction with the settlement and none of them
is responsible for payment of any portion of the Settlement
Amount.

The settlement is subject to approval by the court and members of
the class may opt out of, or object to, the settlement. If the
court approves the settlement, Audience's insurance carriers will
pay the Settlement Amount to the class. There can be no assurance
that the court will approve the settlement and class members may
opt out of the settlement and file individual actions.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company has accrued $6.0 million of
legal reserves with a corresponding accounts receivable amount of
$6.0 million on Knowles Consolidated Balance Sheet.


KNOWLES CORP: Deal Reached in Suit Over Audience Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Knowles Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a settlement has
been reached in the Audience Acquisition-Related Litigation

Between May 15 and May 29, 2015, five substantially similar class
action lawsuits challenging the proposed acquisition of Audience,
Inc. were filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara
County, against the members of Audience's board of directors and
the Company, among others. The lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated into a single action. The complaints allege that the
members of Audience's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Audience shareholders in connection with the proposed
acquisition and that the Company aided and abetted these alleged
violations. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the acquisition, as well
as, among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees
and costs.

In June 2015, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle
providing for the settlement of the litigation on the terms and
conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU").
Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, without agreeing that any of the
claims in the litigation have merit or that any supplemental
disclosure was required under any applicable statute, rule,
regulation or law, Audience agreed to make certain supplemental
and amended disclosures in its statement in support of the
acquisition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
MOU further provides that, following the successful completion of
confirmatory discovery, among other things: (a) the parties to the
MOU will enter into a definitive stipulation of settlement (the
"Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to the court for
review and approval; (b) the Stipulation will provide for
dismissal of the litigation; (c) the Stipulation will include a
general release of defendants to the litigation and certain other
persons or entities acting for or on behalf of any of them and
each of them of claims relating to the transaction; and (d) the
proposed settlement is conditioned on final approval by the court
after notice to Audience shareholders.

The parties completed the confirmatory discovery during the
quarter and are now proceeding to finalize the Stipulation. There
can be no assurance that the settlement will be finalized or that
the court will approve the settlement.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company has accrued $0.5 million of
legal reserves on Knowles Consolidated Balance Sheet.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defending Kiken & Hallandale Securities Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. continues to defend the
consolidated Kiken and Hallandale securities lawsuits, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a
securities class action lawsuit (the "Kiken Lawsuit"), which was
subsequently amended, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its founder,
former Chief Executive Officer and President, former Chief
Financial Officer and former Chief Merchandising Officer
(collectively, the "Kiken Defendants"). On or about September 17,
2014, the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and
Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust ("Hallandale") filed a
securities class action lawsuit (the "Hallandale Lawsuit") in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and
President and its former Chief Financial Officer (collectively,
the "Hallandale Defendants," and with the Kiken Defendants, the
"Defendants").

On March 23, 2015, the court consolidated the Kiken Lawsuit with
the Hallandale Lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel
for the consolidated action, and captioned the consolidated action
as In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 22, 2015.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Defendants
made material false and/or misleading statements that caused
losses to investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions
related to their compliance with the federal Lacey Act, the
chemical content of certain of their wood products, and their
supply chain and inventory position. The lead plaintiffs do not
quantify any alleged damages in their consolidated amended
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek
to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the
putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint but the court has not yet ruled on the motions.
Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the
case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other
things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company
cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that
may result from this action.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settlement Payment in RWA Case Released
-----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement payment in the Richard Wade Architects, P.C. class
action has been released to class counsel, Lumber Liquidators
Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On or about March 4, 2014, Richard Wade Architects, P.C. ("RWA")
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "RWA Lawsuit"), which was
subsequently amended, alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and the common law by sending an unsolicited facsimile
advertisement to RWA and a proposed class. RWA sought recourse on
its own behalf as well as other similarly situated parties who are
members of the proposed class that received unsolicited facsimile
advertisements from the Company. The TCPA provides for recovery of
actual damages or five hundred dollars for each violation,
whichever is greater. If it is determined that a defendant acted
willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA, the amount of the
award may be increased by up to three times the amount provided
above. Although the Company believed it had valid defenses to the
claims asserted, it entered into a settlement of the claims in the
RWA Lawsuit.

On September 3, 2015, the Court entered an order granting final
approval to the settlement and certifying a settlement class.
Under the settlement agreement, the Company paid a total of $300
including the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, class notice and
administration costs, a sum to RWA and cash payments to members of
the settlement class who file valid claims. The settlement amount
was accrued in 2014 and was paid into an escrow fund on August 18,
2015. The settlement payment was released to class counsel on
October 16, 2015 after the final approval order became a final and
non-appealable order.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Gold Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing has been held on the motion to dismiss the Gold class
action and the court took the motion under submission, Lumber
Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star
bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that the Company sells is
defective. Gold filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2015,
which added three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold,
"Gold Plaintiffs"). Gold Plaintiffs allege that the Company has
engaged in unfair business practices and unfair competition by
falsely representing the quality and characteristics of the Bamboo
Product and by concealing the Bamboo Product's defective nature.
Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification of five separate classes:
(i) individuals in the United States who own homes or other
structures where the Bamboo Product has been installed or where
the Bamboo Product has been removed and replaced; (ii) individuals
who are California residents and purchased the Bamboo Product for
personal, family, or household use or who paid to replace the
Bamboo Product; and (iii) the same description but for residents
in New York, Illinois and West Virginia. Gold Plaintiffs did not
quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition
to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold Plaintiffs seek (i) a
declaration that the Company is financially responsible for
notifying all purported class members, (ii) injunctive relief
requiring the Company to replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo
Product installed in structures owned by the purported class
members, and (iii) a declaration that the Company must disgorge,
for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of its
profits received from the sale of the defective Bamboo Product
and/or to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the
purported class members.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint and the motion
is fully briefed. A hearing was held on the motion and the court
took the motion under submission.

The Company disputes the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation,
the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that
must be met for, among other things, class certification and
success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

The case is, DANA GOLD, TAMMY EMERY, EDWIN MENDEZ and CHRISTOPHER
MASSARO on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-
05373-THE (N.D. Cal.).

Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Michael F. Ram, Susan Brown, Matt Malone,
RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP, San Francisco, California,
Beth E. Terrell, Mary B. Reiten, TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE
PLLC, Seatle, Washington, Charles J. LaDuca, Brendan S. Thompson,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Bethesda, MD, Jordan L. Chaikin,
Parker Waichman LLP, Bonita Springs, Florida, Michael McShane,
Audet & Partners, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Erica C. Mirabella,
Boston, MA, Robert Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal & Nauen,
Minneapolis, MN, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

WILLIAM L. STERN, WILLIAM F. TARANTINO, LISA A. WONGCHENKO,
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, San Francisco, California, Counsel for
Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: E.D. Va. Court Trims Claims in MDL 2627
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Anthony J. Trenga of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on Dec. 11 issued Pre-Trial Order #8
on a motion to dismiss the First Amended Representative Class
Action Complaint (FARC) and to strike plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief in the case, IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-
MANUFACTURED FLOORING PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 1:15md2627 (AJT/TRJ)(E.D.
Va.).

Judge Trenga said the motion is:

     -- granted as to the claims for negligent misrepresentation
        filed in Count XI on behalf of plaintiffs other than
        plaintiffs Ryan and Kristin Brandt;

     -- deferred as to the class action allegations; and

     -- otherwise denied.

Judge Trenga and Hon. T. Rawles Jones preside over the MDL.

A copy of the Pre-Trial Order #8 is available at
http://is.gd/SJAku5

Lumber Liquidators filed the motion to dismiss and answered the
FARC. The Company also filed a motion to strike nationwide class
allegations and a motion to strike all claims of personal injury
made in class action complaints.

Oral argument on the Company's motion to dismiss and motion to
strike was scheduled to be heard on December 1, 2015.

Information about the case was disclosed in Lumber Liquidators'
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.  According to the SEC report, beginning on or about March 3,
2015, numerous purported class action cases were filed in various
U.S. federal district courts and state courts involving claims of
excessive formaldehyde emissions from Lumber Liquidators Holdings,
Inc.'s flooring products (collectively, the "Products Liability
Cases"). The plaintiffs in these various actions sought recovery
under a variety of theories, which although not identical are
generally similar, including negligence, breach of warranty, state
consumer protection act violations, state unfair competition act
violations, state deceptive trade practices act violations, false
advertising, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation,
failure to warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The
purported classes consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers
or state consumers that purchased the subject products in certain
time periods. The plaintiffs also sought various forms of
declaratory and injunctive relief and various damages, including
restitution, actual, compensatory, consequential, and, in certain
cases, punitive damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in
connection with the alleged claims, and orders certifying the
actions as class actions. Plaintiffs had not quantified damages
sought from the Company in these class actions. However, in one
proceeding, the plaintiff sent a demand letter requesting $12,000
for his individual claim.

On June 12, 2015, United States Judicial Panel on Multi District
Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order transferring and
consolidating 10 of the related federal class actions to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(the "Virginia Court"):

   Central District of California

        TYRRELL, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC.,
        C.A. No. 2:15-01615

        HURD, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No.
        5:15-00424

   Northern District of California

        BALERO, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No.
        3:15-01005

        CONTE, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL.,
        C.A. No. 3:15-01012

        EZOVSKI, ET AL v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL.,
        C.A. No. 5:15-01074

   Northern District of Florida

        CONSTATINE v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL., C.A.
        No. 4:15-00130

   Southern District of Florida

        BADIAS v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
        1:15-20876

   Northern District of Illinois

        BLOOMFIELD v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL., C.A.
        No. 1:15-01956

   Eastern District of North Carolina

        CAIOLA v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
        5:15-00094

   Western District of Oklahoma

        MARTIN, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL.,
        C.A. No. 5:15-00233

In a series of subsequent conditional transfer orders, the MDL
Panel has transferred the other cases to the Virginia Court. The
Company continues to seek to have any newly filed cases
transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court and ultimately,
the Company expects all federal class actions involving
formaldehyde allegations, including any newly filed cases, to be
transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court. The
consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing,
Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
1:15md2627 (AJT/TRJ) (E.D. Va.).

Pursuant to court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative Class
Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11, 2015. The
complaint challenged the Company's labeling of its flooring
products and asserted claims under California, New York, Illinois,
Florida and Texas law for fraudulent concealment, violation of
consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation and
declaratory relief, as well as a claim for breach of implied
warranty under California law. Thereafter, on September 18, 2015,
plaintiffs filed the First Amended Representative Class Action
Complaint ("FARC") in which they added implied warranty claims
under New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law, as well as a
federal warranty claim.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defending Sarah Steele Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed on or about April 1, 2015, a
purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior
Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's
allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by concealment,
(v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent misrepresentation, and (vii)
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele
did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Steele seeks (i)
compensatory damages, (ii) punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, and (iii) statutory remedies related to the Company's
breach of various laws including the Sales of Goods Act, the
Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Consumer
Packaging and Labeling Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety
Act.

The Company disputes the plaintiff's claims and intends to defend
these matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of these cases and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification and success on
the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defending Litigation Relating to Abrasion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. continues to defend Litigation
Relating to Abrasion Claims, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On May 20, 2015, a purported class action titled Abad v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and two amended complaints
were subsequently filed. In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"),
the plaintiffs (collectively, the "Abrasion Plaintiffs") seek to
certify a national class composed of "All Persons in the United
States who purchased Defendant's Dream Home brand laminate
flooring products from Defendant for personal use in their homes,"
or, in the alternative, 32 statewide classes from California,
North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Connecticut,
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
York, West Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Maine, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and
Louisiana. The SAC alleges violations of each of these states'
consumer protections statutes and the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, as well as breach of implied warranty and fraudulent
concealment. The Abrasion Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged
damages in the SAC but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs,
seek an order certifying the action as a class action, an order
adopting the Abrasion Plaintiffs' class definitions and finding
that the Abrasion Plaintiffs are their proper representatives, an
order appointing their counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief
prohibiting the Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell
laminate flooring products with false abrasion class ratings,
restitution of all monies it received from the Abrasion Plaintiffs
and class members, damages (actual, compensatory, and
consequential) and punitive damages.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. A hearing on the
motion has been scheduled and briefing on the motion is ongoing.
The Company disputes the Abrasion Plaintiffs' claims and intends
to defend these matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of
litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may
result from these actions.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defending "Morris" Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
Kevin Morris ("Morris") filed on or about August 18, 2015, a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in St. Clair County, Illinois alleging
that the Casa de Colour Collection by Dura-Wood flooring (the
"Morris Product"), a brand of solid wood flooring sold by the
Company, is defective due to warping, cupping and buckling. Morris
alleges that the Company has engaged in unfair business practices
and unfair competition by falsely representing the quality and
characteristics of the Morris Product and by concealing the Morris
Product's defective nature. In particular, Morris's allegations
include (i) common law fraud, (ii) breach of implied warranty,
(iii) breach of express warranty, (iv) breach of contract, (v)
breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, (vi) violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(the "ICFA") and (vii) violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (the "UDTPA"). Morris did not quantify any alleged
damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and
costs, Morris seeks (i) certification of the purposed class, (ii)
injunctive relief requiring the Company to replace and/or repair
all Morris Products installed in structures owned by the purported
class, (iii) an award of compensatory, consequential and statutory
damages, pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest, (iv) a
declaration that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the
purported class, all or part of the Company's profits received
from the sale of the Morris Product and/or to make full
restitution to Morris and the purported class, (v) a judgment for
actual damages for injuries suffered by Morris and the purported
class as a result of the Company's violation of the ICFA and (vi)
a judgment awarding Morris and the purported class reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with the UDTPA. On
September 25, 2015, the Company removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The
Company disputes Morris's claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary
stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for,
among other things, class certification and success on the merits,
the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss that may result from this action.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Deal Reached in Johnson & Dan Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Dan Johnson v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 1:15-
cv-02632-AJT-TRJ and Kumar, et al., v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.,
et al., No. 1:15-cv-02760-AJT-TRJ -- both pending in the Eastern
District of Virginia -- and Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc.
stipulated on Jan. 4, 2016, that:

     (A) Plaintiffs will stand on their existing complaints.
         Defendant will respond either by answer or motion to
         dismiss within 20 days following entry of the Court's
         Order.

     (B) Plaintiffs will coordinate discovery with Lead Counsel
         in the case, IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-
         MANUFACTURED FLOORING PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES
         PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY  LITIGATION, MDL No.
         1:15md2627 (AJT/TRJ)(E.D. Va.), to the fullest extent
         possible, but may conduct independent discovery only
         where (a) Plaintiffs in the EDVA Cases and Defendant
         agree it is necessary for the timely preparation of
         the EDVA Cases claims, or (b) the Court so orders. All
         parties agree that depositions and other discovery taken
         in either the MDL Proceedings or the EDVA Cases may be
         fully used in the other.

     (C) Plaintiffs in the EDVA Cases and Defendant will observe
         the same discovery, disclosure, expert and briefing
         deadlines applicable to the MDL Proceedings.

Counsel for Plaintiff in Johnson:

          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          Joshua Gunnell House | Suite 4
          4023 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Tel: (602) 776-5903
          Fax: (602) 274-1199

               - and -

          Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
          Lisa M. Port, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 963-0600
          Fax: (215) 963-0838

               - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          One American Plaza
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: (619) 230-0800
          Fax: (619) 230-1874

Counsel for Plaintiff in Kumar:

          Dennis C. Reich, Esq.
          REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP
          4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77027
          Tel: (713) 622-7271
          Fax: (713) 623-8724

Co-Lead Counsel for Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc.:

          Diane P. Flannery, Esq.
          McGUIREWOODS LLP
          Gateway Plaza
          800 East Canal Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-3916
          Tel: 804.775.1015
          Fax: 804.698.2047
          E-mail: dflannery@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          William L. Stern, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Tel: 415.268.7000
          Fax: 415.268.7522
          E-mail: wstern@mofo.com


MALEN & ASSOCIATES: Judge Dismisses Debt Collection Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that debt collection law
firm Malen & Associates has asked a federal judge to dismiss a
proposed class action accusing it of deceiving consumers when
suing them to collect debt.

In a motion filed in Manhattan federal court, lawyers for
Westbury, New York-based Malen said the plaintiffs' claims had no
basis.  The company charged in particular that the named plaintiff
in the case, Mary Ellen Toohey, had made "outlandish" allegations
of a wide-ranging conspiracy but failed to deny she owed the debt
Malen sued to collect.


MILLER ENERGY: Shareholders File Class Action
---------------------------------------------
WATE reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against a
Knoxville company after the federal government said they
overstated their value by more than $400 million dollars.

Shareholders represented by Kenneth Gaynor filed a class action
lawsuit against a half dozen former executives of Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. The lawsuit was originally filed in a Morgan
County court, but was moved to a federal court.  Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. sought bankruptcy protection October 1, 2015 and
therefore is not named in the lawsuit.

Most of the allegations focus around Redoubt Shoal offshore oil
field, one of the largest fields owned by Miller Energy Resources,
Inc., located in Cook Inlet, Alaska.  The fields were purchased
from a company that declared bankruptcy.

Following the acquisition of the assets in Alaska, Miller Energy
Resources, Inc's stock closed at an all-time high price of $8.83
per share on December 9, 2013, a 1447 percent increase over their
stock's value in 2009.  According to the lawsuit, that jump in
stock was because the company's assets were not estimated at fair
value in reports between 2010-2015.

According to the lawsuit, David M. Hall, who served as chief
operating officer, understated the cost to run the oil field. It
states that the Redoubt Shoal is located on an offshore platform
that sits on 70 feet of water and is only accessible by boat or
helicopter.  Drill depths are at more than 12,000 feet which also
presents additional risks and costs not associated with onshore
operations.

The class action lawsuit claims that former chief financial
officer, Paul W. Boyd, and Hall, provided expense projections that
were in many cases significantly lower than expenses recorded by
the previous owners of the field.

For example, the lawsuit claims internal documents maintained by
Hall indicated that the cost to drill a new well at Redoubt Shoal
field was roughly $13 million, however he told the engineering
firm preparing reports used to determine the value of the company
that the costs to drill at the field was only $4.6 million per
well.

In addition, those same reports claimed it only cost $399,000 per
month to operate the field, when it actually cost more than
$600,000 per month and internal estimates by Miller and Hall,
according to the lawsuit estimated the cost at more than $800,000
per month when the field was fully operational.

Miller Energy Resources, Inc. initially contacted an energy firm
to value the profitability of the field that was used by the past
two owners, but according to the lawsuit that firm said it would
not assign any value to the Redoubt Shoal field claiming the
expected level of expense made a significant portion of the
acquisition unprofitable.

A new engineering firm was contacted, which did not have
historical data from the oil field, and according to the lawsuit
Boyd was aware that the new firm was chosen because the prior firm
would not assign any value to the Redoubt Shoal field.

Reports given to the new firm, according to the lawsuit, reported
operating expenses of $4 per barrel of oil even though previous
owners reported expenses of $32.50 per barrel in 2008 and $55.42
per barrel in 2009.  "By understating the expense numbers, Miller
overvalued the oil and gas properties by tens of millions of
dollars," claims the lawsuit.

Letters were sent to shareholders by the plaintiff.  The plaintiff
in the case said he believes there are hundreds of people that
will join the proposed class action lawsuit.


MONTGOMERY, NC: Handy Sanitary District Residents Mull Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery Herald reports that a second group of Handy Sanitary
District residents has hired an attorney and is considering legal
action against the district's board of directors.  Attorney
Michael Meeker of the legal firm Brooks Pierce in Greensboro is
representing "a substantial number of owners of developed
property" in the district and is in the early stages of
communication with Handy Sanitary District Attorney Frank Wells.

Mr. Meeker sent a letter in late October saying, "For some time
your district has been charging periodic fees and charges to
developed property which is not connected to your sanitary sewer
system." Mr. Meeker alleges that pursuant to North Carolina
General Statute 130A-55, the district does not have the authority
to impose charges and fees to developed property unless the
developed property is connected to the sewer system.

Mr. Meeker continues, "Demand is hereby made that you cease and
desist charging any further fee or charges to developed property
not connected to the Handy Sanitary District's sanitary sewer
system."

Mr. Meeker also asks the refunds be made for the charges imposed
in the past and if they fail to do so his clients "intend pursuing
all available avenues of recourse" including a class action suit.


NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Action Over GWB Lane Closures
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Berger, writing for Northjersey.com, reports that you can't
sue for getting stuck in a traffic jam.

That's one of the assertions made in court documents filed on
Dec. 29 on behalf of a slew of defendants, including the state of
New Jersey and the Port Authority, who are the targets of a class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of Bergen County commuters and taxi
drivers who were stalled in traffic when two Fort Lee access lanes
to the George Washington Bridge were closed without notice in
September 2013.

"All plaintiffs actually allege is that they were unable to travel
a particular route, at a particular time, without traffic
congestion," wrote Margaret Taylor Finucane, a lawyer for the Port
Authority, calling the infamous lane closures "unfortunate."

"Although the complaint alleges that plaintiffs faced frustrating
delays, this does not amount to a civil rights violation,"
Ms. Finucane added.

Lawyers for the state of New Jersey said the notion of being
delayed in traffic is too subjective for a class-action suit.
"How long must one have waited to cross the oft-congested GWB, and
at what time of day, before that delay was sufficiently 'extreme'
to make one a member of the class?" wrote New Jersey acting
Attorney General John Hoffman.

Other reasons Mr. Hoffman or his co-defendants gave for dismissing
the lawsuit were that it was too vague in its claims about driver
distress and inconvenience, and that it failed to prove that
groups such as Governor Christie's 2013 reelection campaign or the
Port Authority were complicit in the lane closings.

The class-action suit was filed at the beginning of 2014 on behalf
of commuters and taxi drivers who say they used gas, lost time,
and suffered emotional and economic damages because of delays
caused by the closure of two of the three access lanes to the GWB
in Fort Lee.

The suit charges some or all of the defendants with conspiracy,
racketeering, violation of constitutional rights and other crimes.

Gov. Christie's associates at the Port Authority and in the
governor's office initially claimed the lane closures, which
caused massive delays in and around Fort Lee for five mornings,
were part of a traffic study.

It later turned out that the closures presumably were politically
motivated retribution against Fort Lee's mayor, a Democrat who did
not endorse Gov. Christie's reelection campaign.

In May, David Wildstein, a Christie ally and former high-ranking
official at the Port Authority, pleaded guilty to his part in the
alleged conspiracy.

Two others, Bill Baroni, a former deputy executive director of the
Port Authority who was appointed by Christie and Bridget Anne
Kelly, Christie's former deputy chief of staff, are due to stand
trial in April for their roles in the alleged conspiracy.  Both
deny the charges.

The class-action lawsuit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Jose
Linares in June. Saying that the suit lacked sufficient facts to
support its claims, Linares invited the plaintiffs to resubmit an
amended suit by August, which they did.

The resubmitted claim included new evidence gathered during three
investigations -- an inquiry conducted by a special joint
committee of the Legislature, an internal report commissioned by
the governor, and materials released by U.S. Attorney
Paul Fishman.

Although the investigations concluded there was a conspiracy, none
produced evidence that directly linked Gov. Christie to the lane
closures.

John Sullivan, a lawyer for Mr. Baroni, said that even with the
added material the amended suit remained too vague. Sullivan
called it "a set of conspiracy allegations in search of a class
action that does not exist."

But Barry Epstein, a Rochelle Park lawyer who represents the
plaintiffs, said on Dec. 30 that although he had not had time to
properly review the hundreds of pages of court filings, he
believed that the defendants repeated old arguments and that his
suit "addressed the court's concerns."


NEW YORK, NY: Ex-NYPD Commissioner's Emails Deleted
---------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
most of former NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly's emails on his
desktop computer were deleted at the end of his tenure despite an
order they be preserved for a high-stakes class-action suit
alleging a summons quota system within the department.

New filings in Manhattan Federal Court show the city backtracking
in an ongoing fight over Kelly's missing electronic
correspondence.

"The majority of former Commissioner Kelly's locally stored emails
were inadvertently deleted at the conclusion of his tenure," city
attorney Curt Beck wrote to Manhattan Federal Judge Robert Sweet.

The city only recently learned of the mistakenly destroyed data,
according to documents filed on Dec. 30.

"The deletion was not done intentionally," city lawyers alleged in
court papers.

There's no indication Kelly ordered emails deleted, or deleted
them himself.

A "litigation hold" on documents and correspondence related to the
class-action suit went into effect when the case was filed in
May 2010.  But that hold was not disseminated "more widely," so
Kelly's technology staff mistakenly scrubbed an unknown number of
his emails, the city said.

Mr. Kelly has previously said under oath that he rarely used email
in the first place and preferred in-person meetings and phone
calls.  The city maintained "the maximum universe of email at
issue remains minimal, at best."

Following inquiries from the Daily News the city submitted an
11th-hour letter to Judge Sweet on Dec. 31 clarifying the meaning
of "locally stored emails."

The new document said such emails were "greater than three years
old or otherwise selected for archiving" and may have been stored
on a desktop computer rather than a network.

An NYPD official said Kelly's desktop computer was swapped out for
a new one sometime in 2013, resulting in the possible loss of the
emails he may have sent.

"This was not intended to be a big deal because it's not a big
deal," the official said.

But an attorney for the plaintiff, Elinor Sutton, wasn't satisfied
with the explanation.

"Within a two-day period the city has changed its story twice,"
Ms. Sutton said.  "The city has still not provided a coherent
story as to why it has not produced a single email from Ray
Kelly's file."

She had fired back in previous filings that Kelly provided
"demonstrably false information" about his email habits.

Kelly's spokeswoman Anne Reingold told The News that the city's
initial letter was inaccurate.

The city also argued that any relevant emails Mr. Kelly sent could
still be obtained by searching the servers of people with whom he
corresponded.

"If it's true, it's a disgrace," said Robert Gangi, a police
reform advocate who has organized forums on alleged NYPD quotas.

"It continues the ongoing legacy of the NYPD . . . of maintaining
a lack of transparency and accountability when it comes to making
public information about policy and practice."

The stunning disclosure about Mr. Kelly's deleted emails could
potentially impact other lawsuits involving NYPD policy during Mr.
Kelly's tenure, attorney Nat Smith said.

"No member of the public is going to believe just before he leaves
office -- whoops -- his staff deletes his emails!" railed
Mr. Smith, who represented Adrian Schoolcraft, an NYPD
whistleblower who alleged a quota system in Brooklyn's 81st
Precinct.

Mr. Smith is not involved in the summons case.

The deleted emails could also be used against Kelly should he
pursue a run for mayor.

The News reported in July the NYPD allegedly destroyed documents
regarding summonses during Kelly's tenure.

The evidence could be relevant in the lawsuit charging the NYPD
issued 850,000 bogus summonses since 2007 due to a quota system.

Ms. Sutton has asked Judge Sweet to impose sanctions against the
city for the allegedly missing evidence.

A Law Department spokesman pointed to the city's argument that
sanctions would require evidence that emails were destroyed
intentionally.

"There was no overt act," an NYPD official said.

The latest revelation in the case comes after Mr. Kelly lobbed a
bombshell at his successor, Commissioner Bill Bratton, charging
the city's top cop is manipulating shooting stats to make New York
appear safer.

Mr. Bratton fired back that Mr. Kelly should "be a big man" and
provide proof of the allegation.

Both men have been accused in the past of fudging crime stats.


OREGON: Judge Okays Deal to Expand Job Options to Disabled
----------------------------------------------------------
Everton Bailey Jr., writing for The Oregonian, reports that a
federal judge has approved a proposed agreement designed to
provide broader job opportunities for intellectual and
developmentally disabled Oregonians.

The deal approved on Dec. 29 calls for 1,115 developmentally
disabled Oregonians to receive state support and coaching to gain
jobs that pay minimum wage or more by June 30, 2022.  The state
has agreed to provide data reports and use an independent reviewer
monitor progress.

Proponents of the deal estimate that the lives of roughly 7,000
Oregonians will be enriched by the settlement and give them
chances to become gainfully employed in the open marketplace.

The agreement stems from a 2012 class-action lawsuit against the
state filed by the United Cerebral Palsy Association and eight
individuals alleging Oregon violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act by unnecessarily segregating disabled adults into
sheltered workshops -- facilities owned and operated mostly by
nonprofits that provide jobs almost exclusively to people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities.

The suit also claimed the adult workers were earning well below
minimum wage for menial tasks with limited hours of work and that
disabled youths were funneled to similar jobs when they graduated
from school.

The U.S. Justice Department joined the lawsuit in 2013, and a
settlement agreement was announced this past September.
Supporters and opponents of the agreement testified in federal
court in Portland on Dec. 7 and U.S. District Judge Janice M.
Stewart filed an order on Dec. 29 declaring the deal as fair.

There are about 1,930 disabled Oregonians who work in 46 sheltered
workshops that still exist in the state.  The agreement doesn't
call for them to close.

Disabled employees can choose to remain in sheltered workshop if
they wish, and they can return within a year if they choose to
leave.


PAPA MURPHY'S: Defending TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2015, that the
Company was named on May 8, 2015, as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit in United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington claiming a violation of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits companies from making
telemarketing calls to numbers listed in the Federal Do-Not-Call
Registry and imposes other obligations and limitations on making
phone calls and sending text messages to consumers. The lawsuit
alleges that the Company did not comply with the statutory
requirements for obtaining consumers' consent to receive text
messages from the Company, and seeks statutory penalties for those
alleged deficiencies.

The Company believes the plaintiff's interpretation of the
applicable law is incorrect, and it will vigorously defend itself
in the lawsuit, but provides no assurance that it will be
successful. An adverse judgment or settlement could have an
adverse effect on the Company's profitability and could cause
variability in its results compared to expectations.


RBS CITIZENS: Employees Sue Over Unethical Payment Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for PennRecord.com, reports that several
current and former employees are suing their employer alleging
unethical payment practices and failure to provide compensation
for overtime worked.

Alex Reinig, Ken Gritz and Bob Soda filed a class-action lawsuit
Nov. 23 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against RBS Citizens NA alleging violations of Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs were employed by the
defendant and during their time they worked selling mortgage loans
to various clients.  Early on the their employment, the
individuals were misclassified as exempt employees, thus
interfering with the pay which they ought to have been receiving.
The employees regularly worked over time without receiving
compensation, the complaint states.  In 2015, the individuals were
told that they were being reclassified so that they would receive
the correct wages, but they later discovered that the salary and
overtime pay was deducted from their commissions.  The plaintiffs
are suing the defendant for unethical practices in violation of
FLSA.

They are seeing compensation for all monetary damages and wrongs
suffered.  They are represented by Justin L. Swidler --
jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- of Swartz Swidler LLC in Cherry Hill,
New Jersey.


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: January 18 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Dec. 30 announced that a complaint has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of Roadrunner Transportation Systems,
Inc. between July 30, 2015 and October 26, 2015, inclusive,
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
the Company and certain of its officers.

If you purchased shares of Roadrunner during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold
Roadrunner, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888)
969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com or at http://is.gd/dxSOfF

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, after the market closed on October 26,
2015, the Company reduced its third quarter guidance by more than
60%, announcing that it expected diluted earnings per share,
excluding transaction expenses, to be between $0.14 and $0.17 per
share.

On this news, shares in Roadrunner dropped over 47%, closing at
$9.34 per share on October 27, 2014, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 18, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed 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.


SKYWEST AIRLINES: Flight Attendants File Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a class-
action lawsuit claiming SkyWest Airlines systemically underpays
its flight attendants was transferred Dec. 9 from a federal court
district in California to Chicago federal court, joining a
virtually identical class action already pending against the
airline in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The defendants, St. George, Utah-based SkyWest Airlines and
SkyWest Inc., are being represented by Amanda C. Sommerfeld and
Bennett J. Kaspar, of Winston & Strawn LLP.  The lawsuit, Case No.
15-CV-11117, was filed Nov. 9 in San Francisco federal court by a
group of SkyWest flight attendants, identified in the complaint as
named plaintiffs Cheryl Tapp, Renee Sitavich, Sarah Hudson,
Brandon Colson and Bruno Lozano.  They were represented by Eric H.
Gibbs, Dylan Hughes -- dsh@classlawgroup.com -- and Steve Lopez --
sal@classlawgroup.com -- of Girard Gibbs LLP, Gregory F. Coleman -
- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- and Lisa A. White --
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- of Greg Coleman Law, PC, and Edward A.
Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- and Amy E. Keller --
aek@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace LLP.

On Nov. 27, the attorneys for SkyWest filed a motion to transfer
venue pursuant to the "first to file" rule, noting the California
version of the lawsuit against SkyWest was a "copycat action,"
echoing the allegations and complaints leveled by plaintiffs in
the litigation pending against SkyWest in Chicago.

That case, which was filed in March and is docketed as 1:15-cv-
02036 Hirst et al v. Skywest Airlines, Inc. et al, is awaiting a
decision by U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr. on a motion to
dismiss brought by the defendants in July.

The plaintiffs in the California lawsuit did not oppose the
transfer to Illinois, which was approved Dec. 9 by U.S. District
Judge Maxine M. Chesney.

At the heart of the lawsuits is the plaintiffs' claim that SkyWest
flight attendants are required to work far more hours than those
for which they are paid.  According to the lawsuits, SkyWest and
the Federal Aviation Administration both require flight attendants
to be responsible for a number of pre-flight and post-flight
tasks, requiring them to arrive up to an hour before their
scheduled flight and often causing them to continue working long
after the last passenger has left the plane.  SkyWest flight
attendants, however, are only paid from the time the cabin door
closes at the beginning of the flight to 15 minutes after the last
passenger has left the plane, according to the lawsuits.

A sample schedule attached to the lawsuits shows that a flight
attendant who was paid for 19 hours and 10 minutes of work over
four days in 2012 allegedly actually put in 33 hours and 44
minutes of on-duty time in that same time period.  All of the
flight attendants' on-duty time is recorded, though they are only
paid for the block of time from a few minutes before the aircraft
takes off to 15 minutes after the last passenger leaves, the
complaints said.

"Although certain of flight attendants' required work activities
fall beyond the duty day, SkyWest does not acknowledge the time
spent on these activities," the California lawsuit stated.
"Virtually every duty day for every flight attendant includes a
significant amount of easily measurable uncompensated work time."

The lawsuits said the flight attendants are also undercompensated
when flight delays or gate changes cause last-minute changes to
their schedules.  And though they are required by both company
policy and federal law to undertake specific training courses,
they are only paid half their regular wage for the time SkyWest
estimates it will take them to complete their training -- even if
the training course actually takes longer than estimated,
according to court documents.

The lawsuit includes a nationwide opt-in class, plus several
statewide opt-in classes.  The statewide classes were to
accommodate specific charges brought under minimum wage and labor
laws in California, Arizona and Washington, and under wage and
labor ordinances in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The lawsuits have requested back pay for unpaid hours, liquidated
damages, court costs, and a guarantee that flight attendants in
the future will be paid for all duty time.  The plaintiffs have
also asked the court to issue an injunction forcing SkyWest to
provide clearly written explanations to flight attendants in the
future showing all required work hours and pay and redesigned pay
stubs that clearly note what amounts are wages, what are
reimbursements, and what are imputed income.


SOLARWINDS INC: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Proposed Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Calnan, writing for Austin Business Journal, reports
that before a scheduled vote by shareholders, a SolarWinds Inc.
shareholder has filed a class-action lawsuit to stop the software
company's sale to two private equity firms, claiming the $4.5
billion price undervalues the Austin-based software developer.

The lawsuit filed on Dec. 28 by Kansas-based John Thomas Moore
Rollover IRA alleges that board members and company executives
stand to collect $670 million from the sale.

"The proposed acquisition is the product of a hopelessly flawed
process that is designed to ensure the sale of SolarWinds to
sponsors on terms preferential to defendants and other SolarWinds
insiders and to subvert the interests of plaintiff and the other
public stockholders of the company," according to the 36-page
complaint filed in Austin's U.S. District Court.

SolarWinds has planned a special Jan. 8 meeting for a vote on the
proposed acquisition by California-based Silver Lake Partners and
Chicago-based Thoma Bravo LLC.  The two groups agreed to pay
shareholders $60.10 per share.

The lawsuit, which is being reported by the Austin American-
Statesman, indicates that SolarWinds board members and executives
collectively own more than 11 million shares, or about 14.6
percent of the total.  Such legal challenges are common during
these kinds of acquisitions.  Dell Inc., for example, is still
dueling with disgruntled shareholders in court over its 2013
buyout plus the Round Rock-based tech giant faces a flurry of new
shareholder suits over its proposed buyout of EMC Corp.

SolarWinds, which was founded in 1998, develops information
technology management software.  The company employs more than
1,600 workers, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The proposed shareholder buyout was announced in October.  In
November, the Federal Trade Commission and the antitrust division
of the U.S. Department of Justice terminated the antitrust waiting
period requirement on Nov. 12.  The waiting period allows
individuals or companies to object to a proposed acquisition on
antitrust grounds.


SPOKEO INC: Awaits Supreme Court Decision on Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
T. Augustine Lo, Esq. -- lo.augustine@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, report
that on November 2, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a
contentious round of oral arguments in a case that may
significantly change the landscape of consumer class actions.(1)

The case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, is a class action arising under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  Like other class actions,
the case began when Robins, the lead plaintiff, claimed that he
represented similarly situated persons who were wronged by the
defendant's actions.  Robins claimed that the defendant, Spokeo,
published false information online that misrepresented his
identity.  Spokeo is an online services company that aggregates
public information on individuals and makes summary reports
available upon request.  Robins alleged that the information was
false in that it misrepresented him as wealthy, married with
children, and a holder of a graduate degree.  In fact, he was none
of these things. Robins also alleged that this false information
harmed his employment prospects.

The issue before the Supreme Court is the threshold requirements
for class action plaintiffs to maintain such lawsuits in federal
court.  In order to have standing to sue in federal court, a
plaintiff must have a particularized "injury in fact."
Accordingly, oral argument focused on the meaning of the "injury"
suffered by Robins.

Injury Under the FCRA

The FCRA regulates companies that publish personal information on
consumers which may affect their credit rating and reputation.
Like other federal consumer protection statutes, the FCRA
authorizes private litigants to bring lawsuits to remedy
violations by claiming damages of $1,000 per violation as provided
under the statute.  Because the class action would aggregate the
damages of millions of people who have similar claims against the
defendant company, the total liability could be astronomically
high.

Specifically, Robin's lawsuit is based on a FCRA provision that
allows private litigants to bring a lawsuit premised upon any
violation of FCRA standards.  Thus, the statute on its face could
authorize a lawsuit even where a plaintiff does not suffer any
economic harm from false information published by an online
services company such as Spokeo.  According to Spokeo, this
statutory provision flouts Supreme Court and common law precedents
that require actual injury to the plaintiff in order for the
plaintiff to maintain a justiciable case before a federal court.
In response, Robins argues that Spokeo's violation of the statute
is in itself a form of injury tied to reputational harm to Robins.

The Justices' Divergent Views at Oral Argument

At oral argument, the justices of the Court sparred with one
another as well as the litigants' counsel.  Some of the reputedly
liberal justices of the Court began by disputing Spokeo's
arguments against standing based on common law precedent.
Justices Kagan and Ginsburg questioned Spokeo's premise that the
Court should accord greater weight to case precedents as authority
over an act of Congress.  Justice Sotomayor expressed her view
that common law rights in practice depend on positive legislation
for enforcement.  Justice Breyer then questioned the premise that
false information should not constitute injury when courts
recognize psychic harm and economic harm as actual injury to bring
lawsuits.

When Spokeo's counsel countered that a plaintiff must show actual
harm from the publication of false information under traditional
defamation suits, Justice Kagan noted "that's a really hard thing
to do," because a person would not know whether the false
information was given to someone who then denied employment to
that person.  Justice Sotomayor added: "I will tell you that I
know plenty of single people who look at whether someone who's
proposed to date is married or not.  So if you're not married and
there's a report out there saying you are, that's a potential
injury."  Justice Scalia, who is conservative by reputation,
countered that the statute appears to premise liability upon the
failure to follow statutory procedures, which potentially awards
remedies even where there is no false information.

When Robins' counsel presented his arguments, the reputedly
conservative justices took their turn questioning the bases for
the plaintiff's alleged injury.  Justice Kennedy argued that
Robins' reasoning is circular, because Robins essentially argues
that he has a stake in litigation simply because the statute
states that he has a stake.

Chief Justice Roberts then framed a hypothetical scenario where a
company publishes inaccurate information regarding a person, but
that information is of a type that cannot lead to any harm, such
as a person's unwillingness to receive unsolicited telephone
calls.  The Chief Justice maintained that the Court's precedents
always required injury in fact such that a statute cannot trump
case precedents simply by calling a violation an injury.

At this point, Justices Breyer, Scalia, and Kennedy argued with
counsel and one another as to whether it would be sufficient, even
if putative class members belong to a subset of the population
that are potentially adversely affected by false information,
because case precedents require that the injury must be
"particularized" with respect to that plaintiff.

The conservative justices then questioned the evidentiary basis
for alleged reputational harm to the lead plaintiff.  Justice
Alito asked for evidence that anyone actually accessed the
plaintiff's report; counsel conceded that no such evidence was
apparent from the trial record.  Chief Justice Roberts noted that
Spokeo's service also contained a disclaimer against any
guarantees regarding the accuracy of the information.  Justice
Scalia then suggested that the FCRA provision may be invalid
because it purports to authorize lawsuits even for people who
suffer no harm, and the fact that a plaintiff in a case actually
suffered harm may not save that statute.

Impact for Online Services Companies

Because the FCRA's statutory damages provision has major
implications for potential class actions against other online
services companies, and because the FCRA provision resembles other
federal consumer protection statutes, a number of key players in
the e-commerce industry, including eBay, Facebook, Google, and
Yahoo!, filed amicus briefs in support of Spokeo.

As an indication of the potential ramifications of this case,
Experian, a credit reporting agency, is embroiled in a similar
lawsuit under the FCRA, and that court ordered a stay to await the
Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo.(2) Similarly, in a class action
lawsuit against Florida-based Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. for
robo-calling in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, the defendant company cited Spokeo to seek a stay of that
case as well.(3)

Conclusion

As the justices have clearly set forth their positions during oral
arguments, it appears that the eventual decision in this case will
be a split opinion.  The ultimate decision may favor Spokeo and
thus limit the scope of plaintiffs who may bring class actions
under the FCRA and similar federal statutes. If the majority rules
that class action plaintiffs must show actual harm from
reputational damage, it may severely impact their ability to
sustain a lawsuit.  The executives at the major e-commerce
companies, such as Google, eBay, Facebook, LinkedIn, Yahoo!,
Netflix, and Twitter, likely will await the decision with baited
breath.


SPOTIFY: Faces $150MM Class Action Over Music Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------
Ed Christman, writing for Billboard, reports that Camper Van
Beethoven and Cracker frontman David Lowery, retaining the law
firm of Michelman & Robinson, LLP, has filed a class action
lawsuit seeking at least $150 million in damages against Spotify,
alleging it knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully reproduces and
distributes copyrighted compositions without obtaining mechanical
licenses.

The lawsuit comes amidst ongoing settlement negotiations between
Spotify and the National Music Publishers Assn. over the alleged
use of allowing users to play music that hasn't been properly
licensed, and also without making mechanical royalty payments to
music publishers and songwriters.  According to sources, Spotify
has created a $17 million to $25 million reserve fund to pay
royalties for pending and unmatched song use.

The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 28 in the Central District Court of
California.

According to the complaint, Spotify has unlawfully distributed
copyrighted music compositions to more than 75 million users, but
failed to identify or locate the owners of those compositions for
payment, and did not issue a notice of intent to employ a
compulsory license.

"We are committed to paying songwriters and publishers every
penny," says Spotify global head of communications and public
policy Jonathan Prince in a statement.  "Unfortunately, especially
in the United States, the data necessary to confirm the
appropriate rightsholders is often missing, wrong, or incomplete.
When rightsholders are not immediately clear, we set aside the
royalties we owe until we are able to confirm their identities.
We are working closely with the National Music Publishers
Association to find the best way to correctly pay the royalties we
have set aside and we are investing in the resources and technical
expertise to build a comprehensive publishing administration
system to solve this problem for good."

The complaint states that Spotify has "publicly" admitted its
failure to obtain licenses and created a reserve fund of millions
of dollars for royalty payments which have been "wrongfully
withheld from artists."  The use of songs not lawfully licensed
"creates substantial harm and injury to the copyright holders, and
diminishes the integrity of the works," the complaint states.

The songs alleged to have been Illegally reproduced and/or
distributed by Spotify include "Almond Grove" (copyright
registration No. PAu003764032); "Get On Down the Road" (No.
PAu003745342); "King of Bakersfield" (No. PAu003745341); and
"Tonight I Cross the Border" (No. PAu003745338), according to the
complaint.

The complaint further notes that statutory penalties allow for
judgments between $750-30,000 for each infringed work, and up to
$150,000 per song for willful infringement.

The complaint claims the lawsuit qualifies as a class action
because there is a well-defined community of interest in the
litigation and that members of the proposed class, which will
exceed 100 members, can be easily identified via discovery from
Spotify's database files and records.  A class action is more
efficient than letting the courts be burdened with individual
litigation, if every member of the class could afford to pursue
action (which is highly unlikely).  Class actions conserve the
resources of the parties and the court system and protects the
rights of each member of the class.

In addition to entering an order appointing Mr. Lowery as the
class representative and the plaintiff's counsel as class counsel,
the complaint asks the court to enjoin Spotify from continued
copyright infringement; from further violations of California
Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200; injunctive relief that
requires Spotify to pay for the services of a third party auditor
to identify the works reproduced and distributed by Spotify
without first obtaining a mechanical license; and requires Spotify
to remove all such works from its services until it obtains the
proper licenses.

Mr. Lowery, who also teaches at the University of Georgia, and the
class seek restitution on Spotify's unlawful proceeds, including
defendants' gross profits; for compensatory damages in an amount
to be ascertained at trial; statutory damages for all penalties
authorized by the Copyright Act; reasonable attorneys' fees and
cost; and pre-and post judgment interest on monetary awards.


SPOTIFY: Faces Another Class Action Over Royalty Payments
---------------------------------------------------------
Ed Christman, writing for Billboard, reports that the new suit
will make similar claims to another class action suit filed
earlier in December: that the subscription service is not fully
licensed for some of the music it offers subscribers, and that the
company is not issuing complete royalty payments.

A class-action lawsuit recently filed against Spotify by Michelman
& Robinson, LLP on behalf of Cracker frontman and college
professor David Lowery will soon have company, Billboard has
learned.  The law firm of Gradstein & Marzanno -- itself in the
midst of litigation on behalf of the Turtles against Sirius XM and
Pandora -- will file its own class-action suit.

This new suit will make similar claims as Lowery and Michelman's,
alleging that the subscription service is not fully licensed for
some of the music it offers subscribers, and that the company is
not issuing complete royalty payments.  One source counters that
additional lawsuits won't add to Spotify's problems because the
company's potential liability remains the same regardless.  As
well, class-action lawsuits are difficult to implement and
maintain, especially in instances where similar suits are ongoing
in parallel.  The law firm was unavailable for comment.

"We would look to see what crossover there was" with any parallel
actions, says Mona Hanna -- mhanna@mrllp.com -- co-lead counsel on
the Lowery/Michelman & Robinson case.  "This is not a turf war.
It is about protecting the industry and the artists.  Let's get
this issue resolved."

The major labels could add to the drama by threatening their own
cases against the company as leverage in licensing negotiations.
And while Spotify may be the service under fire, all interactive
streaming services are at risk on this issue, including Rhapsody,
Rdio, Amazon Prime and Apple Music. To that end, sources tell
Billboard a similar lawsuit is being prepared against a competing
company.

For its part, Spotify is betting that settlement talks currently
underway with National Music Publishers' Assn. (NMPA), and the
company's announcement of plans to build a publishing
administration system, will placate music publishers and
songwriters.  The NMPA settlement would allow publishers to claim
payments for monies owed to them by Spotify in exchange for
waiving any legal claims they might have against the music service
over copyright infringement or copyright non-compliance.  Any
money remaining at the end of the process would likely be divided
between the participants by market share.  The proposal could also
result in a code of best practices intended to plug any holes in
royalty distribution going forward, as well as bolstering
Spotify's plans for a music publishing database with the aid of
the NMPA and other collection organizations.

An executive involved in the negotiations contends that the class-
action suits won't impact the NMPA talks.  "Remember, there was a
class-action lawsuit against YouTube," that executive tells
Billboard.  "When the NMPA reached a settlement with YouTube [in
2011], most music publishers opted in instead of pursuing the
class action lawsuit, which was eventually dismissed."

At least one company will not participate, believing they can
secure better remuneration for their songwriters through an
independent deal.  At press time, only Warner/Chappell Music had
been confirmed to be opting out of the negotiations and going its
own way on the issue.  Sources suggest that the major's choice to
opt out of the NMPA settlement is directly tied into the current
licensing negotiations between the three majors and Spotify.

A major issue in negotiations between Spotify and the three majors
is the service's free tier, which pays one-seventh as much per
stream as its paid tier.  Some would like to see the free tier
eliminated; others say they will work with the free tier, but will
demand a bigger minimum payment this round.

"These lawsuits . . . increase negotiating leverage over rates on
the free tier," says one major label executive. Another executive
counters that Spotify's leverage increases with its revenue, which
continues to rise.

The major labels are fully committed to interactive streaming
services -- with paid subscribers -- as the industry's future.
Warner Music Group's saw streaming overtake downloads as its
central source of digital revenue, and companies don't want to
short-circuit that growth by engaging in damaging lawsuits against
the services.  If Spotify were to be held fully liable for each
copyright infraction, it could trigger mutually assured
destruction, according to one industry participant.

Many in the industry were well aware that a problem with improper
licensing and royalty payments existed, but it wasn't until Audiam
master recording royalty payment statements against music
publishing payment statements that the true extent of the problem
became obvious.  Depending on who is talking, between 10 to 25
percent of songs interactive on services like Spotify are not
properly licensed and/or not distributing royalty payments.
Sources tell Billboard that Spotify owes music publishers and
songwriters around $25 million.

"We are committed to paying songwriters and publishers every
penny," said Spotify global head of communications and public
policy Jonathan Prince in a statement on news of David Lowery's
filing.  "Unfortunately, especially in the United States, the data
necessary to confirm the appropriate rights holders is often
missing, wrong, or incomplete.  When rights holders are not
immediately clear, we set aside the royalties we owe until we are
able to confirm their identities  . . ."

But many take issue with that assessment, contending Spotify and
other interactive services knew they had a problem from the
start but ignored it and did not build the proper systems to
manage licensing.

"Spotify blames everyone but Spotify for its infringement,
non-payment and non-compliance," says Audiam founder and CEO
Jeff Price.  "Its rationale appears to be [that] everyone else
caused Spotify to infringe on music as all of us don't have the
'data.'  This is a misleading statement.  First, Spotify does not
need to know who wrote a song to determine if a composition is
licensed.  If Spotify does not know who wrote the song, then it
most likely doesn't have a license.  Therefore, don't use the
song."  Mr. Price points out that Audiam has supplied data to the
catalogs that it administers and it still is not being properly
paid by Spotify.

"The real issue is that Spotify built limited-to-no systems to get
licenses, accept data and make payments," Mr. Price complains.
"It took the world's music without, in many cases, knowing whose
music it was, and used it with no licenses and without making
payments, similar in many ways to the original Napster."

Sanford L. Michelman -- smichelman@mrllp.com -- of Michelman &
Robinson LLP makes a similar argument.  "The underlying issue is
Spotify has a business model that is catch-as-catch-can," he says.
"If you are going to take a songwriter's work, then get the
permission to do it. It's not a system where if you catch me
without permission, [Spotify] will pacify you with some more
dollars." It's not supposed to be about the songwriter catching
the service with its hand in the cookie jar, he says.  Mona Hanna
tells Billboard that the firm's case "is designed with the express
purpose of protecting artists' rights and hoping that this result
in a change in how Spotify operates."

Concurrently, Spotify has apparently settled with Another Victory
(an Audiam client), the publishing arm of Chicago-based hard rock
label Victory Records, as the publisher's songs are now available
to stream on Spotify.  Mr. Price says the service is still playing
hardball with his company, however, as well as many other
publishers and catalogs, including those of Metallica and Bob
Dylan. Price claims Spotify is ignoring his communications about
getting his company's other clients properly licensed and paid.

Spotify, Warner/Chappell, Sony/ATV and Universal Music Publishing
Group declined to comment for this report.  Executives at the
other streaming services were unavailable for comment.


SUPERCOM LTD: February 8 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of SuperCom Ltd. between June 1, 2015 and November 27,
2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired SuperCom securities between
June 1, 2015 and November 27, 2015, your rights may be affected by
this action. To get more information go to:

                 http://zlk.9nl.com/supercom-spcb

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) SuperCom
was having difficulty closing certain sales with certain
governments and the revenue associated with those deals would be
substantially delayed; and (b) SuperCom's "new business pipeline"
was neither strong nor "broadening" contrary to the Company's
representations.

If you suffered a loss in SuperCom you have until February 8, 2016
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, California, Connecticut and Washington D.C.  The
firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting
securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing
investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder
lawsuits.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on Arizona Owner-Operator Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, provided updates on
Arizona Owner-operator Class Action Litigation.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV7-472 (the "Garza Complaint"). The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company
should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven
rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff's
petition for class certification. The plaintiff appealed and on
August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished
Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court's denial of class
certification and remanding the case back to the trial court. On
November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to the
Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification
as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration
by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court granted the Company's petition for review, and on July 31,
2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court
of Appeals, opining that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic
appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial court's original
denial of class certification and remanded the matter back to the
trial court for further evaluation and determination. Thereafter,
the plaintiff renewed the motion for class certification and
expanded it to include all persons who were employed by Swift as
employee drivers or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators
on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by
reference to miles driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a three-month
period under a one-year contract that no longer exists. In
addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals,
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. On April 7,
2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear
this petition for special action and the Company filed a petition
for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 31, 2011, the
Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the
Arizona Court of Appeals.

In April 2012, the trial court issued the following rulings with
respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's
motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to
decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no
breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class
size based on statute of limitations. On November 13, 2014, the
court denied plaintiff's motion to add new class representatives
for the employee class and therefore the employee class remains
without a plaintiff class representative. On March 18, 2015, the
court denied Swift's two motions for summary judgment (1) to
dismiss any claims related to the employee class since there is no
class representative; and (2) to dismiss plaintiff's claim of
breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing. On July 14, 2015,
the court granted Swift's motion to decertify the entire class.
The Company intends to defend against any appeal pursued by the
plaintiff.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on 9th Cir. Owner-Operator Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, provided updates on
Ninth Circuit Owner-operator Misclassification Class Action
Litigation.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and
Joseph Sheer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate
Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.
9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Sheer Complaint"). The
putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and various New York and California state laws and that
such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit
also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease
agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with
IEL.

At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 450
other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit.
Upon Swift's motion, the matter was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
United States District Court in Arizona.

On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the
potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and
IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default
under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30,
2010, the district court granted Swift's motion to compel
arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed, pending
the outcome of arbitration. The district court further denied
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for
conditional class certification. The district court also denied
plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class.
The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the district court's
September 30, 2010 order be vacated.

On July 27, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus and thereafter the
district court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and
certified its September 30, 2010 order. The plaintiffs filed an
interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to
overturn the district court's September 30, 2010 order to compel
arbitration, alleging that the agreement to arbitrate is exempt
from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA") because the class of plaintiffs allegedly consists of
employees exempt from arbitration agreements. On November 6, 2013,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, stating
its prior published decision, "expressly held that a district
court must determine whether an agreement for arbitration is
exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA as a threshold
matter." As a consequence of this determination by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals being different from a decision of the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on February 4,
2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court to address whether the district court
or arbitrator should determine whether the contract is an
employment contract exempt from Section 1 of the Federal
Arbitration Act. On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court
denied the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. The matter
remains pending in the district court and is currently in
discovery.

The Company has filed a writ of mandamus and appeal from the
district court's order that effectively denies the Company's
motion to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit has set oral
argument on the matter for November 16, 2015. The Company intends
to vigorously defend against any proceedings. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend Burnell Case
------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
district court has not yet addressed the merits of the claims in
Burnell case.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino (the "Burnell
Complaint"). On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the
matter was removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The
putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the
four years preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failed
to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal
and rest periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separation
from employment.

On April 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to
alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor
Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act. On May 29, 2013, the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's claims that are based on
alleged violations of meal and rest periods set forth in the
California Labor Code. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit
Court. Based on the Circuit Court's holding in a different case,
it remanded the plaintiff's meal and rest break claims to the
district court. The district court has not yet addressed the
merits of those claims. Minimum wage claims (specifically that
pay-per-mile fails to compensate drivers for non-driving-related
services), timeliness of such pay and the issue of class
certification remain pending.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Rudsell Case Stayed Pending Burnell Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company was served on April 5, 2012, with an additional class
action complaint, alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint: James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, Case No. CIVDS
1200255, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Bernardino (the "Rudsell Complaint"). The Rudsell Complaint was
stayed, pending a resolution in the Burnell Complaint.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Peck Case Stayed Pending Burnell Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on
September 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed by Lawrence
Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of
Riverside (the "Peck Complaint"). The putative class includes
current and former non-exempt employee truck drivers who performed
services in California within the four-year statutory period,
alleging that Swift failed to pay for all hours worked
(specifically that pay-per-mile fails to compensate drivers for
non-driving related services), failed to pay overtime, failed to
properly reimburse work-related expenses, failed to timely pay
wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements.
Peck is currently stayed, pending a resolution in the Burnell and
Rudsell cases, based on the similarity of the Peck claims to the
claims in those earlier filed cases.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Mares Case Remains at Pleading Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on
February 27, 2015, Sadashiv Mares filed a complaint in the
California Superior Court for the County of Alameda alleging five
Causes of Action arising under California state law on behalf of
himself and a putative class against Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC (the "Mares Complaint").  On June 19, 2015, Swift
filed a demurrer because plaintiff's complaint failed to state a
claim under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.10(e) and was uncertain,
ambiguous and unintelligible under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
430.10(f).  On July 13, 2015, the case was removed to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act.  The case remains at
the pleading stage.  Management believes the case involves similar
claims to those alleged in the Burnell, Rudsell and Peck
Complaints.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: McKinsty Case Removed to Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
complaint was filed on or about April 15, 2015, in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of San
Bernardino: Rafael McKinsty et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC, et al., Case No. CIVDS 1505599 (the "McKinsty
Complaint").  The McKinsty Complaint, a purported class action,
alleges violation of California rest break laws and is similar to
the Burnell, Rudsell, Peck and Mares Complaints.  The case was
removed to federal court and was related to the Burnell, Rudsell
and Peck actions.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of these cases, and the Company
retains all of its defenses against liability and damages, pending
a determination of class certification. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against certification of the class in all of
these matters, as well as the merits of these matters, should the
classes be certified. The final disposition of these cases and the
impact of such final dispositions of these cases cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on NCS Misclassification Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, provided updates on
National Customer Service Misclassification Class Action
Litigation.

On April 15, 2014, a collective and class action was filed by a
former Swift Customer Service Representative level four ("CSR
IV"), Lorraine Flores, individually and on behalf of herself and
all similarly-situated persons against Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. CV 14-2900-AB(Ex) (the "Flores
Complaint").

The operative complaint alleges failure to pay overtime under the
FLSA, as well as California state law claims including failure to
pay timely final wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to pay overtime, and violation of the unfair competition
law (four-year statute of limitations).
On October 3, 2014, the California District Court compelled, to
individual arbitration, CSR IVs who signed Arbitration Agreements.
On October 30, 2014, Flores' overtime claim under the FLSA was
conditionally certified and notice was issued to all CSR IVs.
Thirty-three CSR IVs who signed valid Arbitration Agreements filed
individual arbitrations with the American Arbitration Association
("AAA").  Approximately thirty-two CSR IVs who did not sign
Arbitration Agreements opted into the collective action.
Pursuant to a mediation held on September 11, 2015, the parties
have agreed to a global settlement of both the collective action
and all of the individual arbitrations. The $5.1 million
settlement and related costs are included in "Operating supplies
and expenses" in the Company's consolidated income statements for
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on Washington Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, provided updates on
Washington Overtime Class Action.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack and several other drivers on behalf of themselves, and all
similarly-situated persons, against Swift Transportation: Troy
Slack, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and
Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington,
Pierce County (the "Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was
removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-
114380. The putative class includes all current and former
Washington state-based employee drivers during the three-year
statutory period prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and through
the present, and alleges that they were not paid minimum wage and
overtime in accordance with Washington state law and that they
suffered unlawful deductions from wages. On November 23, 2013, the
court entered an order on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.
The court only certified the class as it pertains to "dedicated"
drivers and did not certify any other class, including any class
related to over-the-road drivers. The parties dispute the
definition of "dedicated" as used by the court and a class notice
has not yet been issued. On September 2, 2015, new counsel was
appointed for Plaintiffs. As a result of substitution of counsel,
the court has extended all existing dates by ten months. The
matter is now anticipated to move into discovery. The Company
retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of these
claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition of
this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on Indiana FCRA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, provided updates on
Indiana Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Action Litigation

On March 18, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by Melvin
Banks, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
persons against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00105. The complaint alleges that Central violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide job applicants
with adverse action notices and copies of their consumer reports
and rights. At this time, the size of the potential class is
unknown. The matter is now anticipated to move into discovery. The
Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of
these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on Utah Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, provided updates on
Utah Collective and Individual Arbitration.

On June 1, 2012, Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree
filed a putative class and collective action lawsuit against
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon
Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes (collectively referred to herein as the
"Central Parties"), Case No. ED CV 12-00886 in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. Through
this action, the plaintiffs alleged that the Central Parties
misclassified owner-operator drivers as independent contractors
and were therefore liable to these drivers for minimum wages and
other employee benefits under the FLSA. The complaint also alleged
a federal forced labor claim under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1589 and 1595,
as well as fraud and other state-law claims.

Pursuant to the plaintiffs' owner-operator agreements, the
district court issued an Order compelling arbitration and directed
that the plaintiffs' causes of action under the FLSA should
proceed to collective arbitration, while their forced labor, fraud
and state law claims would proceed as separate individual
arbitrations. A collective arbitration was subsequently initiated
with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). Notice of the
collective arbitration was sent to more than 3,000 owner-operators
who worked for Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. and leased a
vehicle from Central Leasing, Inc. on or after June 1, 2009. The
parties are currently conducting discovery. No trial date has been
set by the arbitrator.

In addition to the collective arbitration that is pending before
the AAA, the three named plaintiffs, along with approximately 400
other owner-operators, have initiated a series of individual,
bilateral proceedings against the Central Parties with the AAA.
Discovery is commencing in these individual cases, which are
pending before approximately 30 separate arbitrators. Trial dates
for these arbitrations are expected to begin in late 2016.
The Central Parties intend to vigorously defend against the merits
of plaintiffs' claims in both the collective and individual
arbitration proceedings. The final disposition of this case and
the impact cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Updates on Pre-employment Testing Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, provided updates on
California Class and Collective Action for Pre-employment Physical
Testing.

On October 6, 2014 Robin Anderson filed a putative class and
collective action against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.,
("Central Refrigerated") Case No. 5:14-CV 02062 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California (the
"Anderson Complaint"). In this action, plaintiff alleges that pre-
employment tests of physical strength administered by a third
party on behalf of Central Refrigerated, had an unlawfully
discriminatory impact on female applicants and applicants over the
age of 40. The suit seeks damages under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act, and parallel
California state law provisions, including the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act.

Based on the acquisition of Central Refrigerated by Swift
Transportation Company, Plaintiff was allowed to amend her
complaint in October 2015 to include Swift Transportation Company
and Workwell Systems, Inc. as additional defendants. Workwell
Systems, Inc. is the company that provided the physical testing
service used by Central Refrigerated. The litigation is still at a
very preliminary stage and plaintiff has not yet effected service
on the newly added defendants. Discovery has not yet commenced in
the case and no trial date has been set. There is not currently
any information available regarding the number of potential
members of the putative class or collective actions.
Central Refrigerated and Swift intend to vigorously defend against
the merits of plaintiff's claims. The final disposition of this
case and the impact cannot be determined at this time.


TCP INTERNATIONAL: Jan. 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Dec. 30 announced the filing of a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of TCP International
Holdings, Ltd. between May 8, 2015 and November 5, 2015,
inclusive.  Injured investors are encouraged to contact Lesley
Portnoy of GPM at 310-201-9150 to discuss their legal rights.

On November 5, 2015, TCP announced that it did not anticipate that
it would file its third quarter Form 10-Q by the extended due date
of November 23, 2015.  The Company also announced that the Audit
Committee of TCP's Board of Directors was conducting an internal
investigation concerning payments made by its Chairman with his
personal funds relating to TCP's business, and whether
relationships exist between its Chairman and Vice-Chairman and
certain vendors.

The complaint alleges that TCP misled investors regarding its
internal controls over financial reporting, or otherwise deceived
investors in regards to its operations.

Upon disclosure of the Audit Committee's investigation, TCP shares
fell $1.20, or 54%, to close at $1.02 per share on November 6,
2015, thereby injuring investors.

TCP investors have until January 11, 2016 to move the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements.  If you have information or would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com
or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by e-mail please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


TOPPERS INT'L: Ex-Dancer Files Class Action Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Morales, writing for OnlineAthens, reports that a former exotic
dancer at Toppers International Showbar is suing the strip club's
owners for unpaid wages, overtime and tips she claims were
withheld during her three years working at the downtown Athens
establishment.

Christie Burrell filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court in Athens on Dec. 30, alleging club owners Darnell Lewis
Gardner and Sandra Gardner misclassified their adult entertainers
as "independent contractors," allowing them to bypass compensation
rules dictated by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The former dancer contends the Gardners required or permitted
dancers to work 40 hours or more per week but refused to
compensate them at the applicable minimum wage and overtime rate.
Stating her only compensation was in the form of tips, Ms. Burrell
notes the Gardners' practice of failing to pay tipped employees
properly, violating the minimum wage provision.  She also accused
them of the "practice of siphoning away those tips to distribute
to non-tip eligible employees," according to the lawsuit.

Ms. Burrell is seeking to recover compensation for herself and all
"current and former exotic entertainers who worked at Topper (sic)
International Showbar at any time during the three years before
this Complaint was filed up to the present," according to the
lawsuit.

"She was the first person to come forward, there's been grumbling
about this for a while and she happened to be the one with the
courage to come forward," said attorney Andrew R. Frisch, who is
representing Ms. Burrell in this matter.

Similar lawsuits have been filed across the country in recent
years with the law coming down on the side of the dancers.  The
Scarlett's Cabaret strip-club chain in July settled a class-action
suit for $6 million, which could benefit 4,700 women who worked at
the club's three locations, according to the Miami Herald.  A
New York club in April settled a similar suit for $15 million,
while last December a Texas club settled for $2.3 million.

In the local lawsuit, Mr. Frisch believes the number of dancers
who would benefit would be smaller than previous lawsuits, with
maybe a couple hundred involved instead of a couple thousand.
Once the matter found traction in bigger metropolitan areas, it
started to filter into smaller cities, Frisch said, with more such
cases landing in court.

A Georgia federal judge set a precedent in February 2014 when
ruling exotic dancers are employees and not independent
contractors.  Ms. Burrell's lawsuit expounds on this ruling,
making several points which detail how the dancers should be
considered legally as employees, such as:

   * The Gardners controlled the dancers' work schedules;
   * They required the entertainers to work a certain number of
     days during the week;
   * They required dancers to wear specific clothing, determined
the rate and method of payment, and set prices customers pay for
private dances and admission to the VIP lounge.

"(The Gardners) controlled the nature, pay structure, and
employment relationship of the Plaintiff and Class Members," the
lawsuit states, and "as such, (they) are the employers of the
Plaintiff and Class Members . . . and are jointly, severally, and
liable for all damages."

The dancers were required to pay Toppers "house fees," and also
divvy their tips with certain employees at the end of their
shifts, including the DJ, house mom, security and managers.  The
Gardners "have had, and continue to have, an annual gross business
volume in excess of $500,000.00 per annum," according to the
lawsuit.

Ms. Burrell worked at Toppers from November 2012 to November 2015,
and had "first-hand personal knowledge of the pay violations."
She charges the Gardners disciplined the dancers for not following
club rules and "instructed the entertainers about when, where, and
how the entertainers were to perform their work."  No records were
kept of the dancers' work hours which "have not complied with
federal law," according to the lawsuit.

Ms. Burrell is demanding a jury trial and seeks overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 hours, all unpaid wages
at the federally mandated minimum wage rate, all misappropriated
tips, all funds labelled as fees, fines or otherwise, reasonable
attorney's fees, and "such other relief to which Plaintiff and
Class Members may be entitled."

The attorney said, "We think this is a strong case certainly,
which is why we agreed to take it on.  These clubs are making so
much money by not paying the girls their rightful wages and they
don't want to comply with the law until they are forced into
complying with the law."


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Court of Appeals Has Not Yet Issued Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has not yet issued a ruling on the
appeal in the federal securities class action.

"On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal securities class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, naming us, former chief executive officers of Transocean
Ltd. and one of our acquired companies as defendants," the Company
said.  "In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired
company alleged that the joint proxy statement relating to our
shareholder meeting in connection with the merger with the
acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
plaintiff claimed that the acquired company's shareholders
received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of
the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the plaintiff and the
proposed class members.  In connection with this action, we are
obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual
defendants, which may be covered by our directors' and officers'
liability insurance, subject to a deductible.  On March 11, 2014,
the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
the claims as time-barred.  Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument on
August 18, 2015.  The court has not yet issued a ruling."


TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS: "Awai" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Awai et al v. Transportation
Consultants of America, Inc., Case No. 15-016439 Div 02, was
removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-
cv-62286-DPG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose due to labor-related issues, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Transportation Consultants of America provides transportation
services, and is based in Long Island City, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jenna Rinehart Rassif, Esq.
          Derek H. Sparks, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          Two South Biscayne Blvd
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131-1802
          Telephone: (305) 577-7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
          E-mail: jenna.rassif@jacksonlewis.com
                  derek.sparks@jacksonlewis.com


TRI-COUNTY TELEPHONE: Faces Fraud Class Action Over BHT Sale
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Kolb, writing for codyenterprise.com, reports that fraud in
the sale of the Tri-County Telephone company has been alleged in a
class action lawsuit filed on Dec. 28 in Park County District
Court.

The suit stems from the sale of TCT on Dec. 31, 2014, to BHT
Investments, owned by Neil Schlenker.  The lawsuit was filed with
the State of Wyoming, Plaintiffs Joe Campbell, Barbara Campbell
and potentially 800 others who were owners in the company.

Court papers allege a trail of deceit, strong-arm tactics and
violation of state statutes in regards to a publicly held
communications company.  A large share of the allegations and
negative portrayals are directed at Chris Davidson, chief
executive officer of TCT, and Dalin Winters, who was the chairman
of the Board of Directors of the cooperative.

According to court papers, TCT was sold to an entity controlled by
Mr. Schlenker for $51 million.  The lawsuit alleges that in the
sale, the CEO of TCT, certain Board of Directors of TCT and
counsel for TCT collaborated with Mr. Schlenker to use the owners'
own assets to fund the purchase.

In the end, the court papers state, "The total value of the
transaction was not $51 million, and contrary to Winters'
representation, the owners did not receive $51 million.  The
owners were bilked out of tens of millions of dollars of value
that they owned in the company."

Defendants in the case are listed as Mr. Davidson, Tri-County
Telephone Association, Inc., Winters, Clifford Alexander, J.O.
Sutherland Daniel Greet, John K. Johnson, Schlenker, Big Horn
Telecommunications, LLC, BHT Investments, LLC, BHT Holdings, Inc.,
BHT Merger Corp., Hathaway and Kunz, P.C., Michael Rosenthal,
Esq., among others.

Alleged actions by the defendants paint a dark picture of the
events leading up to the sale of the company.

The court documents read as follows:

"The Defendants named in this Complaint breached their duty of
loyalty, fidelity, and good faith, by among other things deceiving
the owners of the company, intentionally violating Wyoming law
governing the sale of cooperative utility assets, seeking to
disenfranchise the owners of the cooperative, wasting company
assets, failing to comply with the terms of the company's
organizational governing agreements, and using fear, intimidation,
oppression, and strong-arm tactics to obtain approval of the
sale."

A brief history of TCT shows it began in 1953 and was organized
under the laws of the State of Wyoming as a utility cooperative to
provide telephone service to the Big Horn Basin area.  From 1953
to 2014, TCT was a consumer cooperative.

Over the years, the company grew into a successful cooperative.
"According to the 2012-13 year end financial statements (capital
infrastructure) cost over $90 million, net cash flow from
operating activities has been as high as $7 million per year . . .
The positive cash flow enabled the cooperative to build a very
superior fiber infrastructure," documents about the company
stated.

Overseeing this apparently successful company is the defendant,
Mr. Davidson, who grew up in Burlington.

Mr. Davidson began his career at TCT in 2001 and accepted the
position of CEO in 2004. He is also president of Tri County
Affiliate companies, TCT West, Inc., Tri Tel Inc., and Yellowstone
Cellular.  Mr. Davidson has served in the past as mayor of
Burlington, is a member of the Board of Directors of Northwest
College Foundation, Eleutian Technologies, Bolt Data Systems,
president of Pinnacle Consulting LLC, and also the Stake President
of the Church of Latter Day Saints in Cody.

"It is alleged that Defendant Chris Davidson . . . was in a
position of trust and confidence among the owners of the TCT
Cooperative," papers from District Court state.  "It is alleged on
information and belief that Defendant Neil Schlenker and Defendant
Chris Davidson . . . were very close friends, have a long and
close personal relationship, and that any business dealings
between each of the companies regarding their respective business
interests were not arms length transactions."

History of the alleged takeover bid starts in 2009, when Davidson
informed the TCT Board of Directors Mr. Schlenker was interested
in purchasing the company.  Mr. Schlenker attended a board meeting
and submitted an offer of $11 million.

Plaintiff Joe Campbell was the chairman of the Board of Directors.
After a review process, Mr. Campbell and Board Member Bill
Loveland voiced strong disapproval of the purchase proposal.  The
Board of Directors then voted to reject the proposal.

"After rejection of the Schlenker bid, Defendant Davidson
identified Board Members Joe Campbell and Bill Loveland as
dissenters who imposed an impediment to his direction for the
company," court documents state.  "After the 2009 offer by
Defendant Schlenker, Defendants and each of them, began to prepare
the cooperative for an eventual takeover by Defendant Schlenker."

What followed was a battle between the two sides.  The court
papers allege Davidson fired "troublemaker" employees, cultivated
a culture of silence and intimidation, censured Plaintiff Joe
Campbell and called him a "liar," among other accusations.  It's
also alleged that during this period, the defendants sought to
lower expectations of the owners by casting a pessimistic
impression of the political climate for telecommunications
companies.  The defendants are also accused of hoarding cash and
refusing to pay dividends to the owners.

Another proposal to buy TCT was made by Big Horn Telecom, LLC, in
July 2013.  After so-called strong-arm tactics by the defendants,
the sale went through at the end of 2014.

A jury trial is now "demanded" in Park County District Court,
court documents state.


UNDER ARMOUR: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has
reached an agreement on settlement terms with the lead plaintiff
in a class action.

Following the Company's announcement of the creation of a new
class of common stock, referred to as the Class C common stock,
par value $0.0003 1/3 per share, four purported class action
lawsuits were brought against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors on behalf of the stockholders of the
Company, the first of which was filed on June 18, 2015. These
lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, and were consolidated into one action, In re: Under
Armour Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 24-C-15-003240. The
lawsuits (the "Court") generally alleged that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
approving the creation of the Class C common stock, as well as in
connection with recommending for approval by stockholders certain
governance related changes to the Company's charter.

On October 7, 2015, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement on settlement terms with the lead plaintiff.  A
stipulation of settlement reflecting those terms has been
submitted to the Court for preliminary approval, and the Court is
expected to rule on whether to preliminarily approve the
settlement after briefing is complete on the lead plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval.

In the event that the Court preliminarily approves the settlement,
the Court would then set a hearing date to determine whether to
grant final approval to the settlement.  Under the terms of the
settlement, following the initial distribution of the Class C
common stock, the Company has agreed to issue additional
consideration to the holders of Class C common stock in the form
of a dividend with a value of $59 million, which will be payable
in the form of the Company's Class A common stock, Class C common
stock, cash or a combination thereof, to be determined at the sole
discretion of the Company's Board of Directors.  This dividend
must be authorized by the Board of Directors within approximately
60 days following the initial distribution of the Class C common
stock.  Additionally, the settlement agreement includes certain
non-monetary remedies, including an amendment to the
Confidentiality, Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement
between the Company and Kevin A. Plank, the Company's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, and an agreement that the Company's Board
of Directors will undertake certain considerations when using more
than a specified amount of shares of Class C common stock as
consideration in certain acquisition transactions.


UNITED STATES: Veterans Fight for Right to Bring Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Randazzo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
group of veterans who have each waited more than a year to have
disability claims reviewed say they are being denied a right
granted to most Americans -- the ability to team up and bring
class-action lawsuits to fight grievances.

The group filed a lawsuit in 2014 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims seeking prompt decisions by the Department of
Veterans Affairs for thousands of veterans waiting for benefits,
saying the delays are causing financial and medical hardship.

But the veterans' appeals court, created by Congress in 1988 to
hear challenges to initial government decisions on benefit claims,
says it isn't allowed to hear cases that aggregate complaints of
many veterans.

The stance is counter to remedies available in most state and
federal courts, which allow groups of similarly situated people,
such as company employees or consumers of a product, to file a
single suit aimed at resolving an alleged injustice.  Veterans
fighting disability decisions must wait for their cases to be
taken up one by one.

Now, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is
considering whether that should change to allow class actions in
the veterans' court.

The Justice Department, which represents Veterans Affairs, is
expected to file its position on the issue with the court in
January.  A VA spokeswoman declined to comment.

The VA has previously said it backs the decision to block class
actions.  At 2009 and 2011 legislative hearings, agency
representatives said such cases would divert the court's scarce
resources and are unnecessary since the court already looks to
precedent to rule the same way in cases with similar facts.

Underlying the current fight is what critics call an over-
congested disability claims system.  While the VA has cut its
backlog of disability claims to 74,955, an 88% drop from its peak
in 2013, the number of veterans appealing initial disability
decisions has risen in the past two years.  In the 12 months
ending in September, veterans initiated 169,068 appeals--an appeal
rate of 14.6%, up from 11% the prior year.

Going through an appeal takes nearly four years on average.  The
process can involve several rounds of appeals and allows new
evidence at any time, the department says.

"Veterans are demoralized while waiting," said Kimberly Bonner,
42, an Army veteran who began receiving disability benefits last
year, 14 years after she began the process.  She said it took
several rounds of appeals and the help of a corporate law firm to
convince the VA she had post-traumatic stress disorder.

In a May ruling, one of the veterans' court's eight active judges
said the court has a "long-standing declaration that it does not
have the authority to entertain class actions."  In an oft-cited
1991 decision, it found aggregating claims was "highly
unmanageable" and "unnecessary."

Veterans groups say decisions reached on behalf of more than one
veteran could set precedent that would streamline the claims
process.

"It is pure fantasy to pretend that these disabled, indigent
veterans" have the ability to take their cases to court
individually, according to a filing by Yale Law School's veterans
clinic, which is representing the veterans in the appeal.  The
clinic also backed the underlying April lawsuit seeking class
status.

Two of the VA's former top lawyers are also pushing for the court
to hear class actions.  "The pool of applicants for benefits is
getting bigger and sicker than ever," the lawyers, Will Gunn and
Mary Lou Keener, said in a brief filed in the Federal Circuit
appeal.


UNITED STATES: Veterans Get Support in Bid to Bring Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Randazzo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
veterans who have waited more than a year to have disability
claims reviewed say they are being denied a right granted to most
Americans--the ability to team up and bring class-action lawsuits
to fight grievances.

The group filed a lawsuit in 2015 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims seeking prompt decisions by the Department of
Veterans Affairs for thousands of veterans waiting for benefits,
saying the delays are causing financial and medical hardship.

But the veterans' appeals court, created by Congress in 1988 to
hear challenges to initial government decisions on benefit claims,
says it isn't allowed to hear cases that aggregate complaints of
many veterans.  Instead, it says it can only take up benefits
appeals one by one.

Now, as The Wall Street Journal examined on Dec. 30, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether
that policy should change to allow class actions in the veterans
court.

The Justice Department, which represents Veterans Affairs, is
expected to file its position on the issue with the court in
January.  A spokeswoman for the VA, which has previously said it
backs the decision to block class actions, declined to comment on
the litigation.

The appeal has garnered attention from veterans groups, law
professors, and even former VA lawyers, all of whom have filed
briefs to the Federal Circuit in support of allowing class actions
in the veterans court.

Without some form of class action, "similarly-situated veterans
will be treated in dramatically different ways," a group of
veterans organizations, including the American Legion and the
National Veterans Legal Services Program, wrote in their brief.

The law professors' brief detailed how other nontraditional
courts -- which differ from regular federal courts in that they're
not granted powers under Article III of the Constitution -- have
found ways to consolidate cases or create a class-action
equivalent.  Those include the bankruptcy courts, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Such courts have aggregated claims "to promote efficiency,
consistency, and fairness."

As two former top VA lawyers, Will Gunn and Mary Lou Keener,
pointed out in their own brief, until the veterans court was
created in 1988, veterans could go to federal district courts to
bring class actions.  Now, the veterans court is their only venue
for disability claims-related appeals.

"Justice does not prevail when sick and indigent veterans wait
five to seven years to learn the results of their appeals," the
lawyers wrote, adding that the veterans court "should not lack a
tool that would allow it to clarify legal rules and more
expeditiously resolve a backlog of claims appeals that dishonors
and harms those who have served in our nation's armed forces."


VALE: Investors File Securities Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Frederico Barbosa, writing for BNamericas, reports that US law
firm Vincent Wong said a class action lawsuit was started in
New York on behalf of investors who acquired Brazilian mining
giant Vale's securities between March 21 and November 30 this
year.

Vincent Wong, in a statement, alleged Vale "issued false and
misleading statements" in connection with the deadly dam burst
disaster at the Samarco iron ore complex in Brazil in November.

Samarco is a 50:50 JV between Vale and fellow mining heavyweight
BHP Billiton.

Vincent Wong invited investors to join the action against Vale,
filed in the Southern District Court of New York City.

More than 10 other class actions are possible, Brazilian newspaper
Valor reported on Dec. 30.

VINCENT WONG'S COMPLAINT

The complaint alleges that Vale issued false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that the bursting of the
Samarco dam resulted in the spillage of toxic waste or that Vale
had a contract with Samarco that allowed Vale to deposit iron ore
waste from its Alegria mine treatment plants into the dam.

Vincent Wong also said "Vale's programs and procedures to mitigate
environmental, health, and safety incidents were inadequate, and
as a result, defendants' statements about Vale's business and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times."

Samarco has claimed the mine waste is non-toxic, while its CEO,
Ricardo Vescovi, has estimated it would take six to 12 months to
determine exactly why the dam burst.


VIZIO INC: Smart TV Owners File Class Action in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
Owners of Smart TVs, represented by Tamari Law Group, LLC, Pavich
Law Group, P.C., and Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, filed a class action
lawsuit against Vizio, Inc., in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana.  The class action alleges
that Vizio loaded content-recognition software on its customers'
Smart TVs.  The complaint asserts that the software records the
viewers' habits and Vizio then sells that information to
advertisers.  The class action also alleges that the tracking
software collects information about other personal devices
connected to the same home network, such as smart phones and
tablets.

According to the complaint, advertisers purchasing this personal
data can then tailor advertisements to display on specific
individuals' TVs and other devices that share a network with the
TV.

"The complaint describes how the practice of monitoring and
sharing viewing habits without obtaining the customer's consent
violates state consumer protection and data privacy statutes,"
said plaintiff's attorney, John Pavich, of Indiana-based firm
Pavich Law Group, LLC.  "As the complaint states, we are seeking
here to stop and remedy the violation of the customers' privacy,"
added plaintiff's attorney, Walid J. Tamari, of Chicago-based
civil litigation firm Tamari Law Group, LLC.

The case is Stanley W. Pagorek v. Vizio, Inc., et al. case number
15-cv-00472.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Diesel Engines
--------------------------------------------------------
Casey Toner, writing for al.com, reports that a Marengo County car
dealer is suing Volkswagen, alleging that its law-evading diesel
engines caused the dealer to incur increased expenses and "a loss
of goodwill" in the diesel vehicle marketplace.

Windham Motor Company, a Chevrolet and Buick dealer in Demopolis,
filed the lawsuit on Dec. 23 in the U.S. District Court in Selma.
Attorneys from Birmingham, Montgomery, and Alton, Illinois, are
representing the dealer in the class-action suit, which seeks more
than $5 million in damages.

The case will be likely transferred to a federal courthouse in
northern California, where it will be added to a number of claims
that were made against the auto manufacturer including three from
Alabama.

The class-action lawsuit centers around Volkswagen and Audi's
"Clean Diesel" and "Turbocharged Direct Injection" engines that
used software to pass emissions tests, but actually emitted
nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the standard allowed under
federal laws and regulation.  The engines were in direct
competition with the 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel, which was sold
by Windham Motor Company.

To market its cars, Volkswagen advertised that the "stinky, smoky,
and sluggish," realities of diesel "no longer apply," according to
the lawsuit.

But Volkswagen told the truth about the engines in a September
announcement that shocked the international business world. Eight
Volkswagen vehicles, five Audi vehicles, and Porsche used the
engines, according to the lawsuit.  More than 11 million vehicles
worldwide were affected.

"Volkswagen's false representations were targeted at the
marketplace and general purchasing public in order to influence
consumers to purchase Volkswagen diesel automobiles to the
detriment of competing diesel vehicle sellers . . ." the lawsuit
states.

The four-count lawsuit alleges violations of the Lanham Act, which
allows for a business to sue another business if that other
business engages in false advertising; unfair competition; unjust
enrichment; wantonness; and civil conspiracy.

News reports indicate that the U.S. Department of Justice has also
launched an investigation into the auto manufacturer.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hernandez" Suit in M.D. Fla. Faces Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOAQUIN HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-1517-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla., December 23,
2015), constitutes an impermissible "shotgun pleading" and may be
dismissed, District Judge Marcia Morales Howard in Jacksonville,
Florida, ruled.

A shotgun complaint "contains several counts, each one
incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors,
leading to a situation where most of the counts . . . contain
irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions." Strategic
Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d
1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002).

"Each count in the Complaint incorporates by reference all
allegations of the preceding counts," Judge Morales Howard said.

The four-count Class Action Complaint is stricken and the
Plaintiff must file an amended complaint consistent with the
directives of this Order on or before January 19, 2016. Failure to
do so may result in a dismissal of this action.

A copy of the Court's January 4, 2016 Order is available at
http://is.gd/XFvBF8from Leagle.com.

Joaquin Hernandez is represented by:

     Fred Catfish Abbott, Esq.
     Steven William Teppler, Esq.
     ABBOTT LAW GROUP, PA
     2929 Plummer Cove Road
     Jacksonville, FL 32223
     Tel: 904-292-1111


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Jaffe" Moved from Superior Court to ND Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jaffe v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. RG15787348, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-04978-LB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose due to fraud-related issues allegedly committed
by the defendant.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Stephen Arns, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street, Third Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
          E-mail: ddl@arnslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-2048
          E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com


VTECH ELECTRONICS: Keller Rohrback Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
On December 31, 2015, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. filed a class action
lawsuit against VTech Electronics North American L.L.C. alleging
the digital toymaker exposed the data of more than ten million
parents, legal guardians, and minor children.

VTech Electronics North American L.L.C., a company dedicated to
making electronic products and delivering associated services to
young children, announced that an "unauthorized party accessed
VTech customer data housed on our Learning Lodge app store
database on November 14, 2015."  The customer database accessed
contained general user profile information including names, email
addresses, birthdays, encrypted passwords, secret questions and
answers for password retrieval, IP addresses, mailing addresses,
and download history.

The Complaint was filed on behalf of Texas-based Fredy Giron who
purchased a VTech Kidizoom Smartwatch DX, which is an electronic
product marketed to children.  In order to make full use of the
features of the VTech device, Mr. Giron was required to download
and install VTech's Learning Lodge software and to create an
account with VTech in order to download content to the device in a
process which required him to submit his name, email address,
password, secret question and answer, home address, as well as his
credit card number and billing information to VTech.  Mr. Giron
also submitted this information for his minor child, including his
child's name, gender, birthday, and photograph.  Mr. Giron was
never notified by VTech that this information -- which is commonly
used to commit identity theft -- was breached.

Even worse than leaving customers susceptible to identity theft,
the information compromised in the data breach is "linked to
additional extensive information about the minor children,
including their age, gender, facial and vocal characteristics,
which places these VTech customers at increased risk of exposure
to criminal acts of child predators," the Complaint alleges, "As
one security expert observed, 'people who prey on children--now
have the ability to get basic information about them--where they
live, what they look like,' cautioning that 'this lapse of
security' would potentially allow such predators to gain the trust
of children whose information was compromised."

If you are concerned that your or your child's personal
information was breached and would like to know more about this
case, please contact attorneys Cari Laufenberg, Gretchen Cappio,
or Amy Hanson at (800) 776-6044 or via email at
consumer@kellerrohrback.com

The case is Giron v. VTech Electronics North America, L.L.C. in
the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division.  A copy of the
complaint is available at krcomplexlit.com

Keller Rohrback represents consumer and employee victims of data
breaches.  Keller Rohrback has a long track-record of success with
data breach litigation, including the Ninth Circuit case Krottner
v. Starbucks, where the court held that the theft of a laptop
containing employees' personally identifiable information sufficed
to confer Article III standing on plaintiffs.

The firm also represents plaintiff employees in the Sony Data
Breach case, currently pending in the Central District of
California.  In addition, Keller Rohrback also represents
plaintiffs in the Target consumer litigation, as well as the data
breach cases pending against Anthem Inc., Excellus BlueCross
BlueShield, and Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

With offices in Seattle, Phoenix, New York, and Santa Barbara,
Keller Rohrback serves as lead and co-lead counsel in class
actions throughout the country.


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: 3 Families Avert Eviction Amid Foreclosure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a
federal judge on Dec. 30 temporarily spared three families from
getting evicted, giving them more time to pursue a lawsuit that
claims Wayne County officials intentionally denied 18 homeowners -
- and potentially hundreds more -- a fair chance to pay their
overdue taxes.

U.S. District Judge Judith Levy's order applies to only  three
homeowners -- in Lincoln Park, Redford Township and Garden City --
who have not had eviction proceedings initiated against them.  She
concluded that she did not have jurisdiction over the 15 pending
eviction cases.  Defendants had until Dec. 30 to respond; the
plaintiffs have until Jan. 11.

The 15 other families are still battling eviction proceedings in
local courts across Wayne County.

All 18 plaintiffs are still living in their homes, which are
mortgage-free.

At the heart of this case are claims that the Wayne County
Treasurer's Office intentionally didn't provide the homeowners
with notices about overdue taxes, denied them payment plans they
were entitled to and subsequently tricked them into a "default"
status.

"We've concluded that this can be nothing but a malicious act,"
said the plaintiffs' attorney, Tarek Baydoun, who claims the
county's actions hurt poor and struggling families.  "All of them
are blue-collar folks with mortgage-free homes that their families
bled and sweat for."

Treasurer Richard Hathaway was not readily available for comment.

The lawsuit filed on Dec. 28 in U.S. District Court alleges the 18
houses were illegally foreclosed upon, seized and sold to various
real estate companies and investors for pennies on the dollar --
without giving the homeowners a fair chance to pay up or bid at
auction.

According to the lawsuit, all of the plaintiffs "qualified for the
hardship agreements" but were "deliberately misinformed  by the
treasurer and staff" when they reached out for help.  Some were
told they had time to pay their taxes and should wait until a
specific time, although that wasn't true, the lawsuit claims.
Others were told that they did not qualify for payment plans when
"they, in fact, did," the suit said.

According to Mr. Baydoun, a key issue in the case is who actually
owns the title to the homes: the original homeowners, or the
investors to whom the county deeded the properties.

"They (the investors) have deeds to the home, but not the actual
titles. And some got the deeds before they even paid; that's
what's very significant," Mr. Baydoun said.

According to Baydoun, the 18 homes are worth more than $1.5
million combined.

Baydoun cited the case of Brandy Gutierrez, who signed a payment
plan in December 2014 to pay off  roughly $6,300 in overdue taxes,
interest and penalties.  According to the lawsuit, the county sold
her home without telling her for roughly $5,300, even though she
was making payments.  The lawsuit said the home was worth more
than $80,000.

"Her story is one of the most egregious ones," Baydoun said.
"That's what happened in a lot of these cases."

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status on behalf of roughly
800 homeowners.  The current plaintiffs are from Dearborn, Garden
City, Lincoln Park, Redford Township and Wayne.

Thus far, other homeowners who have taken their forfeiture claims
against Wayne County to federal court have not been successful, as
courts found that they were not entitled to relief in federal
court.  But in this case, the plaintiffs are claiming their
federal due-process rights were violated.

As one of the plaintiffs, Garden City resident Paula Newcomb, told
the judge in a Dec. 22 letter:

"My credit has been damaged by this illegal foreclosure.  I am
emotionally distressed, and I want to keep my home."  Ms. Newcomb
said she tried to pay her overdue taxes in August, but was denied
the opportunity.  "I am ready to pay any amounts I owe.  I have
been illegally denied equal protection and due process of law
guaranteed by the laws and constitutions of the State of Michigan
and the United States of America."


WELLS FARGO BANK: "Torres" Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Torres et al v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., Case No. CIVDS 1513201, was removed from the Superior Court
of California, Bernardino County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside).
The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02225
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from alleged failure of the defendant to provide
meal and rest breaks in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wells Fargo Bank provides personal, small business, and commercial
banking services. The bank is headquartered in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn C. Westrick, Esq.
          KAWAHITO WESTRICK LLP
          1990 S. Bundy Dr., Ste. 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 598-1588
          Facsimile: (310) 593-2520
          E-mail: kswlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Malcolm A. Heinicke, Esq.
          Manuel F. Cachan, Esq.
          Margaret G. Maraschino, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES AND OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100
          Facsimile: (213) 683-4015
          E-mail: malcolm.heinicke@mto.com
                  manuel.cachan@mto.com
                  margaret.maraschino@mto.com


WP GLIMCHER: Final Judgment Entered on Plaintiffs' Fee Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
WP Glimcher Inc. and Washington Prime Group, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that a court entered an Order and Final Judgment that
approved plaintiffs' fee award and expenses in the aggregate
amount of $443,000, which the Company paid on July 23, 2015.

Two shareholder lawsuits challenging the Merger-related
transactions were filed in Maryland state court, respectively
captioned Zucker v. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-005675
(Circ. Ct. Baltimore City), filed on October 2, 2014, and Motsch
v. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-006011 (Circ. Ct.
Baltimore City), filed on October 23, 2014. The actions were
consolidated, and on November 12, 2014 plaintiffs filed a
consolidated shareholder class action and derivative complaint,
captioned In re Glimcher Realty Trust Shareholder Litigation, 24-
C-14-005675 (Circ. Ct. Baltimore City) (the "Consolidated
Action"). The Consolidated Action names as defendants the then
members of the Glimcher Board of Trustees (the "trustees"), and
alleges these defendants breached fiduciary duties. Specifically,
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action allege that the trustees of
Glimcher agreed to sell Glimcher for inadequate consideration and
agreed to improper deal protection provisions that precluded other
bidders from making successful offers. Plaintiffs further allege
that the sales process was flawed and conflicted in several
respects, including the allegation that the trustees failed to
canvas the market for potential buyers, failed to secure a "go-
shop" provision in the merger agreement allowing Glimcher to seek
alternative bids after signing the merger agreement, and were
improperly influenced by WPG's early suggestion that the surviving
entity would remain headquartered in Ohio and would retain a
significant portion of Glimcher management, including the
retention of Michael Glimcher as CEO of the surviving entity and
positions for Michael Glimcher and another trustee of Glimcher on
the board of the surviving entity. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action additionally allege that the Preliminary Registration
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") on October 28, 2014, failed to disclose material
information concerning, among other things, (i) the process
leading up to the consummation of the Merger Agreement; (ii) the
financial analyses performed by Glimcher's financial advisors; and
(iii) certain financial projections prepared by Glimcher and WPG
management allegedly relied on by Glimcher's financial advisors.
The Consolidated Action also names as defendants Glimcher, WPG and
certain of their affiliates, and alleges that these defendants
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.
Plaintiffs sought, among other things, an order enjoining or
rescinding the transaction, damages, and an award of attorney's
fees and costs.

On December 22, 2014, defendants, including the Company, in the
Consolidated Action, by and through counsel, entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action providing for the settlement of the
Consolidated Action. Under the terms of the MOU, and to avoid the
burden and expense of further litigation, the Company and Glimcher
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the
then-proposed Merger, all of which were set forth in a Current
Report on Form 8-K filed by Glimcher with the SEC on December 23,
2014. On January 12, 2015, at the Special Meeting of Glimcher
shareholders, the shareholders voted to approve the Merger, and on
January 15, 2015 the Merger closed.

The MOU contemplated that the parties would enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The parties entered into such a
stipulation on March 30, 2015. The stipulation of settlement was
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Glimcher's common shareholders. Additionally,
in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to
exceed $425,000 and reasonable, documented expenses in an amount
not to exceed $20,000, to be paid by the Company. Accordingly, the
Company accrued $445,000 related to this matter, which expense is
included in merger and transaction costs for the nine months ended
September 30, 2015 in the accompanying consolidated and combined
statements of operations and comprehensive income. On June 17,
2015, plaintiffs' counsel requested a fee award of $425,000 plus
expenses of $18,000, which amounts were covered by our previously
recorded accrual. A hearing was held on July 17, 2015 at which the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City considered the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. Following the
hearing, the court issued an Order and Final Judgment approving
the settlement and dismissing the Consolidated Action. The Order
and Final Judgment approved plaintiffs' fee award and expenses in
the aggregate amount of $443,000, which the Company paid on July
23, 2015.


XENCOR INC: Hearing Held on Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a settlement
hearing was scheduled for December 10, 2015, in a class action
lawsuit.

On March 3, 2015, a verified class action complaint, captioned
DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of
the Company's current and former directors alleging cause of
action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Invalidity of Director and
Stockholder Consents.  In general, the complaint alleged that the
plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent were shareholders of
the Company during the recapitalization and certain related
transactions that the Company underwent in 2013 and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the course of
approving that series of transactions. It also challenged as
invalid certain corporate acts taken in the 2013 time period.

On June 10, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Petition for Relief
under Del. C. Section 205 (the 205 Petition) related to the
corporate acts challenged in the complaint. The defendants filed
an answer to the class action complaint on June 22, 2015. On July
9, 2015, the Court consolidated the 205 Petition with the class
action, joined the Company as a defendant and ordered it to file
the claims in the 205 Petition as counter-claims in the class
action, which the Company has done.

On August 11, 2015, the Company filed a Motion for Leave to File
an Amended Counter-Claim, along with the proposed Amended Counter-
Claim and related documents. On October 5, the parties filed a
Stipulation of Partial Settlement and related documents disclosing
a settlement of the invalidity claims addressed in the complaint,
the counter-claim and the proposed amended counter-claim including
a request by plaintiff's counsel for reimbursement of legal fees
up to $950,000.

On October 7, 2015, Xencor filed the Amended Counter-Claim and
related documents. A settlement hearing was scheduled for December
10, 2015.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
request to pay legal fees. Based on the nature of the claim, the
Company believes that it is not possible to estimate a potential
loss related to the claim; accordingly, no amount for any loss has
been accrued at September 30, 2015.


XOOM CORP: Amended Complaints Filed in Liu and Barrett Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xoom Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that amended complaints
have been filed in the Liu and Barrett class actions.

On January 6, 2015, the Company, John Kunze and Ryno Blignaut were
sued in a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Alexander Liu
v. Xoom Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-15-543531, filed in San
Francisco Superior Court by purported stockholders of the Company,
in connection with its January 5, 2015 announcement that the
Company was the victim of criminal fraud resulting in the transfer
of $30.8 million in corporate cash to overseas accounts.  On
February 6, 2015, the lawsuit was removed to federal court in the
Northern District of California, and assigned the case number
5:15-cv-00602-LHK.

On March 11, 2015, the Company, John Kunze and Ryno Blignaut were
sued in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Patrick Andrew
Barrett v. Xoom Corp., et al., Case No. CGC-15-544655, also filed
in San Francisco Superior Court by purported stockholders of the
Company. On March 20, 2015, the lawsuit was removed to federal
court in the Northern District of California, and assigned the
case number 5:15-cv-01319.

On June 25, 2015, the federal court remanded the Liu and Barrett
actions back to the San Francisco Superior Court. On September 28,
2015, an amended complaint was filed in the Liu action naming a
different plaintiff, Duncan C. Leuenberger. On October 6, 2015, an
amended complaint was filed in the Barrett action.

The Liu and Barrett lawsuits allege that the Company and Messrs.
Kunze and Blignaut violated federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and/or omitting information in the offering
materials distributed in connection with the Company's February
2013 initial public offering and September 2013 follow-on
offering.  The lawsuits seek unspecified damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.


XOOM CORP: Plaintiffs in Stockholder Suit to Dismiss Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Xoom Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs in In
re Xoom Corporation Stockholder Litigation have notified the court
that they intend to voluntarily dismiss the case.

Between July 8, 2015 and July 16, 2015, four purported class
action lawsuits were filed against Xoom and its directors, PayPal,
Inc., Timer Acquisition Corp. and PayPal Holdings, Inc. in
connection with the proposed Merger between Xoom and PayPal in the
Delaware Chancery Court, captioned Booth Family Trust v. Xoom
Corporation et al., C.A. No. 11263 (July, 8, 2015), King v. Xoom
Corporation et al., C.A. No. 11273 (July 9, 2015), Beverly v.
Kunze et al., C.A. No. 11285 (July 13, 2015) and Torres v. Xoom
Corporation et al., C.A. No. 11301 (July 16, 2015).  On July 17,
2015, the Delaware Court of chancery issued an order consolidating
all of the actions into one matter captioned In re Xoom
Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11263-
VCP.

On July 29, 2015, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
consolidated class action complaint against us and our directors,
PayPal, Timer Acquisition Corp., and PayPal Holdings. On August 5,
2015, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for
expedited proceedings, seeking certain discovery on an expedited
basis, and a motion for a preliminary injunction barring
defendants from taking any action to consummate the proposed
merger.

On August 14, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied
plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings. On October 20, 2015,
plaintiffs notified the Court that they intend to voluntarily
dismiss the case.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges that Xoom's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Xoom stockholders,
and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by
seeking to sell Xoom through an allegedly unfair process and for
an unfair price and on unfair terms. In addition, the consolidated
class action complaint alleges that Xoom's directors breached
their fiduciary duties with respect to the contents of the
preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on July 21, 2015.
The consolidated class action complaint seeks, among other things,
equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of the Merger,
rescission of the Merger Agreement (to the extent it has already
been implemented) or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.


YONGYE INTERNATIONAL: March 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

If you held shares of Yongye International, Inc. ("Yongye" or "the
Company") common stock at any time during the period beginning on
and including October 15, 2012, through and including July 3,
2014, your rights may be affected by a class action settlement.

This Summary Notice is provided pursuant to an Order of the Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada (the "Court") in a
class action lawsuit known as In re Yongye International, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Case No. A-12-670468-B (the
"Action"), to inform you of a proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") reached with Defendants on behalf of a proposed
class of Yongye shareholders (the "Class").

Plaintiffs alleged that the transaction initially announced on
October 15, 2012 (the "Transaction" or the "Merger"), which was
subsequently amended on April 9, 2014, subject to a definitive
proxy filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2,
2014, pursuant to which Yongye was acquired by a buyer group
consisting of defendants Zishen Wu, MSPEA Agriculture Holding
Limited, Prosper Sino Development Limited, Yongye International
Ltd., and Yongye International Merger Sub Limited, for $7.10 per
share in cash (the "Merger Consideration"), was part of an alleged
scheme to acquire Yongye for inadequate consideration and in
breach of Defendants' fiduciary duties, and that other defendants
aided and abetted such breach. ;Defendants have denied, and
continue to deny, that they breached any duty, aided and abetted
any such breach, committed any violation of law, or engaged in any
of the wrongful acts alleged in the Action.  Defendants are
entering into the Settlement solely because it would eliminate the
burden, inconvenience, expense, risk, and uncertainties inherent
in litigation.

A hearing will be held on March 3, 2016 at 8:30 a.m., before the
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, 200 Lewis
Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, (the "Settlement Hearing") to
determine, among other things, whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and whether to grant an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
Plaintiffs' counsel.  The Settlement acknowledges that Yongye made
disclosures in its proxy materials during the pendency of the
Action that mooted certain of Plaintiffs' claims alleging that the
Defendants made materially incomplete or false and misleading
statements in Yongye's public filings.  Further, if approved, the
Settlement will provide for a fund of $6,000,000, which, after
deducting any Plaintiffs' counsels' fees and costs and Plaintiffs'
Award, will be distributed pursuant to the Plan of Allocation to
those Yongye shareholders who owned or beneficially held shares of
Yongye common stock in the period from and including May 2, 2014
through the consummation of the Merger and received merger
consideration for such their shares, as set forth in the Notice.
In order to participate in the settlement you must file a proof of
claim as set forth in the Notice; If you are a Class member, you
are entitled, but not required, to be present at the Settlement
Hearing.

The Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action, Proposed Settlement Of
Class Action And Settlement Hearing (the "Notice") defines the
Class and describes in detail the terms of Settlement, including
how to object to the proposed Settlement and how to exclude
yourself from the Settlement.  The deadline to object is February
11, 2016, and the deadline for exclusion is February 11, 2016. ;
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, you may obtain one
free of charge by downloading it from the website of the Claims
Administrator or contacting the Claims Administrator, Epiq
Systems, at:

Yongye International Shareholder Litigation
P.O. Box 4178
Portland, OR ; 97208-4178
Website: www.yongyesecuritieslitigation.com

Brokerage firms, banks and/or other persons or entities who held
shares of the common stock of Yongye for the benefit of Class
members are directed to promptly send the Notice to all of their
respective beneficial owners or to furnish the names and addresses
of such beneficial holders in writing to Epiq Systems at the
address, which will then be responsible for sending the Notice to
such beneficial holders.


ZYNGA INC: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Jan. 28
-------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the District Court for the
Northern District of California has granted preliminary approval
of the class action settlement in the securities class action.

On July 30, 2012, a purported securities class action captioned
DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSW, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, and certain of our
current and former directors, officers, and executives. Additional
purported securities class actions containing similar allegations
were filed in the Northern District. On September 26, 2012, the
court consolidated various of the class actions as In re Zynga
Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSW. On
January 23, 2013, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff and another named
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2014,
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and provided plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31,
2014. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial projections. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 14, 2012 and July 25, 2012. The First
Amended Complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative class, including
attorneys' fees. On March 25, 2015, the Court issued an order
denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. On April 28, 2015, the Court denied the defendants'
motion for leave to seek reconsideration of that order.

On June 12, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order setting
certain pretrial deadlines leading up to a hearing on any
dispositive motions scheduled for May 12, 2017. On June 24, 2015,
pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the consolidated
class actions were reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley for all further proceedings.

Pursuant to court order, a mediation session was conducted before
the Honorable Edward Infante (Ret.) on August 4, 2015. The parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle In re Zynga Inc.
Securities Litigation as to all defendants for $23.0 million.

The parties negotiated and executed a final stipulation of
settlement and on October 2, 2015, lead plaintiff's counsel filed
an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. In
response to issues raised by the Court at an October 8, 2015 and
in an October 9, 2015 order, on October 15, 2015, lead plaintiff's
counsel revised the papers in support of preliminary approval and
filed a supplemental submission in support of lead plaintiff's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

On October 27, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
class action settlement. The settlement, which is subject to
notice to the class and further court approval at a final fairness
hearing scheduled on January 28, 2016, would be funded entirely by
insurance and lead to the dismissal of all claims against the
defendants. Accordingly there would be no impact to Zynga's
financial statements if the final settlement is consistent with
the current agreement. Given its preliminary nature, it remains
possible that the settlement may not result in a final settlement,
and that the assessment of the possibility of loss or adverse
effect on our financial condition, if any, could therefore change
in the near term.

                           *     *     *


Important Dates:

     January 12, 2016      Deadline to request exclusion
                           ("opt-out") from the Settlement

     January 12, 2016      Deadline to Object to the Settlement

     January 12, 2016      Deadline to submit a claim

     January 28, 2016 at
     9:00 a.m.             Final Approval Hearing

Lead Counsel and Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff David Fee:

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
          Kristin J. Moody, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6282
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com
                  kmoody@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
          NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
          1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 619-5400
          Facsimile: (212) 619-3090
          Email: jnorton@nflp.com

Attorneys for Defendants Zynga Inc., Mark Pincus, David M. Wehner,
and John Schappert:

          Jordan Eth, Esq.
          Anna Erickson White, Esq.
          Kevin A. Calia, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: 415.268.7000
          Facsimile: 415.268.7522
          Email: JEth@mofo.com
                 AWhite@mofo.com
                 KCalia@mofo.com


ZYNGA INC: Briefing on Motion for Class Certification Complete
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that briefing on the motion for
class certification in Lee v. Pincus is complete and a hearing had
been scheduled for November 20, 2015.

On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v.
Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and
former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with
the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's
shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who
were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary
offering.

On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On
March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions to
dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied the
motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the directors and granted
the motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been
named as defendants.

The Court endorsed a stipulation setting a briefing schedule for
plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiff's motion was
filed on July 13, 2015. Briefing on the motion for class
certification is complete and a hearing had been scheduled for
November 20, 2015.

On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for
relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the
motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision is
complete. A hearing date has not been set.

On August 19, 2015 the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss three
individual director defendants from the case.

Although it is reasonably possible that our assessment of the
possibility of loss could change in the near term due to one or
more confirming events, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses in the Lee v. Pincus class action and will vigorously
defend this action. Furthermore, given that we are in the early
stages of the litigation process, we are unable to estimate the
range of potential loss, if any.



* Issues Raised on Arbitration Process in Consumer Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS.com reports that there are few issues in the world that are
quietly controversial, as muteness is not, generally speaking, a
feature of conflict, particularly when the disputes are about
money and consumer rights.

Arbitration -- a legally binding method of dispute resolution that
happens outside a courtroom -- is less formal, faster and
generally less expensive than a court case.

Defenders of the practice note that arbitration has been a
necessary and useful tool in preventing defendants' and
plaintiffs' attorneys from waging lengthy and staggeringly
expensive wars of attrition in court by using the intricacies of
the American legal system as their battleground.  American
consumers and businesses were the ultimate losers in those cases,
and arbitration fans note that the practice -- combined with
state-level reforms -- brought litigation costs down from their
late twentieth century peak, when they represented 2 percent of
American GDP.

Opponents of the practice note that while arbitration can be used
judiciously, it has been adopted as a favored tactic of service
providers (cable companies), financial services firms (credit card
companies) and debt collectors (particularly expired debt
collectors) to skirt consumer protection laws and insulate
themselves from class action lawsuits. Moreover, they note,
consumers are not being given a chance to opt out of arbitration
agreements even if they want to.

Which is why it has become extremely controversial over the course
of 2015, having recently gotten some high-profile attention from
both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, and seems likely to get more when 2015 becomes 2016.

The why of it all is complicated.

ARBITRATION DOES A GOOD THING BY SHORT-CIRCUITING PREDATORY
LAWSUITS

Arbitration exists and has risen sharply in popularity over the
last decade or so for a very good reason: It is much, much more
efficient than a traditional lawsuit.

Instead of being presided over by judges, matters are heard by
arbitrators (or a panel of them, depending on the specific nature
of the dispute).  Class actions are disallowed, as are summary
judgments, meaning both sides are, more or less, offered an
opportunity to present their full case without having to withstand
motions of dismissal.

Arbitration is also a much shorter process.  In extremely
complicated situations, it can go on for about 14 months, but that
is unusual. Litigation can, and often does, take years.

It is also considered consumer-friendly.  The theory of that case
is that it would never be in any individual's interest to wage a
court battle over a small dollar amount since the cost of the case
would very quickly outstrip whatever dollar amount was in
question. The prior legal remedy -- the class action lawsuit that
clumps a large batch of consumers with small dollar grievances
into one big ticket supergroup -- was rife with horrible abuses.
The real winners in those cases were the class action lawyers; few
plaintiffs ever walked away with piles of dough.

By disallowing the class action suits that offer attorneys
perverse incentives and creating a space where individual
defendants can quickly and relatively cheaply settle disputes,
arbitration is as close to an everyone wins as possible and
deserves to be preserved.

Except that. . .

ARBITRATION DOES A BAD THING BY EMPOWERING CROOKED DEBT COLLECTORS

As is their custom, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times
spent mid-December playing the journalistic version of dueling
banjos over arbitration and its relative merits and flaws.  And
while WSJ presented the story of how arbitration was instrumental
in saving the system from the predations of litigation-happy
liability lawyers, NYT presented the dark tale about how
arbitration is an increasingly popular go-to tool in the arsenal
of predatory debt collectors, who use it to protect their ability
to leverage illegal practices against vulnerable consumers.

Consumers like retired Baltimore electrician Clifford Cain, Jr.,
who found he had lost a legal action that he didn't know he had to
a debt collector -- specifically, Midland Funding, a unit of the
Encore Capital Group.  Mr. Cain was one of a number of Maryland
residents who the company sued in a debt collection case -- a crop
of mass suits that a later review showed contained many cases of
consumers who simply owed no money or who owed debts that were
long expired and therefore no longer legally collectable.  In any
event, Midland is not legally licensed to collect debts in
Maryland.

However, when Mr. ain and several other consumers who contended
they'd been wrongfully swept up in Midland's mass collection
attempt collectively sued in a class action case, their case was
dismissed, as all parties had agreed (as part of the terms of
whatever loans had purportedly landed in collections as debt
collectors buy loan contracts and thus the terms that come with
them) to settle such disputes through arbitration and class
actions are not legally allowed in arbitration matters.

Mr. Cain told NYT he was unable to afford going through the
arbitration process with the well-capitalized legal department and
was thus forced to accept a $4,500 debt that he has no
recollection of owning and has seen no proof of to this day.

"I can't for the life of me understand how this is allowed to
happen," Mr. Cain told NYT.

And, according to NYT, Mr. Cain's story is not all that unique, as
debt collectors have become fairly audacious in their embrace of
this particular tactic in an attempt to collect debts.  Even when
they are suing to collect debts that are nonexistent or expired,
they often win, largely by default, since a limited effort is made
to make the defendant aware of the forthcoming court action.

Those practices could be stamped out by a big and expensive class
action, as nothing says "stop pursuing illegal debt collection"
like a cripplingly expensive verdict care of the vengeful civil
court system.  However, because an increasing number of contracts
for telecom services, utilities, credit cards and bank accounts
come preloaded with arbitration clauses, such collective actions
are, more or less, impossible for most consumers.

Put succinctly, once consumers click "I agree" on the terms of
service they didn't bother to read, they essentially agree that no
matter how illegal things go from there on out, they are not going
to sue collectively but instead walk the solo road of arbitration.

SO WHY DON'T CONSUMERS JUST GO TO ARBITRATION?

The strange and under-addressed question in this whole mess is one
about the arbitration process itself and why so few consumers seem
to avail themselves of it.  NYT noted that once class actions have
been dismissed and consumers are referred back to individual
arbitration, almost none of them go, which has given businesses
free reign to engage in practices like wage theft, discrimination
and predatory lending because they essentially have contracted
with customers or employees to never see the inside of a
courtroom.

"This is among the most profound shifts in our legal history,"
William G. Young, a federal judge in Boston who was appointed by
President Ronald Reagan, told NYT in an interview.  "Ominously,
business has a good chance of opting out of the legal system
altogether and misbehaving without reproach."

And while that is very alarming-sounding, it doesn't really
explain why consumers who have putatively been wronged almost
never pursue arbitration.  According to NYT research, between 2010
and 2014, only 505 consumers went to arbitration over a dispute of
$2,500 or less.

Perhaps it's as one federal judge so astutely noted: "Only a
lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30."

Or perhaps it is as self-described lunatic-fanatic Todd Cowen
learned by spending $25,000 in an arbitration grudge match over a
$125 late fee: Arbitration may be cheaper than a full blown court
case, but it is not free.

Or perhaps it is because they are merely unlikely to succeed.  NYT
data also indicates that roughly two-thirds of consumers
contesting credit card fraud, fees or costly loans received no
monetary awards in arbitration.

It does seem worth noting, however, that NYT offers no independent
verification of that two-thirds figure, whereas WSJ offers two
studies that would seem to contradict that finding.

The first, a 2009 study by the Searle Civil Justice Institute at
the Northwestern University School of Law, found that consumers
stood a better chance of winning in arbitration cases than they
did in court (after controlling for other variables in case
characteristics).  Searle further found there was "no statistical
difference in the amount they were awarded as a percentage of the
amount sought," between consumers who received awards through
arbitration or the courts.

The second piece of independent study on arbitration comes from a
2014 survey by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan that found that
mandatory arbitration clauses in its health plans have not lead to
wide dissatisfaction and instead found that 90 percent that had
gone through arbitration found the process to be at least as good
as the court system.

WSJ leaves it unclear how much the process of arbitration varies
between health care and financial services; it is, of course,
entirely possible that a process that works just great in one
vertical is a tool of destruction in another.

For example, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) were an
existent, if obscure, part of the investing landscape for 18 years
and were largely harmless when they were used to group
institutional debt or diversified packages of consumer loans.
Once they mutated into bundles of subprime mortgage loans in the
early 2000s, they destroyed the entire global economy in less than
a decade.

WSJ's overall point, however, is well-taken. Arbitration may have
its issues, but the independent studies indicate that it serves
consumers as well, if not better, than the court systems, whose
expensive issues are well-known.

But fair or not, cheap or not, consumers aren't using it, and that
is widely considered to be a problem, since it is the only
recourse in the event that things go south that most contracts one
signs these days offer.

HIGH-PROFILE CHEERLEADERS AND JEERLEADERS (AND AN UNCERTAIN
FUTURE)

In fairness, an argument between the writers at The Wall Street
Journal and The New York Times does already count as a pretty
high-profile jeer and cheerleading session, especially for an
issue that almost no one outside of a few legal niches knows very
much about.

But in this rare and unusual case, NYT and WSJ editorial staffs
are actually their squads' respective junior varsity players.

The bigger name headlining the "yay" side of arbitration is the
U.S. Supreme Court, which has found in favor of arbitration three
times in three years, all on the basis of the 1925 Federal
Arbitration Act.  In all three cases, the court upheld a
corporations' right to make arbitration part of their standard
contracts and struck down plaintiffs' ability to sidestep
arbitration agreements to form classes for the purposes of legal
suits.

"Requiring the availability of classwide arbitration," Justice
Scalia wrote for the majority in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
"interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration."

The main purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act, he wrote, "is to
ensure the enforcement of arbitration agreements according to
their terms."

The court upheld a similar decision in 2013's American Express v.
Italian Colors Restaurant and again in DirecTV v. Imburgia.

However, the court's support of arbitration is based on the
supremacy of federal law over state law.  Federal law can be
changed -- and very well might be if the CFPB gets its way.

"Consumers should not be asked to sign away their legal rights
when they open a bank account or credit card," said CFPB Director
Richard Cordray earlier in 2014.  "Companies are using the
arbitration clause as a free pass to sidestep the courts and avoid
accountability for wrongdoing.  The proposals under consideration
would ban arbitration clauses that block group lawsuits so that
consumers can take companies to court to seek the relief they
deserve."

The CFPB is empowered under the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act
to regulate the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial
products if it found, based upon study, that doing so would
protect consumers and serve the public interest and if any
proposed rule included findings consistent with study results.
Arbitration in home mortgage agreements is outright prohibited
under Dodd-Frank.

It seems the consumer watchdog group is now looking to move
forward with such rule changes that would ban financial service
companies (like credit cards and banks, for example) from
inserting mandatory arbitration clauses in their terms of use
contracts and has done the study to make it possible.

According to study results released in March 2015, arbitration
clauses restrict consumers' relief for disputes with financial
service providers by allowing companies to block group lawsuits.

The study also found that over 75 percent of consumers surveyed
were completely unsure as to whether or not they were subject to
an arbitration clause in their contract and that less than 7
percent of those consumers covered by arbitration clauses realized
that the clauses restricted their ability to sue in court.

The CFPB proposals would specifically ban firms under their
jurisdiction from inserting arbitration clauses that prevent the
formation of class action lawsuits.

The consumer watchdog did note that it did not seek to ban all
arbitration but instead was looking to force said clauses to
explicitly state that they do not apply to cases filed as class
actions unless and until the class certification is denied by the
court or at such time as the case is dismissed by a court.

The new rule would also require that firms that use arbitration
clauses for individual disputes must submit all arbitration claims
filed and awards issued to the CFPB.  The bureau reports that the
purpose of this is to allow it to better monitor consumer finance
arbitrations to ensure that the process is fair for consumers.

The bureau also might publish claims and awards on its website so
the public can monitor them.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

Stay tuned.  It's about to get interesting -- and certainly so if
you are an attorney that specializes in class action lawsuits.

The CFPB's proposal, if successful, can only mean a whole new wave
of unintended consequences for consumers in the form of higher
fees on the services of said companies, who will no longer be able
to stave off the wave of class action lawsuits that will come
their way.  Settlements that, by the way, don't end up in the
pockets of consumers but rather the lawyers who try and settle
cases for their benefit.

And isn't that just the kind of protection consumers are looking
for?


* Personal Injury Lawyers Target Hoverboard Manufacturers
---------------------------------------------------------
Heather Kelly, writing for CNN Money, reports that one of the
hottest holiday presents in 2015 may also be a gift to personal
injury lawyers.

Hoverboards have been randomly bursting into flames.  Riders have
taken dangerous spills, some even ending up in the ER.  The
logical next step for some shaken hoverboard owners (after posting
a video to social media) is a lawsuit.

There are already at least two known lawsuits in the works. A
couple in Alabama is suing a local hoverboard retailer after one
of the devices caused a fire in their home. The seller is a mall
kiosk.

Earlier in December in New York, Michael Brown filed lawsuit after
the board he bought for his kids allegedly caught on fire while
charging.  He's suing hoverboard maker Swagway as well as the
Modell's sporting goods store where he purchased the device.
Mr. Brown is seeking class action status for the case.  Swagway
says it will fight the suit.  Modell's did not respond to a
request for comment.

Judging by the number of enterprising law firms throwing up
landing pages just for hoverboards, personal injury lawyers are
anticipating (or at least hoping for) many more suits.
Anthony Johnson, a personal injury lawyer in Little Rock,
Arkansas, says his firm Johnson Vines has received a few inquiries
from potential hoverboard clients.  They haven't filed any suits
yet.

"I'd imagine that many more lawsuits are already in the works and
even more will come down the line as the product continues to
fail," said Mr. Johnson.

"Hoverboards" are actually motorized self-balancing scooters.
Currently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is investigating
22 reports of hoverboard fires.  The agency is also independently
testing the products in its lab, but has not yet issued warnings
for any specific brands or models, though it did issue a broad
warning for consumers. Airlines have banned the products because
of the fire hazard.

Early reports indicate the fires are an issue across brands. Some
happen while charging, others during use.  All seem to be related
to cheap lithium ion batteries.

Complicating things, most hoverboards are made in China by a
hodgepodge of manufacturers.  Mr. Johnson said that should not be
an issue for most lawsuits.

"There are additional procedural hoops that you may have to deal
with when your lawsuit involves companies in other countries,"
said Mr. Johnson.  "However, most of these companies actively do
business in the plaintiff's locale and have assets and
distributors and other entities that are located within the U.S."

Owners could sue manufacturers directly, or even the retailers
depending on state law.  Not all states hold retailers liable for
defective products they sell.

What can hoverboard owners realistically expect to get from these
companies? A lot depends on the extent of the damage and injuries.
At the very least, they should be able to get a refund or
replacement, even without involving a lawyer.  If they've been
hurt, then the calculations can include things like lost wages and
medical bills.

Hoverboard companies will likely fight back in court.
"The complaint alleges generally that Swagway hoverboards are
defective but no claim of personal injury was made," said Swagway
in a statement, referring to the Brown suit.  "We also have not
received a product return from the plaintiff. This is the only
lawsuit of its kind of which we are aware. We intend to vigorously
defend the lawsuit."

Though the majority of injuries associated with hoverboards have
been falls and collisions, Mr. Johnson says those aren't as likely
to merit a lawsuit.  Not unless they're the direct result of a
defect in the scooter and not just clumsy parents trying their
kid's new toy.


* Shannon Liss-Riordan Targets Food Delivery Start-ups
------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Dawson, writing for Eater, reports that Uber's employment
practices have been making headlines lately, and the pending
lawsuit against the company in the state of California could have
wide-ranging implications for the entire on-demand economy.  The
crux of the case is the classification of Uber drivers.  Many
drivers claim they are employees, not contract workers, but the
company disagrees.  The classification is important: When
companies classify workers as contract workers, employers don't
have to pay minimum wage or contribute to Social Security
payments, unemployment, or workers' compensation.  And contract
workers shouldn't legally be trained or told how to perform their
job.

The Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan is representing
Uber drivers in California, but it's not just the ride-share app
she has her sights on -- it's the entire on-demand economy, which
Ms. Liss-Riordan believes encourages a systematic
misclassification and mistreatment of its workers.
"Unfortunately, we've seen this for many years and from many
industries," Ms. Liss-Riordan says, referring to the cleaning,
trucking, adult entertainment, and call center industries.
"Employers realize they can save a whole lot of money on labor
costs by classifying their workers as independent contractors
rather than employees."

The latest companies that have attracted Ms. Liss-Riordan's
attention, and her litigations, are food delivery start-ups.
Ms. Liss-Riordan currently has a lawsuit against Postmates pending
in federal court in California.  In California state court, she's
filed class-action complaints against DoorDash and GrubHub, and
she's representing one driver in arbitration for on-demand food
delivery service Caviar.  Ms. Liss-Riordan is uniquely attuned to
the issues facing restaurant workers: In the past, she's sued
Starbucks for letting supervisors take a cut of pooled tips, and
has represented restaurant workers in wage and hour cases.  And in
an unlikely side project of sorts, Ms. Liss-Riordan actually owns
a restaurant in Cambridge, a pizzeria called Just Crust, that she
hopes can be a model for a workplace that benefits employees.

Ms. Liss-Riordan's career progressed naturally from representing
servers to drivers in the on-demand economy.  "I started the work
on behalf of restaurant workers, mostly waiters and waitresses,
and one case lead to another and another, and before I knew it, I
had spent more than a decade [in this line of work]," she says.
"I've just gotten enormous satisfaction from being able to go
after big companies who think they don't need to worry about how
they treat their workers because their workers need the jobs."

In her current pending cases against food delivery start-ups,
Ms. Liss-Riordan alleges that delivery drivers should not be
considered independent contractors, as their companies have deemed
them, but official employees.  With the class-action complaints,
Ms. Liss-Riordan is pushing for the ability for employees to join
together to sue the company. (Many of these workers must sign
contracts that include clauses barring them from bringing class-
action lawsuits against the companies they work for.)

The cases can get complicated quickly.  "For Postmates, we
actually have a case not just on behalf of the couriers, but also
for the customer service representatives who take the calls and
place the orders," Ms. Liss-Riordan says.  "They're also
classified as independent contractors. They work out of their
homes, they get paid $.35 per call, and it doesn't come to minimum
wage."  That case may also include Postmates' data entry workers.
"Those are the people who take the restaurant's menu, type it up,
and put it in the Postmates system.  They get paid per menu, and
likewise, the rate is so low it doesn't even come to minimum
wage."

Many of the delivery companies who employ contract workers say
their employees benefit from flexible work schedules.  "While we
will vigorously defend these lawsuits and we feel strongly that
our business model is lawful, we recognize that the issues being
raised are important ones," a DoorDash spokesperson told Eater.
"We are proud to have created opportunities for Dashers that offer
them flexibility, freedom, and a meaningful source of income."

But even putting aside potential lawsuits, food delivery companies
might want to rethink their employment practices for the good of
their companies, says Stephen Zagor, the dean of business
management at the Institute of Culinary Education.  "For these
food delivery startups to thrive, they need to control the food
service, the ambiance -- which for delivery companies, could
include everything from packaging to even how a courier greets
customers -- and the sizzle, or a unique selling proposition,"
says Mr. Zagor, who teaches courses in food business
entrepreneurship. "And to some degree, that control goes in the
face of an independent contractor arrangement."

Ms. Liss-Riordan agrees. Companies "need to train [their workers]
if they want to provide that high-quality customer service that
they are advertising to the public," she says.  "There's a tension
in claiming that you are this great company providing a great
service, but then denying that you're going to give any training,
rules, or supervision to the people who are providing that
service."

Of course, there are people who want the flexibility of the on-
demand economy.  According to Mr. Zagor, a new employment
classification might be the answer.  "It's easy for a lawyer to go
in and say, 'You're doing this wrong,'" he says.  Mr. Zagor
suggests a change in the system: an "independent employee"
classification, a cross between a contract worker and an employee.
(Mr. Zagor isn't the only one proposing a new category of
employee.  Earlier in December, the Hamilton Project, part of the
Brookings Institute, published a paper by economist Alan Krueger
and former Deputy Secretary of Labor Seth Harris proposing on-
demand workers receive certain protections and benefits offered to
employees, but not all.)

In Ms. Liss-Riordan's opinion, a role that offers flexible hours
and employee benefits already exists: It's part-time employment,
under which workers receive protections from the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  Some food start-ups, like on-demand chef service
Kitchensurfing and the grocery delivery service Instacart, have
already made the switch from contract workers to part-time
employees.  "I've been very heartened to see a number of companies
decide that they don't want to get involved in these battles, and
they are just going to -- from day one or early on -- convert to
having their workers be employees," Ms. Liss-Riordan says.

For her part, at her own restaurant, which Ms. Liss-Riordan says
came to her after "an unusual set of events," all of her workers,
including delivery drivers, are employees.  In 2011, Ms. Liss-
Riordan was fighting Boston pizza chain the Upper Crust in a
class-action case over workers' back wages, and eventually, the
chain went into bankruptcy. In December 2012, she bought the
Harvard Square location of the Upper Crust when it went on the
auction block.  She changed the name to the Just Crust,
inadvertently becoming a restaurant operator -- though not
necessarily with the usual ambitions tied to restaurant ownership.
Instead, Ms. Liss-Riordan says, taking over the pizzeria came
"with the goal of making it a workplace with good employment
policies, fair wages, and trying to show that it's possible to run
a business by treating workers well and not doing things the way
we had seen them done by other restaurants."

The plan is to share profits with employees, too, although at
about two-and-a-half years in, there aren't profits to share yet.

Ms. Liss-Riordan doesn't expect everyone who's concerned about
workers' rights to buy their own pizza joint, but she does hope
consumers become more aware of the true price of their dinner
delivery.  "Obviously, what these companies are selling is a huge
convenience for consumers, and people love them because you press
a button and food comes to your door. And it's so cheap and easy!"
Ms. Liss-Riordan says.  "But I hope people stop and think, 'What
did it take to have that cheap and easy convenience?'"


                            *********

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  * * *