CAR_Public/160111.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 11, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 6


                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: Three Class Action Lawsuits Consolidated
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Issued Order Consolidating Actions
ACE LIMITED: MOU Reached to Settle Suit Over Chubb Merger
ADIR INTERNATIONAL: "Echavarria" Suit Removed to C.D. California
AKORN INC: Illinois Court Consolidates 2 Class Actions

AMARIN CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Case
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Silver" Suit Moved to Wahingston D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: SBRS Suit Transferred to D.C. from E.D.N.Y.
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Electronic Keyless Fob System Defects
AVALONBAY INC: "Tanski" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages

AVON PRODUCTS: Claims in Securities Settlement Due Jan. 19
AVON PRODUCTS: Court Directs Mediation in ERISA Cases
AVX CORP: Appeal of One Remaining Aspect of Class Action Resolved
BARCLAYS BANK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. for Reneging Limit Orders
BED BATH: "Shryock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Keyless Fob System Defects
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 30,000+ Product Liability Cases at Nov. 2
CALIFORNIA: "Staich" Suit Should Be Dismissed, Judge Says
CARLSON ENTERPRISES: Faces "Vought" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal Pending in Retiree Medical Benefits Case

CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: "Robinson" Suit Removed to N.D. California
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: July 2008 Common Stock Offering Suit Closed
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defending Lawsuits by Royalty Owners
CLEAN HARBORS: Safety-Kleen Defending 54 Personal Injury Cases
CLEAN HARBORS: Fee Class Action Settlement Subject to Appeal

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Defending Royalties Action in Oklahoma
COTY INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending
CSX INTERMODAL: "Valadez" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
CUMULUS MEDIA: Defendant in Two Class Actions
DELTA AIRLINES: "Kromar" Suit Transferred to Washington D.C.

DFS GROUP: "Concepcion" Suit Seeks Damages and Overtime Pay
DRAFTKINGS INC: Online Gaming Illegal, "Tharpe" Suit Alleges
DRAFTKINGS INC: Rigged Online Games, "Horan" Says in E.D.Mo. Suit
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Agreed to Participate in Mediation
FEDEX GROUND: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: "Keith" Action hits Substandard Drugs
FERRY & NICHOLAS: Files Petition in Ill. for Subpoena Issuance
FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Electronic Keyless Fob System Defects
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Sued in D.N.J. Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate
GOBBLE INC: "Julius" Suit Wants Automatic Purchase Renewal Nixed

HACHEM CONSULTING: "Medina" Suit Moved to Florida Dist. Court
HALYARD HEALTH: Assumed Defense of "Shahinian" Case
HCR MANORCARE: "Johnson" Suit Moved to N.D. West Virginia
HILLS BANCORPORATION: Parties Put Iowa Class Action on Hold
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Court Ordered Nasyrova Action Closed

INTERNAP CORPORATION: Defendant in "Grisolia" Class Action
JB LINE INC: "Wang" Action Hits False Advertising
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gorchoff" Suit Says
JJ EYELASHES: Faces "Triantis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KT HEALTH: "Vuckovic" Suit Alleges Bandage Mislabeling

LAMI PRODUCTS LLC: "Cikra" Action Seek Overtime Pay
LE CENIS LLC: "Medrano" Action seeks to Recover OT
LEGGETT & PLATT: To Pay $35MM in Foam Products Suit This Year
LEGGETT & PLATT: Full Settlement in Foam Case Paid into Escrow
LEGGETT & PLATT: British Columbia and Quebec Courts Approved Deal

LEGGETT & PLATT: Missouri Class Action Case Dismissed
MARVEL FOOD: Faces "Song" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Beard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cooper" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "White" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MBF INSPECTION: "Ganci" Suit in S.D. Ohio Seeks Overtime Pay
MCCLATCHY CO: Continues to Defend Misclassification Cases
MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued Over Electronic Keyless Fob System Defects
MONDELLO INC: "Varela" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Vo" Case in Discovery Phase

MUNCHIES CAFE: "Garcia" Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Florida
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces P.J. Hafiz Suit Over Sunday Games
NCR CORP: "Hoak" Action Seeks to Recover Retirement Differential
O-TEX PUMPING: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PLY GEM: Sued in California Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks

POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To Seek Dismissal of 2nd Amended Suit
RAMNEE LLC: "Campbell" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
RENTRAK CORPORATION: Consolidation of Class Action Sought
RUDY'S AUTO: Faces "Segovia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: "Ware" Action Seeks Overtime Pay

SCALES 925: "Lee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Event USA's Motion to Compel Discovery Denied
SOUTHCOAST FINANCIAL: "Sciabucuchi" Suit Moved to D. S.C.
SOVRAN SELF: Motion to Dismiss Granted in Part and Denied in Part
STAAR SURGICAL: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in "Todd" Case

STERLING BANCORP: Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval
STRATEGIC HOTELS: Eight Putative Class Action Lawsuits Filed
THE DAVENPORT: "Singh" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
TIMBERTECH LTD: Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Denied
TOP RANK: Suit Over Pacquiao-Mayweather Fight Moved to E.D. Mo.

TRAVEL MEDIA PARTNER: Faces "Montgomery" Suit Over Phone Calls
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Sena" Class Suit Removed to District Arizona
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Fein" Action Hits Shadowy Biz Dealings
VERDE ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Richardson" Suit Says
VIVUS INC: Oral Argument Set for January 14 in Jasin Complaint

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Cook" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Walther" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Struck" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Stone-Manning" Suit Moved to D. Montana
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Ross" Suit Moved to New Mexico Dist. Court

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Rubin" Suit Moved to Connecticut Dist. Court
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Nelson" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
W. P. CAREY: Case by Ira Gaines Has Been Dismissed
WALTER INVESTMENT: Defendants Opposed Class Certification Motion
WALTER INVESTMENT: Ditech Financial Facing Putative Class Suits

WATTS WATER: Filed Bid to Dismiss "Ponzo" Connector Class Action
WATTS WATER: Filed Partial Bid to Dismiss "Klug" Connector Case
WELLS FARGO: Merchants Filed Motion to Vacate Class Settlement
YAMAHA MOTOR: "Wilkerson" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
YAHOO! INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Buch" Class Action



                            *********



3D SYSTEMS: Three Class Action Lawsuits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------
3D Systems Corporation and certain of its executive officers have
been named as defendants in three putative stockholder class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina on June 12, 2015, June 23, 2015 and
August 10, 2015.  The lawsuits are styled City of Bristol Pension
Fund v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL
(D.S.C.), Joshua Romano v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case
No. 0:15-cv-02518-MGL (D.S.C.) and James Pruitt v. 3D Systems
Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-03138-MGL (D.S.C.).

The complaints are substantially identical and allege that
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions
and that the officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The complaints are filed on behalf of
stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between October 29, 2013, and October 22, 2014 and seek monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class.

On October 1, 2015, an order consolidating the three lawsuits into
one action (the "Securities Class Action") and appointing a lead
plaintiff was entered in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, 3D Systems 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.


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Issued Order Consolidating Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court
has issued an order consolidating the actions and naming the lead
plaintiff.

In March 2015, following the Company's announcement of the update
to the timing of its planned New Drug Application ("NDA")
submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID for the treatment of
Parkinson's disease psychosis and the subsequent decline of the
price of its common stock, two putative securities class action
complaints (captioned Rihn v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case
No. 15-cv-0575-BTM-DHB and Wright v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Case No. 15-cv-0593- BTM-DHB) were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, or the Court,
against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers. The complaints generally allege that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements
regarding the timing of the Company's planned NDA submission to
the FDA for NUPLAZID, thereby artificially inflating the price of
its common stock. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.

On April 10 and June 1, 2015, the Court entered orders deferring
the defendants' response to the Rihn and Wright complaints until
after the Court appoints a lead plaintiff and assigns lead
counsel.

On May 12, 2015, several putative stockholders filed separate
motions to consolidate the two actions and be appointed lead
plaintiff.

On September 8, 2015, the Court issued an order consolidating the
actions and naming the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff must
file a consolidated complaint on or before November 16, 2015.

The Company has assessed such legal proceedings, and given the
unpredictability inherent in litigation, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of these matters. At this time, the Company is
unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may
result from such legal proceedings, and it has not accrued any
amounts in connection with such legal proceedings other than
ongoing attorneys' fees.


ACE LIMITED: MOU Reached to Settle Suit Over Chubb Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Ace Limited 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 ACE has announced that a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) has been entered into regarding
settlement of a class action litigation related to The Chubb
Corporation merger.

In connection with the Chubb Merger, purported Chubb shareholders
have filed putative shareholder class action lawsuits against
Chubb, the members of the Chubb board of directors, ACE, and
William Investment Holdings Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of ACE. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the
Chubb Merger. The outcome of any such litigation is uncertain.

On October 12, 2015, ACE announced that a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) has been entered into regarding settlement of
such litigation. The MOU is subject to confirmatory discovery and
customary conditions and if the court does not approve the
settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise disallowed, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

If the cases are not resolved, these lawsuits could prevent or
delay completion of the Chubb Merger and result in substantial
costs to Chubb and ACE, including any costs associated with the
indemnification of directors and officers. Plaintiffs may file
additional lawsuits against Chubb, ACE and/or the directors and
officers of either company in connection with the Chubb Merger.
The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains
unresolved at the time the Chubb Merger is completed may adversely
affect ACE's business, financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows.


ADIR INTERNATIONAL: "Echavarria" Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Monica Echavarria, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Adir
International, LLC, d/b/a Curacao, Case No. BC596790, was removed
from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
09172-CAS-KS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Adir International, LLC operates a department store located at
1605 W Olympic Blvd #600, Los Angeles, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
      324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      David N. Buffington, Esq.
      Elizabeth Thompson Van Horn, Esq.
      ADIR INTERNATIONAL LLC
      1605 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 510
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 427-2629
      Facsimile: (213) 386-2601
      E-mail: david@lacuracao.com
              elizabeth@lacuracao.com


AKORN INC: Illinois Court Consolidates 2 Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an Illinois
district court has granted motions to consolidate two class action
cases.

In March 2015, putative class action plaintiff Solomon Yeung filed
suit in the Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois
against Akorn, Inc., Rajat Rai, Timothy Dick and Bruce Kutinsky,
alleging defendants violated Rules 10b-5 and 20(a) of the 1934
Exchange Act. In May 2015, putative class action plaintiff Mikolaj
Sarzynski filed an additional suit in the same Court, alleging
that, in addition to the claims in the Yeung action, the Company
made false or misleading statements regarding, and failed to
disclose details about, errors it made in calculating chargeback
reserves and understatements of rebates and other sales
allowances, which caused the Company's revenue to be overstated.
In August 2015, the same Court granted motions to consolidate
these two cases.


AMARIN CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc 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 the
Amarin Corporation plc, Securities Litigation have filed an
amended complaint.

On June 29, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss the putative
consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In re Amarin
Corporation plc, Securities Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J.
Nov. 1, 2013). The class action was dismissed without prejudice
with leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

The lawsuit sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys'
fees and costs alleging that Amarin and certain of its current and
former officers and directors made misstatements and omissions
regarding the FDA's willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR
indication and related contributing factors and the potential
relevance of data from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that
potential approval.

On July 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
facts similar to those in the original complaint. Like the first
complaint, the amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes it has valid defenses and will continue to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit, but cannot predict the
outcome. The Company has insurance coverage that is anticipated to
cover any significant loss exposure that may arise from this
action.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Silver" Suit Moved to Wahingston D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Silver v. American Airlines Group
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06099, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Northern Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01763-CKK
to the proceeding.

The antitrust class action seeks treble damages and injunctive
relief under US antitrust laws against the Defendants for
unlawfully fixing, raising, maintaining and/or stabilizing the
price of domestic travel.

American Airlines Group is an American publicly traded airline
holding company headquartered in Fort Worth. American Airlines
provides scheduled airline services. It offers scheduled jet
services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles,
Miami, and New York City. Delta Air Lines is a major American
airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-
Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia.
Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the world's largest
low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
United Continental Holdings is a publicly traded airline holding
company headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago, and owns and
operates United Airlines. United Airlines based in Chicago,
Illinois, offers passenger and cargo air transportation services.
As of October 28, 2015, the company operated approximately 700
mainline aircraft.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jayne Goldstein, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 315-3454
          Facsimile: (954) 315-3455

The Defendants are represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: SBRS Suit Transferred to D.C. from E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled State-Boston Retirement System v.
American Airlines, Inc. et al., Case No. CV15-3974, was
transferred from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
(Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-01757-CKK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants unlawfully conspired in
raising prices for air passengers transportation services in the
US, causing injury to the Plaintiff who paid higher prices.

American Airlines provides scheduled airline services. It offers
scheduled jet services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth,
Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City. Delta Air Lines is a major
American airline, with its headquarter and largest hub at
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta,
Georgia. Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the
world's largest low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
United Airlines based in Chicago, Illinois, offers passenger and
cargo air transportation services. As of October 28, 2015, the
company operated approximately 700 mainline aircraft.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett J. Bradley, Esq.
          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0735
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: gbradley@labaton.com
                  jhimes@labaton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sloane Ackerman, Esq.
          Benjamin Bradshaw, Esq.
          Katrina M. Robson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 728-5864
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: sackerman@omm.com
                  bbradshaw@omm.com
                  krobson@omm.com

               - and -

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879-8813
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com

               - and -

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


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Electronic Keyless Fob System Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Rodriguez and Johnny Hernandez, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-09203 (C.D. Cal., November 25, 2015) is brought
on behalf of all the owners and lessees of vehicles designed,
manufactured, distributed, and sold by the Defendant vehicle
manufacturer, with defect associated with the remote-control
electronic keyless fob system.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. designs, manufactures, markets,
distributes and sells Honda and Acura automobiles in California
and multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martis Ann Alex, Esq.
      Daniel R. Leathers, Esq.
      Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: malex@labaton.com
              dleathers@labaton.com
              bmorrison@labaton.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      E-mail: lee@hbsslaw.com
              elaine@hbsslaw.com


AVALONBAY INC: "Tanski" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Tanski, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc., Defendant,
(E.D.N.Y., October 30, 2015), seeks damages and other legal and
equitable relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. and New York State Labor Law, as amended by
the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

AvalonBay failed to pay its current and former employees,
including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per work week.

AvalonBay is a Maryland corporation duly organized under the laws
of the state of New York with its principal place of business at
Ballston Tower, Suite 800, 671N Glebe Road, Arlington, Virginia,
22203. It is a real-estate management company involved in the
development, redevelopment, acquisition, ownership and operation
of multifamily residential communities throughout the United
States, including California, Connecticut, District of Columbia,
Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
Island, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John A. Blyth, Esq.
      Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 213-8311
      Fax: (212) 779-0028


AVON PRODUCTS: Claims in Securities Settlement Due Jan. 19
----------------------------------------------------------
Claimants in the case, City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon
Products, Inc., et al U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York No. 11-CV-4665 PGG (S.D.N.Y.) have until January 19,
2016, to file claims.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF AVON
PRODUCTS, INC. BETWEEN JULY 31, 2006, AND OCTOBER 26, 2011,
INCLUSIVE, YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THIS CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT.

If this description applies to you, you have a right to know about
a proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit, and about all
of your options, before the Court decides whether to approve the
Settlement and Plan of Allocation. If the Court approves them, and
after any objections or appeals are resolved, the Claims
Administrator appointed by the Court will make the payments that
the Settlement allows. The Notice explains the lawsuit, the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, your legal rights, what
benefits are available, who is eligible for them, and how to
receive them.

SPECIAL NOTICE TO NOMINEES

If you purchased Avon common stock during the Class Period for the
beneficial interest of a person or organization other than
yourself, the Court has directed that you must either: (1) within
ten (10) days after you receive the Notice, request from KCC Class
Action Services sufficient copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim
Form to forward to all such beneficial owners and, within ten (10)
days of receipt of the copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim
Form, send a copy of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form by first
class mail to all such persons or entities, or (2) within ten (10)
days after you receive the Notice, provide a list of the names and
addresses of such persons or entities (preferably in electronic
format (e.g., Excel, csv)) to the Claims Administrator by e-mail
to Nominees@AvonSecuritiesSettlement.com or by mail to the
following address:

     Avon Securities Settlement
     c/o KCC Class Action Services
     P.O. Box 43369
     Providence, RI 02940-3369

If you choose to mail the Notice and Proof of Claim yourself, you
may obtain from the Claims Administrator (without cost to you) as
many additional copies of these documents as you will need to
complete the mailing. If you choose the second option, KCC Class
Action Services will send a copy of the Notice and Proof of Claim
Form to the persons and/or entities whose names and address you
supply.

In either case, you may obtain reimbursement for reasonable
administrative costs actually incurred in connection with
forwarding the Notice that would not have been incurred but for
the obligation to forward the Notice, upon submission of
appropriate documentation to the Claims Administrator.

                           *     *     *

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York was slated to hear on December 1, 2015, to consider final
approval of the settlement, Avon Products, 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 July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the
Company.

On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June
14, 2012.

On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including
October 26, 2011. The second amended complaint names as defendants
the Company and two individuals and asserts violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other
things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the
adequacy of the Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and declaratory, injunctive, and other
equitable relief.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
November 21, 2014.

The parties have reached an agreement on a settlement of this
class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members
of the class of claims against the Company and the individual
defendants and payment of $62 million. Under the terms of the
settlement, approximately $60 million of the settlement was paid
by the Company's insurers and approximately $2 million was paid by
the Company (which represents the remaining deductible under the
Company's applicable insurance policies) into escrow.

On August 21, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a hearing on December 1, 2015 to consider
final approval. In the event the settlement is not approved by the
court, or is otherwise terminated before it is finalized, the
Company will be unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Furthermore, in that event, it is reasonably possible that the
Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter, which the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate.


AVON PRODUCTS: Court Directs Mediation in ERISA Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, 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 United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has directed
parties to pursue non-binding mediation in two ERISA class
actions.

Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class
actions were filed in the District Court -- Poovathur v. Avon
Products, Inc., et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon
Products, Inc., et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the
Company, the Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment
committee, and certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan
fiduciaries.

On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and
recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products,
Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083). On May 8, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, asserting claims for
alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor under
ERISA on behalf of a purported class of participants in and
beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in and/or held shares of
the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and May 1, 2014
and between December 14, 2011 and the present.  Plaintiffs seek,
inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory,
injunctive and other equitable relief.

On July 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint and on August 24, 2015, the Court stayed all pending
motions and discovery and directed the parties to pursue non-
binding mediation. Avon has provided notice of this matter to the
Company's insurers.

"We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter," the Company
said. "However, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss
in connection with this matter. We are unable to reasonably
estimate the amount or range of such reasonably possible loss."


AVX CORP: Appeal of One Remaining Aspect of Class Action Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AVX 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 an appeal of one
remaining aspect of a class action was resolved in September 2015
with no further action against AVX.

On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in South Carolina State
Court by individuals as a class action with respect to property
adjacent to our Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming
property values were negatively impacted by alleged migration of
certain pollutants from our property. The parties agreed to a
settlement of the action for $1,200, which was approved by the
Court on December 15, 2014 and paid in January 2015. An appeal of
one remaining aspect of that class action was resolved in
September 2015 with no further action against AVX.


BARCLAYS BANK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. for Reneging Limit Orders
---------------------------------------------------------
Axiom Investment Advisors, LLC v. Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays
Capital, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09323 (S.D.N.Y., November 25,
2015) is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants'
practice of reneging on its limit orders offered through its own
and third-party electronic trading platforms.

The Defendants are engaged in investment banking, capital markets,
and private investment management business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
      Walter W. Noss, Esq.
      Kristen M. Anderson, Esq.
      Kate Lv, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 798-5300
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
              wnoss@scott-scott.com
              kanderson@scott-scott.com
              klv@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      405 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10174-4099
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: tboardman@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      George A. Zelcs, Esq.
      Robert E. Litan, Esq.
      Randall P. Ewing Jr., Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY LLC
      205 North Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 641-9750
      Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
      E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
              rlitan@koreintillery.com
             rewing@koreintillery.com

         - and -

      Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
      Robert L. King, Esq.
      Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
      Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY LLC
      505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-4844
      Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
      E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
              rking@koreintillery.com
              azigler@koreintillery.com
              mklenov@koreintillery.com

         - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
      Jeannine M. Keeney, Esq.
      HAUSFELD, LLP
      1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
              rgambhir@hausfeld.com
              jkenney@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 633-1908
      Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com
              mlehman@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
      Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 702-7053
      Facsimile: (212) 681-00300
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
              bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
              bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com


BED BATH: "Shryock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Shryock v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:15-
cv-03610-JKB (D. Md., November 25, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. is a private retailer that engages in the
distribution and sale of bathroom accessories, kitchen equipment
and home goods across North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Lanier, Esq.
      Steven M. Lubar, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 244-7005
      Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: jlanier@nicholllaw.com
              slubar@nicholllaw.com


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Keyless Fob System Defects
----------------------------------------------------------
Zoran Baisch, and John Lee, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
09194 (C.D. Cal., November 25, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
the owners and lessees of vehicles designed, manufactured,
distributed, and sold by the Defendant vehicle manufacturer, with
defect associated with the remote-control electronic keyless fob
system.

BMW of North America, LLC designs, manufactures, markets,
distributes and sells BMW and Mini-brand automobiles in California
and multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martis Ann Alex, Esq.
      Daniel R. Leathers, Esq.
      Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: malex@labaton.com
              dleathers@labaton.com
              bmorrison@labaton.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      E-mail: lee@hbsslaw.com
              elaine@hbsslaw.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 30,000+ Product Liability Cases at Nov. 2
------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific 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 as of
November 2, 2015, there were over 30,000 product liability cases
or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed
to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse
pending against the Company.

The Company said, "The cases are pending in various federal and
state courts in the United States and include eight putative class
actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive
of four putative class actions, and fewer than 15 claims in the
United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury
associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products.
The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to
warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer
protection laws and loss of consortium claims."

"Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge
in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases
to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the
fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests
from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our
transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those
requests. During April 2015, we entered into an initial master
settlement agreement with certain plaintiffs' counsel to settle
2,970 pending cases and claims, including the case in the District
Court of Dallas County (TX) for which there is a judgment of
approximately $35 million that is currently subject to appeal, for
approximately $119 million. Subsequently, we entered into several
additional master settlement agreements with certain plaintiffs'
counsel. As of November 2, 2015, we have entered into master
settlement agreements to resolve an aggregate of over 6,000 cases
and claims. Each master settlement agreement was entered into
solely by way of compromise and without any admission or
concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing and provides that
the settlement and the distribution of settlement funds to
participating claimants are conditioned upon, among other things,
achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. If
the participation thresholds under a master settlement agreement
are not satisfied, we may terminate that agreement. In addition,
we continue to engage in discussions with various plaintiffs'
counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and
claims."


CALIFORNIA: "Staich" Suit Should Be Dismissed, Judge Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman recommends the dismissal of the
case captioned, IVAN VON STAICH, Plaintiff, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, et
al., Defendants, No.: 2:15-cv-0560 MCE KJN P., (E.D. Cal.)

Named as defendants are Governor Brown, Superior Court Judges
Robison, Prickett, King and Hanson. Plaintiff was convicted of
second degree murder in 1986. Plaintiff's claims all challenge
Defendant Brown's 2012 decision reversing the Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH) 2011 finding that Plaintiff was suitable for
parole.

Plaintiff's claims can be divided into four categories:

     -- claims 1-7 and 11 challenge Defendant Brown's reversal
        of the BPH's finding of parole suitability, which was
        upheld by Defendant Superior Court judges. Plaintiff
        alleges that Defendant Brown mischaracterized a 2010
        psychological report. Plaintiff also alleges that
        Defendant Brown improperly relied on stricken juvenile
        records and charges he had been acquitted of as an adult.

     -- claims 8-10 allege that Defendants violated state law by
        refusing to release him based on his maximum confinement
        date.

     -- claim 12 alleges that Defendants selectively enforce
        parole laws.

     -- claim 13 alleges that Proposition 89 violates the Ex Post
        Facto Clause.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief:

     -- Plaintiff requests that his stricken juvenile convictions
        and charges he was acquitted of as an adult be stricken
        from his parole hearing files.

     -- Plaintiff requests that the court order that defendant
        Brown be prohibited from considering the 2010
        psychological report.

     -- Plaintiff requests that the court order defendant Brown
        to reconsider the BPH decision finding him suitable based
        on this new record.

     -- Plaintiff requests that the court order defendant Brown
        not to overrule his maximum confinement date of May 11,
        2007.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel.
Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and has
requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915.

In his Order and Findings and Recommendations dated December 11,
2015 available at http://is.gd/mDBV7pfrom Leagle.com, Judge
Newman granted Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and motion for judicial notice. Plaintiff is obligated to
pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff
is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be
collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the
Director of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.

The Court has spent considerable time reviewing Plaintiff's
claims. Because it is clear that Plaintiff cannot amend his
complaint to cure the pleading defects, Judge Newman recommends
that this action be dismissed.

Judge Newman further held that Plaintiff's claims alleging that
Defendant Brown improperly considered certain evidence in
reversing the BPH does not state a potentially colorable due
process claim. Plaintiff does not allege that he was denied the
limited due process to which he was entitled. Therefore,
regardless of whether this claim is brought in habeas or civil
rights, these claims fail. Accordingly, for these reasons, Judge
Newman recommends that claims 1-7 and 11 be dismissed.

The BPH apparently set a release date for plaintiff following its
finding that plaintiff was suitable for parole. However, under
California law, plaintiff was not entitled to be released until he
was found suitable by both the BPH and the Governor. Thus, while
the BPH found plaintiff suitable for parole and set a maximum
release date, plaintiff was not entitled to be released because he
was not found suitable by defendant Brown. Accordingly,
plaintiff's claim that defendants failed to release him on his
maximum calculated release date fails to state a potentially
colorable claim for relief under either state or federal law. This
claim should be dismissed, Judge Newman said.

Judge Newman also noted that Proposition 89 authorized Governor
Brown to review the BPH decision finding plaintiff suitable for
parole, he did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction
when he reversed the BPH decision. Similarly, defendant Superior
Court judges did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdictions
when they upheld defendant Brown's decision. For these reasons,
Plaintiff's claims for damages should be dismissed.

Ivan Von Staich, Plaintiff, Pro Se


CARLSON ENTERPRISES: Faces "Vought" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Vought, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Carlson Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01415-HES-
PDB (M.D. Fla., November 25, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Carlson Enterprises, LLC is engaged in the business of providing
construction services including roofing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Nancy A. Johnson, Esq.
      Catrina Markwalter, Esq.
      1022 Park St., Suite 308
      Jacksonville, FL 32204
      Telephone: (904) 647-6476
      Facsimile: (904) 738-8640
      E-mail: njohnson@gillisway.com
              cmarkwalter@gillisway.com


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal Pending in Retiree Medical Benefits Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum 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 an appeal I
spending related to the Ravenswood Retiree Medical Benefits
changes.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed
a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"),
the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as
class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to
modify/terminate retiree medical benefits.  Later in November
2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree class filed a
separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century
Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with
respect to the foregoing.  These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et
al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century Aluminum of West
Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have been consolidated
and venue has been set in the District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USW filed a motion for preliminary injunction
to prevent us from implementing any modifications to the retiree
medical benefits while these lawsuits are pending, which was
dismissed by the trial court, and affirmed upon appeal. CAWV filed
a motion for summary judgment of these actions which motion was
granted on September 9, 2015. The decision of the court is
currently being appealed by the USW to the Court of Appeals for
the 4th Circuit.


CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: "Robinson" Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Shaon Robinson, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v.
The Chefs' Warehouse, Case No. RG15791018, was removed from the
Alameda County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
California Northern District (San Francisco). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-LB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Chefs' Warehouse is a specialty food distributor that began
sourcing products for high-end chefs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Robert Hoffman, Esq.
      Leonard Thomas Emma, Esq.
      Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
      HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS LLC
      580 California St., Suite 1600
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 362-1111
      Facsimile: (415) 362-1112
      E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com
              lemma@employment-lawyers.com
              silg@employment-lawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ian Andrew Wright, Esq.
      REED SMITH LLP
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2800
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 457-8000
      Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
      E-mail: iwright@reedsmith.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: July 2008 Common Stock Offering Suit Closed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 July
2008 Common Stock Offering Litigation is now closed.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock
offering. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September
11, 2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 13, 2009. Chesapeake and the officer and director
defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of loss causation
and materiality on December 28, 2011, and the motion was granted
as to all claims as a matter of law on March 29, 2013. On appeal,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal on August 8, 2014 and denied the plaintiffs' petition
for rehearing on November 12, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court, and on October 15, 2015, certiorari was denied and
the case was closed.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defending Lawsuits by Royalty Owners
-------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 Chesapeake
is defending numerous lawsuits filed by individual royalty owners
alleging royalty underpayment with respect to properties in Texas.

On April 8, 2015, Chesapeake obtained a transfer order from the
Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel to transfer a substantial
portion of these lawsuits filed since June 2014 to the 348th
District Court of Tarrant County for pre-trial purposes. These
lawsuits, which primarily relate to the Barnett Shale, generally
allege that Chesapeake underpaid royalties by making improper
deductions and using incorrect production volumes. In addition to
allegations of breach of contract, a number of these lawsuits
allege fraud, conspiracy, joint venture and antitrust violations
by Chesapeake. Chesapeake expects that additional lawsuits will be
filed by new plaintiffs making similar allegations. The lawsuits
seek direct damages in varying amounts, together with exemplary
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest. Chesapeake believes
its royalty calculations and payment practices were appropriate
and has not accrued a loss contingency with respect to the
multidistrict litigation.


CLEAN HARBORS: Safety-Kleen Defending 54 Personal Injury Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, 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 Safety-Kleen is
named as a defendant in various lawsuits that are pending in
various courts and jurisdictions throughout the United States,
including approximately 54 proceedings (excluding cases which have
been settled but not formally dismissed) as of September 30, 2015,
wherein persons claim personal injury resulting from the use of
Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment or cleaning products.

Safety-Kleen is named as a defendant in various lawsuits that are
currently pending in various courts and jurisdictions throughout
the United States, including approximately 54 proceedings
(excluding cases which have been settled but not formally
dismissed) as of September 30, 2015, wherein persons claim
personal injury resulting from the use of Safety-Kleen's parts
cleaning equipment or cleaning products. These proceedings
typically involve allegations that the solvent used in Safety-
Kleen's parts cleaning equipment contains contaminants and/or that
Safety-Kleen's recycling process does not effectively remove the
contaminants that become entrained in the solvent during their
use. In addition, certain claimants assert that Safety-Kleen
failed to warn adequately the product user of potential risks,
including a historic failure to warn that solvent contains trace
amounts of toxic or hazardous substances such as benzene.

Safety-Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will provide
coverage for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insured
retentions and deductibles in certain limited cases), except for
punitive damages to the extent not insurable under state law or
excluded from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that these
claims lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, and
intends to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety of
its products against all of these claims. Such matters are subject
to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with
assurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the
ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial
impact with respect to these matters as of September 30, 2015.
From January 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015, 29 product liability
claims were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these
claims and the related insurance, the Company did not incur any
expense as Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for
all such claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional
lawsuits in the future, including claims for which insurance
coverage may not be available.


CLEAN HARBORS: Fee Class Action Settlement Subject to Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, 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 settlement in
the Fee Class Action Claims is subject to limited appeal.

In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of
Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel
surcharges and extended area service fees. In 2012, similar
lawsuits were filed by the same law firm in California and
Missouri, adding a claim in the California lawsuit challenging the
Company's late fee policy.

On January 15, 2015, the Company reached a tentative settlement of
the pending class action lawsuits, which were broadened to include
similar claims on behalf of customers in Florida, West Virginia
and Arkansas. A final settlement in the amount of $0.1 million was
approved by the court in a fairness hearing in June 2015.  Such
settlement is subject to limited appeal; however, any adjustment
to the amount would not be material.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Defending Royalties Action in Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. is defending a class action over
royalty payments in Oklahoma.  A mediation had been scheduled for
December 7, 2015, in the case, 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.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and
Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on
behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company.
The Petition alleged the Company improperly deducted post-
production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the proposed class.

On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition that did
not add any substantive claims, but sought a "hybrid class action"
in which they sought certification of certain claims for
injunctive relief, reserving the right to seek a further class
certification on money damages in the future. Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Motion for Class Certification on January 9, 2015, that
modified the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma
production from July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to
the present) and sought certification of over 45 separate "issues"
for injunctive or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right
to seek a further class certification of money damages in the
future.

The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and the
motions for class certification denying the allegations and
raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal arguments to
each of the claims and filings. Certain discovery was undertaken
and the "hybrid" motion was briefed by plaintiffs and the Company.

A hearing on the "hybrid" class certification was held on June 1st
and 2nd, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a
"hybrid" class as requested by plaintiffs. The Company has
appealed the trial court's class certification order, which will
be reviewed de novo by the appellate court. A mediation has been
scheduled for December 7, 2015.

The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action
will have on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate
potential outcome of the matter.

Although not currently at issue in the "hybrid" certification,
plaintiffs have alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million
that they may claim as damages, which may increase with the
passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of
interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that
the case meets the requirements for a class action and is
vigorously defending the case. The Company will continue to assert
its defenses to the case as certified as well as any future
attempt to certify a money damages class.


COTY INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that a motion to dismiss the
Securities Litigation is currently pending.

During fiscal 2014, two putative class action complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, its directors and
certain of its executive officers, and the underwriters of the
initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO.
Those lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Coty Inc.
Securities Litigation, and following the court's appointment of
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, a consolidated and amended
complaint (the "Securities Complaint") was filed on July 7, 2014.

The Securities Complaint asserts claims against the Company, its
directors, and certain of its executive officers, under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased
the Company's Class A Common Stock in the IPO, damages of an
unspecified amount and equitable or injunctive relief.

On September 9, 2014, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against the underwriter defendants without prejudice. The
Securities Complaint was further amended on October 18, 2014. The
Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint,
which has been fully briefed since December 2014. The motion to
dismiss is currently pending. The Company believes the Securities
Complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend it.


CSX INTERMODAL: "Valadez" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Miguel Valadez and Israel Lux
Carrillo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc., et al., Case No.
RG15787834, was removed from Alameda Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court California Northern District (San Francisco). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-05433-EDL to the
proceeding.

The case asserts labor related claims.

CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc. provides and arranges for
intermodal terminal services and trucking services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Kaufmann, Esq.
      David Philip Pogrel, Esq.
      Giselle Olmedo, Esq.
      LEONARD CARDER, LLP
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 272-0169
      Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
      E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
              dpogrel@leonardcarder.com
              golmedo@leonardcarder.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Linda Auerbach Allderdice, Esq.
      James Walter Michalski, Esq.
      John H. Haney, Esq.
      HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
      400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 896-2400
      Facsimile: (213) 896-2450
      E-mail: linda.allderdice@hklaw.com
              james.michalski@hklaw.com
              john.haney@hklaw.com


CUMULUS MEDIA: Defendant in Two Class Actions
---------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is
named as a defendant in two separate putative class action
lawsuits relating to the Company's use and public performance of
certain sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972.

The Company said, "In August 2015, we were named as a defendant in
two separate putative class action lawsuits relating to our use
and public performance of certain sound recordings fixed prior to
February 15, 1972 (the "Pre-1972 Recordings"). The first suit, ABS
Entertainment, Inc., et. al. v, Cumulus Media Inc., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California and alleges, among other things, violation of
California rights of publicity, common law conversion,
misappropriation and unfair business practices. The second suit,
ABS Entertainment, Inc., v. Cumulus Media Inc., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and alleges, among other things, common law copyright infringement
and unfair competition. The New York lawsuit has been stayed
pending an appeal before the Second Circuit involving unrelated
third-parties over whether the owner of a Pre-1972 Recording holds
an exclusive right to publicly perform that recording under New
York common law."

"Each suit seeks unspecified damages. We are evaluating each suit,
and intend to defend ourselves vigorously."


DELTA AIRLINES: "Kromar" Suit Transferred to Washington D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kromar et al. v. Delta Airlines,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03937, was transferred from U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).  The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01759-CKK
to the proceeding.

The Defendants allegedly conspired to fix, raise, maintain and/or
artificially inflate price of airline tickets for domestic air
travel.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: bomara@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin Bradshaw, Esq.
          Katrina M. Robson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: bbradshaw@omm.com
                  krobson@omm.com

               - and -

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879-8813
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com

               - and -

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


DFS GROUP: "Concepcion" Suit Seeks Damages and Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Concepcion, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and the general public, v. DFS Group L.P. and
DOES 1-25, Case No. CGC-15-548698 (Cal. Super. County of San
Francisco, October 29, 2015) seeks compensatory and statutory
damages, and payment for overtime work according to the Labor Code
226.7 and Wage Order #9 as well as waiting time and statutory
penalties pursuant to Labor Code 201-203 and 558.

DFS Group L.P. is a luxury retailer operating out of duty free
shops in airports worldwide and a California registered
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
      Un Kei Wu, Esq.
      Ernesto Sanchez, Esq.
      Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
      LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2760 Mission St.
      San Francisco, CA 94110
      Tel: (415) 695-1000
      Fax: (415) 695-1006


DRAFTKINGS INC: Online Gaming Illegal, "Tharpe" Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Tharpe, Plaintiff, v. DraftKings, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:15-cv-00164-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss. November 16, 2015), seeks to
recover punitive damages, declaratory, retrospective and
prospective injunctive relief including enjoining Defendants from
continuing operations in violation of Mississippi Code 87-1-1, 97-
43-5, 97-4-9, 97-43-et seq., 97-33-1 and/or 97-43-5 et seq.

The class action complaint questions the legality of the
operations of an online gaming website, Daily Fantasy Sports, an
online game that allows paying participants to engage in virtual
athletic drafting with data tied to actual player statistics that
allows game simulations.  DraftKings entices participants to play
by offering cash winnings.

DraftKings is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 225 Franklin St., 26th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

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


DRAFTKINGS INC: Rigged Online Games, "Horan" Says in E.D.Mo. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jackson Horan Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated in the State of Missouri v. DraftKings, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01643 (E.D. Mo., October 30, 2015), seeks damages
according to Missouri Merchandising Practices Act R.S. Mo. 407.010
et seq. and the Missouri Revised Statutes Sections 572.010, et
seq.

The class action complaint arises out of an alleged internal
rigging of online gaming website, Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS), an
online game that allows paying participants to engage in virtual
athletic draft with data tied to actual player statistics that
allows game simulations.  DraftKings entices participants to play
by offering cash winnings.  DraftKings employees had access to
material nonpublic player ownership statistics and were using this
information in DFS contests on the website of their chief
competitor FanDuel, Inc. to profit at the expense of FanDuel's DFS
participants.

DraftKings is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 225 Franklin St., 26th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John F. Edgar, Esq.
      Boyce N. Richardson, Esq.
      Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
      EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
      1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Tel: (816) 531-0033
      Fax: (816) 531-3322
      Email: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
             bnr@edgarlawfirm.com
             atr@edgarlawfirm.com

           - and -

      Garret W. Wotkyns, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      8501 N. Scottsdale Road Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AZ 85253
      Tel: (480) 428-0141
      Fax: (866) 505-8036
      Email: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com

           - and -

      Kyle E. Bates, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      2000 Powell St. Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Tel: (415) 421-7100
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: kbates@schneiderwallace.com


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Agreed to Participate in Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation and the lead plaintiff in the
securities class action have agreed to participate in mediation,
Dynavax said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar
securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed
on June 26, 2013.

On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all related actions
that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the District
Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In re Dynavax
Technologies Securities Litigation.

On September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his
consolidated class action complaint (the "consolidated
complaint"), which named a former director of the Company as a
defendant in addition to the Company and the former executive
officers identified in the two prior complaints (collectively, the
"defendants").

The consolidated complaint alleged that between April 26, 2012 and
June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its executive officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with
statements related to the Company's product, HEPLISAV-B, an
investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The consolidated
complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.

On January 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

On March 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. The opposition introduced a
new theory of the case, so defendants permitted plaintiffs to
amend their complaint.

On April 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint ("ACC"). The ACC added a new plaintiff and several new
defendants, and alleged that, between April 26, 2012 and June 10,
2013, the Company, certain of its executive officers and
directors, and entities related to certain of its directors,
violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with statements
related to our product candidate, HEPLISAV-B. Specifically, the
ACC alleged that the Company made fraudulent misrepresentations or
omissions regarding the manufacture of HEPLISAV-B and that certain
insiders unlawfully profited from such misrepresentations or
omissions. The ACC sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.

On June 6, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ACC. On
August 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that motion.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed the second amended
complaint ("SAC") to remove or correct erroneous statements
attributed to confidential witnesses. The SAC retains all
allegations asserted in the ACC. On October 10, 2014, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On November 10, 2014,
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss
the SAC. The Company filed its reply in support of the motion on
December 1, 2014.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss the SAC occurred on February
20, 2015. The Court granted the motion with respect to some of the
alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company or
certain named defendants as well as some of the insider trading
claims against certain insiders and denied the motion to dismiss
with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and omissions and
insider trading claims. The Company filed an answer to the SAC on
April 6, 2015. Dynavax and the lead plaintiff in the securities
class action have agreed to participate in mediation.


FEDEX GROUND: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., and Does
1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC602403 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 25,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. operates a freight, shipping and
delivery services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Righetti, Esq.
      John Glugoski, Esq.
      RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
      456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415)983-0900
      Facsimile: (415)397-9005
      E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com
              jglugoski@righettilaw.com


FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: "Keith" Action hits Substandard Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Keith and Ryan Keith, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ferring Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Ferring B.V., and Ferring International Center S.A.,
Defendants., Case No. 1:15-cv-10381 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division,
October 17, 2015), seeks to recover actual, general, special,
incidental, statutory, treble or other multiple, punitive and
consequential damages in violation of the violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act 815
ILCS 505/2.

Defendants manufacture, warrant, advertise and sell Bravelle, the
brand name version of the generic drug urofollitropin designed to
treat infertility in women. Ferring initiated a voluntary recall
of Bravelle after Ferring's internal quality monitoring revealed
that certain lots of the drug did not meet potency specifications.
Plaintiffs were among those who purchased and used the affected
batch of products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard R. Gordon
      GORDON LAW OFFICES, LTD.
      211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, Illinois 60606
      Tel: (312) 332-5200
      Email: rrg@gordonlawchicago.com


FERRY & NICHOLAS: Files Petition in Ill. for Subpoena Issuance
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Elkins, Barry Allen Lovejoy, and Betty Conley, individually,
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons filed a
petition with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois for an
Order for the issuance of a subpoena to appear at a deposition at
Lake Cook Court Reporting, 2275 Half Day Road, Suite 147,
Bannockburn, IL, to Discover Financial Services in care of their
Registered Agent, CT Corporation Systems, 208 South La Salle
Street, Suite 814, Chicago, IL.

The appeals case is John Elkins, Barry Allen Lovejoy, and Betty
Conley, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Ferry & Nicholas, Inc., Case No. 14-C-990.

Ferry & Nicholas, Inc. operates a debt collection firm in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maryl Sattler, Esq.
      Tony L. Clackler, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: msattler@baileyglasser.com
              tclackler@baileyglasser.com


FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Electronic Keyless Fob System Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Shapiro and Andrew Freitas, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-
09200 (C.D. Cal., November 25, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
the owners and lessees of vehicles designed, manufactured,
distributed, and sold by the Defendant vehicle manufacturer, with
defect associated with the remote-control electronic keyless fob
system.

Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and
sells Ford and Lincoln automobiles in California and multiple
other locations in the United States and worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martis Ann Alex, Esq.
      Daniel R. Leathers, Esq.
      Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: malex@labaton.com
              dleathers@labaton.com
              bmorrison@labaton.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      E-mail: lee@hbsslaw.com
              elaine@hbsslaw.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Sued in D.N.J. Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clarksville Light & Water Co., individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-08295-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., November 25, 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:

      Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
      Chad A. Carder, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      One Gateway Center
      Suite 2600
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 297-1484
      Facsimile: (973) 297-1485
      E-mail: jgittleman@barrack.com
              ccarder@barrack.com


GOBBLE INC: "Julius" Suit Wants Automatic Purchase Renewal Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Julius, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gobble, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02463-H-JLB
(S.D. Cal., October 30, 2015), class action complaint for damages,
restitution and injunctive relief for violations of the California
Business and Professional Code 17600, 17200, and 17535, et seq.
and to enjoin Defendant's practice of making automatic renewal
offers and continuous service offers.

The Plaintiff alleges automatic renewal and continuous service
offers, charging consumers' credit card $71.70 for another week's
delivery of a dinner kit subscription without their knowledge.

Gobble, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware, with a corporate headquarters located in the City of
Palo Alto, State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com
             mona@kazlg.com

           - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Sara Khosroabadi, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Tel: (619) 233-7770
      Fax: (619) 297-1022
      Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             sara@westcoastlitigation.com


HACHEM CONSULTING: "Medina" Suit Moved to Florida Dist. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Medina v. Youssef Hachem
Consulting Engineering, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-022222 CA 01, was
removed from 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-24035-
JAL to the proceeding.

The case was brought against the Defendant in relation to its
violations on the provisions of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Youssef Hachem Consulting Engineering is located in South Florida,
and is a talented, experienced and innovative engineering firm,
taking advantage of latest design and computer technology
available.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, 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: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edward Samuel Polk, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          9150 South Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 350-5338
          Facsimile: (305) 373-2294
          E-mail: edward.polk@csklegal.com


HALYARD HEALTH: Assumed Defense of "Shahinian" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Halyard 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 the Company has an
Indemnification Obligation for, and has assumed the defense of,
the matter styled Shahinian, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation,
No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.), filed on October 29, 2014.

"In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative nationwide class
action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), negligent
misrepresentation, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law in connection with our marketing and sale of
MicroCool surgical gowns," the Company said.

"On February 6, 2015, we moved to dismiss the complaint on
multiple grounds. On July 10, 2015, the Court issued an order on
the motion to dismiss, dismissing the negligent misrepresentation
claim but permitting the remaining claims to stand and proceed to
discovery. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the
matter."


HCR MANORCARE: "Johnson" Suit Moved to N.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Johnson v. HCR ManorCare, LLC et
al., Case No. 14-C-325-2, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Harrison County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia (Clarksburg). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00189-IMK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff suffered personal
injuries and damages while a resident of defendant's nursing home.

ManorCare is a Delaware corporation based in Toledo, Ohio. The
company is in the business of operating nursing homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. McHugh, Esq.
          Ka'Leya Q. Hardin, Esq.
          Michael J. Fuller, Esq.
          John R. Cummings, Esq.
          MCHUGH FULLER LAW GROUP
          97 Elias Whiddon Road
          Hattiesburg, MS 39402
          Telephone: (601) 261-2220
          Facsimile: (601) 261-2481
          E-mail: jim@mchughfuller.com
                  kaleya@mchughfuller.com
                  mike@mchughfuller.com
                  jcummings@mchughfuller.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          Kerrie Wagoner Boyle, Esq.
          P. Gregory Haddad, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol St.
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 340-7864
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
                  kboyle@baileyglasser.com
                  ghaddad@baileyglasser.com

              - and -

          Daniel R. Schuda. Esq.
          ANSPACH MEEKS ELLENBERGER, LLP
          900 Lee Street East, Suite 1700
          P.O. Box 11866
          Charleston, WV 25339
          Telephone: (304) 932-0252
          Facsimile: (304) 205-8062
          E-mail: dschuda@anspachlaw.com

              - and -

          David E. Rich, Esq.
          OFFUTT NORD BURCHETT, PLLC
          PO Box 2868
          Huntington, WV 25728-2868
          Telephone: (304) 529-2868
          Facsimile: (304) 529-2999
          E-mail: derich@ofnlaw.com

              - and -

          James J. Jordan, Esq.
          ANSPACH MEEKS ELLENBERGER, LLP
          517 Ninth Street, Suite 1000
          Huntington, WV 25701
          Telephone: (304) 522-1138
          Facsimile: (304) 522-9528
          E-mail: jjordan@anspachlaw.com


HILLS BANCORPORATION: Parties Put Iowa Class Action on Hold
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hills Bancorporation 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 parties in a
class action lawsuit and District Court have put the case on hold
pending a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court in an appeal filed by
West Bank on a similar issue under dispute in the Hills Bank case.

On April 24, 2014, a suit was filed against the Bank in the Iowa
District Court for Johnson County by a customer alleging that the
fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Iowa's usury laws and that the collection
of such interest violates the Iowa Debt Collection Practices Act.
The suit seeks class-action status for Bank customers who have
paid overdraft fees arising from debit or ATM card transactions on
their consumer accounts.

The Bank filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the Court
denied. The Bank filed an application for interlocutory appeal to
the Iowa Supreme Court, which the Court denied. The parties and
District Court have put the case on hold pending a ruling by the
Iowa Supreme Court in an appeal filed by West Bank on a similar
issue under dispute in the Hills Bank case.

"At this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible for
management of the Bank to determine the probability of a material
adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential
loss," the Company said.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Court Ordered Nasyrova Action Closed
------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, 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
ordered the Nasyrova action closed.

A putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics,
Inc., was filed on February 27, 2014, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleged
that the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors failed to disclose and/or made material
misstatements in the Company's public filings relating to the
termination of the Nycomed Agreement. In particular, the complaint
alleged that defendants failed to make timely disclosure
concerning a dispute concerning a delay in the development of
veltuzumab. On October 9, 2013, the Company announced that the
Nycomed Agreement was terminated. The complaint alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. On July 15, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint with prejudice. The Court's opinion
concluded that the Company had no duty to make the disclosure of
information concerning the agreement at an earlier time and that
there was no misstatement or omission sufficient to support the
claim. The Court ordered this action closed.


INTERNAP CORPORATION: Defendant in "Grisolia" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Internap Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a purported
stockholder filed on September 18, 2015, a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County of the State of
Georgia against the Company, the current members of the Company's
board of directors and Jefferies Finance LLC ("Jefferies"). The
complaint is captioned Grisolia v. Internap Corp., et al., Case
No. 2015cv265926 (Ga. Sup. Ct.).

The Company said, "The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties, and that Jefferies aided and abetted such breaches, in
connection with the credit agreement described in this filing. The
complaint alleges that the credit agreement contains a so-called
"dead hand proxy put" provision that (a) defines the election of a
majority of directors whose initial nomination arose from an
actual or threatened proxy contest to be an event of default that
triggers the lenders' right to accelerate payment of the debt
outstanding under the credit agreement; and (b) thereby allegedly
coerces stockholders and entrenches the members of the Board of
Directors. The Plaintiff further claims that Jefferies aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by including the
provisions in the credit agreement and encouraging our board of
directors to accept them. The complaint seeks, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of costs
and disbursements, including attorneys' and experts' fees. During
the three months ended September 30, 2015, we recorded $0.5
million as litigation expense in "General and administrative" in
the accompanying statements of operations and comprehensive loss
for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015."

"On October 30, 2015, the Company and our lenders amended the
credit agreement to remove the provision which is the subject of
the litigation. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted in the lawsuit including that the lawsuit is now
moot.  We do not believe that the ultimate costs of this complaint
will be material."


JB LINE INC: "Wang" Action Hits False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------
Meng Wang, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. JB Line, Inc. d/b/a JB Cosmetics, Defendant, Case
No. CV 15-6551 (E.D.N.Y., November 16, 2015), seeks restitution
and disgorgement of all amounts obtained by Defendant, declaratory
relief, enjoining Defendant from continuing their unlawful
practices in violation of New York General Business Law 349 or the
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Defendant allegedly engages deceptive practices in the marketing,
advertising, and promotion of their LashFood Phyto-Medic Eyelash
Enhancer.

JB Line, Inc. is a business corporation organized under the laws
of the state of California, with its principal place of business
at 6200 Artesia Blvd., Buena Park, CA 90620. It provides cosmetic
products throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gorchoff" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Gorchoff and Louis Gorchoff, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-09164 (C.D. Cal., November 25,
2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC operates a credit reporting agency
in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J GOLDSTEIN
      8032 West Third Street, Suite 201
      Los Angeles, CA 90048
      Telephone: (323) 937-0400
      Facsimile: (866) 288-9194
      E-mail: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


JJ EYELASHES: Faces "Triantis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Triantis v. JJ Eyelashes Madison Corporation, May Lee and
David Park, Case No. 1:15-cv-09275-JGK (S.D.N.Y., November 24,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate multiple eyelash salons in New York
City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robin C. Tarr, Esq.
      14629 Dravo Place
      Glen Allen, VA 23059
      Telephone: (516) 316-2823
      Facsimile: (804) 798-8328

         - and -

      Richard S. Keenan, Esq.
      Keith W. Corso, Esq.
      AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC
      666 Old Country Road, Suite 901
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 227-6363
      Facsimile: (516) 227-6367
      E-mail: rkeenan@amatofirm.com
              kcorso@amatofirm.com


KT HEALTH: "Vuckovic" Suit Alleges Bandage Mislabeling
------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Vuckovic, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KT Health Holdings, Inc. d/b/a
KT Health, Inc., KT Holdings, LLC and KT Health, LLC, seeks to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' mislabeling of
their athletic tapes in violations of G. L. c. 93A and injunctive
relief directing KT Health to cease its false and misleading
labeling and advertising, retrieve existing false and misleading
labeling, advertising and promotional materials and publish
corrective advertising.

KT Health has been alleged of deceptively imparting that by simply
applying their athletic strips onto the skin above an injured
area, consumers can obtain relief from pain, recover faster and
receive treatment from a myriad of common injuries such as
Achilles tendonitis, tennis elbow, plantar fasciitis, rib pain,
runner's knee and shin splints.

KT Health Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws
of Delaware, with principal place of business at 7 South
1550 West #600, Lindon, Utah. It sells KT Tape Products in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Pastor, Esq.
      PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
      63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 742-9700
      Fax: (617) 742-9701
      Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

           - and -

      Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
      Weston, FL 33326
      Tel: (954) 515-0123
      Fax: (866) 300-7367
      Email: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

           - and -

      Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
      LEONARD LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 329-1295
      Email: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com


LAMI PRODUCTS LLC: "Cikra" Action Seek Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Donald Cikra, Maryann Sonnett, Colleen Carlock, Gail Richmond,
Caralee Brush, and Mary Hurtado, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LaMi Products LLC, Case
No. 2:15-cv-06166-WB (E.D.Pa., October 17 20, 2015), seeks all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. 201,
et seq.

Plaintiffs worked as merchandisers for the Defendant and were
allegedly not paid overtime.

LaMi Products LLC is a duly registered company in Pennsylvania
with headquarters in Huntington Valley.  It employs over 600
merchandisers who maintain product displays throughout the
country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      R. Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      Mark Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Rd #211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Tel: (215) 884-2491
      Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

           - and -

      Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
      Peter M. Delano, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston St #2000
      Boston, MA 02114
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             pdelano@llrlaw.com


LE CENIS LLC: "Medrano" Action seeks to Recover OT
--------------------------------------------------
Edvin Omar Medrano, and others similarly-situated, Plaintiff,
v. Le Cenis LLC d/b/a FL Cafe., a Florida Corporation, and Elise
Fable, individually, Defendants., Case No. 1:15-cv-24264-KMW (S.D.
Fla., November 16, 2015), seeks to recover overtime pay, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201-219.

Plaintiff allegedly was not paid overtime wages when he worked
more than 40 hours weekly.

Le Cenis LLC is a Florida corporation which regularly conducting
business in Miami-Dade County. Elise Fable is an employee of the
latter with administrative authority over the employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      Law Office of Daniel T. Feld, P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
      Aventura, Florida 33180
      Tel: (786) 923-5899
      Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

           - and -

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


LEGGETT & PLATT: To Pay $35MM in Foam Products Suit This Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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 expects to make the final payment of $35.8 million to
resolve the U.S. direct purchaser class action cases within the
year 2016.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in three pending
direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15,
2010) on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of
polyurethane foam products. The direct purchaser class action
cases were all filed in or were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of direct
purchasers, seek three times the amount of damages allegedly
suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of
polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each
plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future
violations. We filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser
class actions, for failure to state a legally valid claim, which
were denied by the Ohio Court."

"A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of the
direct purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held and the Court
certified the direct purchaser class. We filed a Petition for
Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which was denied.
The Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with
a mediator of their choosing."

Settlement of U.S. Direct Purchaser Class Action Cases

"We reached a tentative settlement of the U.S. direct purchaser
class action cases on August 14, 2014, by agreeing to pay an
aggregate amount of $39.8, inclusive of plaintiff attorneys' fees
and costs. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases, but
settled the direct purchaser class cases to avoid the risk,
uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The settlement
was subject to Court approval. We recorded a $39.8 (pre-tax)
accrual for the settlement in the third quarter 2014. In the
fourth quarter of 2014, we paid $4 to the Court related to the
settlement. The deadline for direct purchasers to exclude
themselves from the litigation and settlement classes was January
26, 2015. A final fairness hearing was held on February 3, 2015,
and on February 26, 2015, the Court entered a memorandum opinion
and order granting the motion for final approval of the class
settlement.  Subsequently, final judgments of dismissal with
prejudice were entered on March 13, 2015.  On March 20, 2015, an
objector filed a notice of appeal of the order approving the class
settlement to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  On March 27,
2015, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer the appeal. On May 1,
2015, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion to
dismiss and transferred the appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. We expect to make the final payment
of $35.8 to resolve this matter within the next year."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Full Settlement in Foam Case Paid into Escrow
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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 full
settlement amount in the case, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196, was paid into escrow in the
third quarter of 2015.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in an indirect
purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21,
2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class
action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane
Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers,
bring damages claims under various states' antitrust and consumer
protection statutes, and are seeking three times an amount of
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against
future violations. We filed motions to dismiss the indirect
purchaser class action, for failure to state a legally valid
claim. The Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss.

"A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of the
indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held and the
Court certified the indirect purchaser class. The deadline for
indirect purchasers to exclude themselves from the litigation was
March 13, 2015.

"We filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class
Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit, which was denied. On November 18, 2014, we filed a
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which
was denied on March 2, 2015. The Ohio Court ordered all parties to
attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing.

Tentative Settlement of U.S. Indirect Purchaser Class Action Cases

"We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. Indirect Class
Action cases on May 18, 2015, by agreeing to pay an amount not
materially different from the amount previously accrued for this
claim. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases, but
settled the indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk,
uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The settlement
is subject to Court approval. The Court preliminarily approved the
class settlement on July 31, 2015. A final fairness hearing [was]
scheduled for December 15, 2015. The full settlement amount was
paid into escrow in the third quarter of 2015. The final
settlement approval hearing [was] scheduled for December 7, 2015."

                           *     *     *

According to the Web site http://www.polyfoamclassaction.com/, to
receive money from the Settlement Funds, claimants will need to
file a claim form by February 29, 2016.

Plaintiffs' Indirect Purchaser Class Lead Counsel:

          Stephen R. Neuwirth, Esq.
          Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges - New York
          22nd Floor
          51 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Tel: 212-849-7000
          Fax: 212-849-7100
          Email: stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Miller Law
          Ste. 2910
          115 South LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Tel: 312-332-3400
          Fax: 312-676-2676
          Email: mmiller@millerlawllc.com

Defendants' Liaison Counsel:

          Kendall Millard, Esq.
          Barnes & Thornburg - Indianapolis
          1313 Merchants Bank Bldg.
          11 South Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Tel: 317-231-7461
          Fax: 317-231-7433
          Email: kmillard@btlaw.com

               - and -

          James H. Walsh, Esq.
          McGuire Woods - Richmond
          One James Center
          901 East Cary Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Tel: 804-775-1000
          Fax: 804-698-2200
          Email: jwalsh@mcguirewoods.com


LEGGETT & PLATT: British Columbia and Quebec Courts Approved Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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
British Columbia and Quebec courts have formally approved the
settlement in the Canadian Class Action Cases.

The Company said, "We were named in two Canadian class action
cases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam
products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co.
Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-
10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued
December 30, 2011). In each of these Canadian cases, the
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers,
seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly
overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100,
punitive damages of $10, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
and the costs of the investigation and the action. The first
issued class action is on behalf of a class of purchasers of
polyurethane foam. The second issued class action is on behalf of
purchasers of carpet underlay. We are not yet required to file our
defenses in these or any other Canadian actions. In addition, on
July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case (for direct and
indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option
Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada
Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice
(Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended motion
for authorization seeking to add us and other manufacturers of
polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case, which was
granted. This action has a pending motion for certification, which
has been postponed indefinitely. We also were notified in June
2014 of two motions to add us as parties to two class proceedings
in British Columbia. Those proceedings are similar to the Ontario
proceedings in that one proposes a class of purchasers of
polyurethane foam (Majestic Mattress Mfg. Ltd. v. Vitafoam
Products et al., No. VLC-S-S-106362 Vancouver Registry) and one
proposes a class of purchasers of carpet underlay (Trillium
Project Management Ltd. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company
et al., No.S106213 Vancouver Registry). The motion to add us as
parties to these actions was heard on April 7, 2015 and the
British Columbia Supreme Court ordered our addition as parties to
the two actions in British Columbia. The British Columbia actions
involve British Columbia purchasers only whereas the Ontario
actions propose classes of Canadian purchasers."

Tentative Settlement of Canadian Class Action Cases

The Company said, "We reached a tentative settlement in all
Canadian Class Action cases on June 12, 2015 by agreeing to pay an
amount not materially different than the amount previously accrued
for these claims. We continue to deny all allegations in the
cases, but settled all cases (each case being on behalf of both
direct and indirect purchasers) to avoid the risk, uncertainty,
expense and distraction of litigation. We made payment of the
settlement amount into escrow. The settlement required the
approval of courts in three provincial jurisdictions where class
proceedings had been commenced, namely Ontario, British Columbia
and Quebec. The settlement was conditioned on each Court providing
approval. Approval hearings were held in British Columbia on
September 21, 2015, Quebec on October 26, 2015 and Ontario on
October 29, 2015.

"The British Columbia and Quebec courts have formally approved the
settlement. The Ontario court raised no concerns with the
settlement at the approval hearing but it has not yet formally
granted an order approving the settlement. Unless an appeal is
taken from any of the settlement approval orders, the settlement
will be final 30 days following the release of the Ontario order."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Missouri Class Action Case Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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
parties in the Missouri Class Action Case have filed a joint
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and the court entered a
docket text entry that the case was dismissed by parties.

The Company said, "On June 22, 2012, we were made a party to a
lawsuit brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson
County, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption
"Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated." The plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of
polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that
we violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon
our alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam
products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitive
damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees.

"We filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied.
Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class
certification. A hearing on the motion was held, and the Court
subsequently entered an order denying plaintiff's motion for
class certification on March 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed a motion
for reconsideration of that order on March 30, 2015, which was
also denied. Plaintiff did not timely appeal this ruling. On
September 8, 2015 the parties agreed to settle the case for an
immaterial amount. On October 20, 2015, the parties filed a joint
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and the court entered a
docket text entry that the case was dismissed by parties."


MARVEL FOOD: Faces "Song" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yan Jun Song, Yu Peng Lu, individually and on behalf all other
employees similarly situated v. Marvel Food Services, LLC d/b/a
KENTA, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06786 (E.D.N.Y., November 25,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Marvel Food Services, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Long
Island located at1197 Walt Whitman Rd Melville, NY 11747.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Beard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Beard v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03598-RDB (D. Md., November 25, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Robert E. De Rose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacie Brown v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03599-WMN (D. Md., November 25, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Robert E. De Rose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Carter v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-
cv-02435 (N.D. Ohio, November 25, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Charleen Cooper v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03600-CCB (D. Md., November 25, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Robert E. De Rose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cooper" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charleen Cooper v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03601-GLR (D. Md., November 25, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Robert E. De Rose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Davis v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03596-MJG (D. Md., November 25, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Robert E. De Rose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Newell Reed v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-03608-JFM (D. Md., November 25, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Robert E. De Rose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "White" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Desiree White v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03607-JFM (D. Md., November 25, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Robert E. De Rose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MBF INSPECTION: "Ganci" Suit in S.D. Ohio Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ganci, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals nationwide and Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff, v.
MBF Inspection Services, Inc, Defendant, Case 2:15-cv-02959-GCS-
TPK (S.D. Ohio, October 30, 2015), seeks to recover overtime pay
in excess of 40 hours per week in accordance with Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 216(b) and Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 4111.10,
4111.03 and 2305.11.

MBF Inspection Services is based in Roswell, New Mexico and
involved in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH
      250E Broad Street. 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614) 221-4221
      Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

           - and -

      Paul J. Lucas, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER LLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 256-3200
      Email: lukas@nka.com


MCCLATCHY CO: Continues to Defend Misclassification Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company continues to defend class suits over alleged
misclassification of carriers, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 27,
2015.

The Company said, "In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee
filed a purported class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno
Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno
County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case")
alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent
contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement.  In February 2009,
a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company,
involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The
Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the
State of California in Sacramento County."

Both courts have certified the class in these cases.  The class
consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and
3,500 carriers in the Fresno case.  The plaintiffs in both cases
are seeking unspecified damages for mileage reimbursement.  With
respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and
hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an
equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California
Civil Code.

In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were
dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for
mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case has trifurcated the trial into
three separate phases:  the first phase addressed independent
contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if
any, and the third phase will address damages, if any.

On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a
tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the
carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during
the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as
independent contractors.

"We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately
adopted it as final, the Company said. "The court has not yet
established a date for the second and third phases of trial
concerning whether The Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in
the class for mileage reimbursement or owes any damages."

The court in the Fresno case has bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase will address independent
contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the
second phase will address damages, if any.  The first phase of the
Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014 and
concluded in late March 2015. The parties are awaiting a ruling on
the first phase.

"We are defending these actions vigorously and expect that we will
ultimately prevail," the Company said.  "As a result, we have not
established a reserve in connection with the cases.  While we
believe that a material impact on our condensed consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these
claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation,
a possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable
developments could result in future charges that could have a
material impact.  We have and will continue to periodically
reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated
expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based
on experience and developments in litigation."


MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued Over Electronic Keyless Fob System Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Ree, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-09201 (C.D. Cal.,
November 25, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the owners and
lessees of vehicles designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold
by the Defendant vehicle manufacturer, with defect associated with
the remote-control electronic keyless fob system.

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC designs, manufactures, markets, distributes
and sells Mercedes-Benz automobiles in California and multiple
other locations in the United States and worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martis Ann Alex, Esq.
      Daniel R. Leathers, Esq.
      Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: malex@labaton.com
              dleathers@labaton.com
              bmorrison@labaton.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      E-mail: lee@hbsslaw.com
              elaine@hbsslaw.com


MONDELLO INC: "Varela" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Varela, and others similarly-situated v. Mondello, Inc.
d/b/a Tarantella Ristorante and Pizzeria and Karen Cangelosi, Case
No. CACE-15-019016 (Fla. Cir. Broward County, October 27, 2015),
seeks damages for national origin discrimination against Plaintiff
in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, 760.01, et seq.,
Florida Statutes and to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. and Article X,
Section 24 of the Florida Constitution.

Plaintiff was employed with Defendant as a line cook from November
2001 through January 2015. He is of Hispanic origin and alleges
racially discriminatory treatment. Defendant allegedly failed to
compensate Plaintiff at the required minimum wage and at rate of
one and a half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 within a single work week.

Mondello, Inc., is based in Broward County, Florida and does
business as Tarantella Ristorante and Pizzeria.

Karen L. Cangelosi, is the corporate officer of Mondello, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      421 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Vo" Case in Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, 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 in the discovery phase of the case, Nhan T. Vo,
individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. the
Company, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

On June 27, 2013, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company alleging claims for failure to properly pay
overtime or provide meal and rest breaks to its non-exempt
employees in California, among other things. The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages and penalties under provisions of
the Labor Code, including the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.
The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case.
Management believes it has accrued adequate reserves for this
matter and does not expect the resolution of this case to have a
material adverse effect on its business or financial condition.
However, depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions
could be recorded in the future which may have a material adverse
effect on the Company's operating results.


MUNCHIES CAFE: "Garcia" Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Odalys Garcia and other
similarly situated cashiers v. Munchies Cafe #2, Inc. and Eduardo
Roque, Case No. 15-024915-CA-01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District
Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-24373-FAM to the proceeding.

The case asserts causes of action under violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Munchies Cafe #2, Inc. owns and operate a restaurant located at
12761 SW 42nd St, Miami, FL 33175.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ena Teresa Diaz, Esq.
      ENA T. DIAZ, P.A.
      999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 720
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 377-8828
      Facsimile: (305) 356-1311
      E-mail: ediaz@enadiazlaw.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces P.J. Hafiz Suit Over Sunday Games
----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. Hafiz Club Management, Inc. d/b/a Sneaky Pete's,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises LLC, DirecTV, LLC,
Direct TV Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-09175 (C.D. Cal.,
November 25, 2015) seeks to enjoin the ongoing unreasonable
restraint of trade that Defendants have implemented through
DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to broadcast all Sunday afternoon
out-of-market games.

National Football League, Inc. is an unincorporated association of
32 American professional football teams in the United States.

NFL Enterprises, LLC was organized to hold the broadcast rights of
the 32 NFL teams and license them to providers and other
broadcasters.

DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite
service provider and broadcaster.

DirecTV, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that has
its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El
Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to its subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
      E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
      Francis J. Rondoni, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
      CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
      17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-7300
      Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
      E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
              frondoni@chestnutcambronne.com
              jbores@chestnutcambronne.com


NCR CORP: "Hoak" Action Seeks to Recover Retirement Differential
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoak, Anthony Fano and Allan Quick, on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Andrea Ledford,
Compensation and Human Resource Committee of NCR Corporation Board
of Directors, NCR Corporation and the Plan Administrator of the
Plans of NCR Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-03983-AT (N.D. Ga.,
October 16, 2015), seeks to recover accrued retirement
differentials as well as damages resulting from the breach in its
agreements with plaintiffs by terminating the trusts and
eliminating the trustee as the final arbiter of claims for
benefits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

NCR Corporation is currently based in 3097 Satellite Blvd.,
Duluth, Georgia 30096. Andrea Ledford is Senior Vice President and
Chief Human Resources Officer of NCR Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy S. Rigsbee, Esq.
      Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Esq.
      Timothy S. Rigsbee, Esq.
      BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
      3900 One Atlantic Center
      1201 West Peachtree Street, NW
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Tel: (404) 881-4100
      Fax: (404) 881-4111
      Email: bramlett@bmelaw.com
             rigsbee@bmelaw.com

           - and -

      Douglas R. Sprong, Esq.
      Christopher A. Hoffman, Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
      505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Tel: (314) 241-4844
      Fax: (314) 241-3525
      Email: dsprong@koreintillery.com
             choffman@koreintillery.com


O-TEX PUMPING: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. O-Tex Pumping, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01895 (E.D. Tex.,
November 25, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

O-Tex Pumping, LLC is a service company that provides primary and
secondary cementing and specialty pumping services throughout most
major shales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To Seek Dismissal of 2nd Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Powersecure International, 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 intends to file a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and in July 2014,
two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the
other in the Western District of North Carolina. On October 10,
2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and a
lead plaintiff was appointed. As consolidated, the lawsuit was
filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased our
common stock during a purported class period from August 8, 2013
through May 7, 2014, which is the longer of the two different
purported class periods used in the pre-consolidation lawsuits. A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 29, 2014. The
action alleges that certain statements made by the defendants
during the class period violated federal securities laws and seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
26, 2015, which the court granted on September 15, 2015, with
leave for the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On
October 16, 2015, the plaintiff filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint, with similar allegations over
the same class period. We intend to file a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. We cannot provide any assurance as to
when the court will rule on a motion to dismiss or whether that
motion will be granted. We believe that the claims asserted in
this class action litigation are without merit, and we intend to
vigorously defend against all such allegations."


PLY GEM: Sued in California Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Ply Gem Industries Inc., et al., Case
No. RG15794667 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 25, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide statutorily required
meal breaks in violation of the California Labor Code.

Ply Gem Industries Inc. manufactures various exterior building
products such as windows, doors, siding, and designer accents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura L. Ho, Esq.
      James P. Kan, Esq.
      Megan E. Ryan, Esq.
      GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 763-9800
      Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
      E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com
              jkan@gbdhlegal.com
              mryan@gbdhlegal.com


RAMNEE LLC: "Campbell" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Campbell, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff'(s), v. Ramnee Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:15-cv-02725-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., Tampa Division, November 23,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, minimum Wage
and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended,
29 U.S.C. 216(b).

Campbell worked as a bartender for the Defendant and was allegedly
not paid for hours in excess of 40 hours per week.

Ramnee Enterprises, LLC is a Florida Corporation located in Palm
Beach. It operates a bar under the name "Club Lust."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Tel: (407) 420-1414
      Fax: (407) 245-3341
      Email CLeach@forthepeople.com


RENTRAK CORPORATION: Consolidation of Class Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
Rentrak 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' motion
to consolidate the class action lawsuits is pending.

Since the public announcement of the merger on September 29, 2015,
four putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed
against Rentrak, its directors, comScore and Rum Acquisition
Corporation in connection with Rentrak and comScore entering into
the merger agreement. The four actions were filed in Multnomah
County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon: (1) Nathan v. Rentrak
Corporation, et al., No. 15CV27429, filed on October 9, 2015; (2)
Blum v. Rentrak Corporation, et al., No. 15CV27443, also filed on
October 9, 2015; (3) Stein v. Rentrak Corporation, et al., No.
15CV27520, filed on October 12, 2015; and (4) Sikorski v. Rentrak
Corporation, et al., No. 15CV27932, filed on October 14, 2015.

Each of the lawsuits was filed on behalf of a putative class of
Rentrak shareholders against Rentrak, the individual members of
Rentrak's board of directors, and/or comScore and/or Rum
Acquisition Corporation (the Nathan action does not name comScore
or Rum Acquisition Corporation as defendants). The lawsuits allege
variously that the individual members of Rentrak's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to Rentrak's
shareholders by approving the proposed merger for inadequate
consideration; approving the merger to obtain unique benefits not
shared equally with other Rentrak shareholders; failing to take
steps to maximize the value paid to Rentrak shareholders; failing
to take steps to ensure a fair process leading up to the proposed
merger; agreeing to preclusive deal protection devices in the
merger agreement; and failing to ensure that no conflicts exist
between individual directors' own interests and their fiduciary
obligations to Rentrak's shareholders.

The Blum, Stein and Sikorski lawsuits also state claims against
comScore and/or Rum Acquisition Corporation for aiding and
abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits generally seek, among other
things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties, injunctive relief prohibiting
completion of the mergers, rescission of the merger if it is
completed, an accounting by defendants, rescissionary damages,
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief.

On October 22, 2015, in the Nathan lawsuit, plaintiffs filed a
motion to consolidate the lawsuits and appoint Nathan as the lead
plaintiff and Nathan's counsel as lead counsel, and that motion is
supported by the plaintiff's counsel in the Blum, Stein and
Sikorski lawsuits.  This motion is pending with the court. Rentrak
and its directors believe the lawsuits to be without merit and
intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


RUDY'S AUTO: Faces "Segovia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Segovia, and all others similarly situated v. Rudy's Auto
Sales Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03812-G (N.D. Tex., November
25, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Rudy's Auto Sales Inc. operates a car dealership company located
at 5502 W Davis St, Dallas, TX 75211.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
      Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: "Ware" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Alice Ware, and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. d/b/a Ruth's Chris
Steakhouse, Defendant, Case No. 9:15-cv-81510-KAM (S.D. Fla. Palm
Beach Division, October 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 207 and 216.

The Plaintiff allegedly did not receive proper overtime
compensation for work performed over 40 hours in a workweek.

Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., is based in 1030 West Canton Ave.,
Suite 100, Winter Park, FL 32789 and does business as Ruth's Chris
Steakhouse.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq
      Morgado, P.A.
      382 NE 191st Street #84164
      Miami, FL 33179
      Tel: (855) 8999121 Ext. 102
      Fax: (855) 4999191
      Email: rer@morgado.us


SCALES 925: "Lee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Lee v. Scales 925 Atlanta, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04127-ELR
(N.D. Ga., November 25, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Scales 925 Atlanta, LLC operates a restaurant located at 30 Ivan
Allen Jr. Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia 30308.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher D. Vaughn, Esq.
      Frank DeMelfi, Esq.
      A. Brian Henson, Esq.
      THE VAUGHN LAW FIRM, LLC
      246 Sycamore Street Suite 150
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Telephone: (404) 378-1290
      Facsimile: (404) 378-1295


SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Event USA's Motion to Compel Discovery Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James D. Petersen denied Defendant Event USA
Corp.'s motion to compel discovery in the captioned case SCOTT
BOEHM and DAVID STLUKA, Plaintiffs, v. SCHEELS ALL SPORTS, INC.,
NICHOLAS MARTIN, SPORTS-4-LESS, LUKE WEIN, BEYOND STUDIO +
PUBLISHING, LLC, JOHN DOE 1, SCOOTER G. SPORTS, MICHAEL LOVELACE,
22 PROMOTIONS, LLC, GERALD MILLER, ANDREW WREDBERG, AW ARTWORKS,
LLC, JESSE WINIECKI, AMANDA McVEIGH, JOHN GEORGE, GAMEDAY SPORTS,
ANGELA CLEARY, EVENT USA CORP., BRIAN BOPREY, NANCY BOPREY, DAVID
THOMASON, WAUKESHA SPORTSCARDS, ROBB DOBRATZ, and MICHAEL CLEARY,
Defendants, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Intervenor,
SCOTT'S BREWERY COLLECTIBLES and SCOTT SVEHLA, Third-Party
Plaintiffs, v. WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party
Defendant, No.: 15-cv-379-jdp, (W.D. Wis.)

Plaintiffs filed a set of sharp-toned motions in which they accuse
some defendants of violating the court's injunction order.
Defendant Event USA Corp. also accused plaintiffs of discovery
abuse. Event USA filed a discovery motion. Event USA later moved
to amend its pleadings to add a crossclaim against defendant David
Thomason and to file a third-party complaint against Dan Zimprich
and Legends of the Field, LLC.

Plaintiffs moved to sanction defendants Angela Cleary, Michael
Cleary, Gameday Sports, and Nicholas Martin for violating a
preliminary injunction order and for making misrepresentations to
the court. Plaintiffs asked for both civil and criminal sanctions
for contempt. They requested that the court impose monetary fines,
shift their attorney fees, expand the terms of the injunction, and
enter directed verdicts or judgments of willfulness.

In his Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/X1vFAZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Peterson denied Event
USA Corp.'s motion to compel discovery.  The Court also denied the
Plaintiffs Scott Boehm and David Stluka's motion for an extension
of time to respond to Event USA's motion to compel, for being
moot. Event USA's motion to amend its pleadings is granted in part
and denied in part.  Event USA may file as a new docket entry an
amended pleading including a crossclaim against defendant David
Thomason.

The Court granted the Nicholas Martin's motion to file a sur-
reply. Moreover, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions against defendants Angela Cleary, Michael Cleary, and
Gameday Sports. It also granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions against Defendant Nicholas Martin. The Court granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against Event USA Corp.

Plaintiffs were required to file documentation supporting the
attorney fees that they incurred in bringing these three sanctions
motions by January 4, 2016. Any opposition or response to the
amount of fees is due by January 11, 2016.

According to the Court, the evidence that Plaintiffs will use to
calculate their damages will have to come from defendants, so
demanding Plaintiffs' preliminary damages calculations at this
point seems like a make-work exercise. But discovery should move
promptly, and then Plaintiffs will be expected to put a number on
it.

The court will leave it to counsel for plaintiffs and Event USA to
work out their discovery differences. If actual good faith
attempts to resolve the issues fail, the court will then be ready
to entertain a motion. Event USA has moved to amend its pleadings
to add a crossclaim against defendant David Thomason and to file a
third-party complaint against Dan Zimprich and Legends of the
Field, LLC. The motion will be granted with respect to the
crossclaim against Thomason, who is already a party to this case.
But the motion will be denied with respect to the third-party
complaint. The progress of this case has not been smooth, and
adding additional parties risks disrupting the schedule.
Plaintiffs propose no coercive sanction, and none appears
necessary.

According to the Court, the Sanctioned Defendants appear to have
been chastened by plaintiffs' motions and they all appear now to
be in compliance. As for remedial sanctions, plaintiffs propose
only an award of attorney fees, leaving any other sanctions to the
discretion of the court. Sanctioned Defendants will be ordered to
pay a portion of plaintiffs' reasonable actual attorney fees
incurred in bringing the contempt motions. The Sanctioned
Defendants will be considered to be in three groups, and each
group will pay one-third of the fee award. To recover any of their
fees, plaintiffs must adhere to the court's guidance regarding fee
requests. Plaintiffs should not assume that the court will award
the full amount of their fees. The court will be prepared to
reduce the fees in light of inefficiencies, redundancies, or
unnecessary or excessive submissions. The parties are encouraged
to reach agreement as to the fees award, which would spare the
parties and the court the effort and expense of litigating the
amount.

Danial A. Nelson, Esq. -- dnelson@nelsonmcculloch.com -- Kevin
Patrick McCulloch, Esq. and Nathaniel Kleinman, Esq. of Nelson &
McCulloch LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Scott Boehm

Frederick J. Strampe, Esq. -- fstrampe@borgelt.com -- April
Katheryn Toy, Esq. and Julia Blair Semenak, Esq. --
jsemenak@borgelt.com -- of Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen,
S.C. serve as counsel for Defendant Scheels All Sports, Inc.


SOUTHCOAST FINANCIAL: "Sciabucuchi" Suit Moved to D. S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sciabucuchi et al. v. Southcoast
Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 2015-CP-10-5500, was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Charleston County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
04352-DCN to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly carried out a
flawed proposed transaction and deprived the Plaintiffs the
ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects.

Southcoast Financial Corporation is a South Carolina corporation
and maintains its principal place of business in Charleston
County.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Michael Gruenloh, Esq.
          GRUENLOH LAW FIRM
          192 East Bay Street, Suite 202
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 577-0027
          E-mail: mike@gruenlohlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel F. Blanchard III, Esq.
          Richard S. Rosen, Esq.
          ROSEN, ROSEN AND HAGOOD
          PO Box 893
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Telephone: (843) 577-6726
          Facsimile: (843) 724-8036
          E-mail: dblanchard@rrhlawfirm.com
                  rsrosen@rrhlawfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Timothy Mast, Esq.
          Mary M. Weeks, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 5200
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Telephone: (404) 885-3312
          Facsimile: (404) 962-6796
          E-mail: tim.mast@troutmansanders.com
                  mary.weeks@troutmansanders.com


SOVRAN SELF: Motion to Dismiss Granted in Part and Denied in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sovran Self Storage, 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's
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit has been granted in part
and denied in part.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New
Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance
Producer Licensing Act.

On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Company brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim, and on July 16, 2015, the Company's
motion was granted in part and denied in part. The Company intends
to vigorously defend the action, and the possibility of any
adverse outcome cannot be determined at this time.


STAAR SURGICAL: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in "Todd" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Staar Surgical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2015, that the Company has filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case, Todd v.
STAAR.

On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the
federal court located in Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff
claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and omitted
material information from our investors between February 27, 2013
and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at STAAR's
Monrovia manufacturing facility.

On October 20, 2014, plaintiff amended its complaint, dismissed
two Company officers, added one other officer, and reduced the
alleged Class Period to November 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.

Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined
with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the
Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit.

On September 21, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The Company has not recorded any loss or
accrual in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial
statements at October 2, 2015 and January 2, 2015 for this matter
as the likelihood and amount of loss, if any, has not been
determined and is not currently estimable.


STERLING BANCORP: Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action
settlement is subject to approval by the court.

On November 25, 2014, an action captioned Graner v. Hudson Valley
Holding Corp., et al., Index No. 70348/2014 (Sup. Ct., Westchester
Cnty.), was filed on behalf of a putative class of HVHC
shareholders against HVHC, its current directors, and Sterling.

On January 7, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. As
amended, the complaint alleges that the HVHC board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the HVB Merger and
certain terms of the HVB Merger agreement and by failing to
disclose all material information concerning the HVB Merger to the
HVHC shareholders. The complaint further alleges that Sterling
aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary breaches. The action
sought, among other things, an order enjoining the operation of
certain provisions of the HVB Merger agreement, enjoining any
shareholder vote on the HVB Merger, as well as other equitable
relief and/or monetary damages in the event that the HVB Merger is
consummated.

On April 9, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of the putative
class action. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company, HVHC, the
other named defendants and the plaintiff reached an agreement in
principle to settle the action. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU,
the plaintiff agreed to release the defendants from all claims
relating to the HVB Merger in exchange for certain additional
disclosure to the HVHC shareholders, which disclosure was made on
April 13, 2015 by HVHC via a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Form 8-K. Under the terms of the MOU,
plaintiff's counsel also has reserved the right to seek an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The settlement is subject to approval by the Court, and, if the
Court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the action
will be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement will not affect
the merger consideration paid to HVHC's shareholders pursuant to,
and subject to the HVB Merger agreement. The HVB Merger agreement
and the HVB Merger were approved by the Company's stockholders at
a special meeting held on April 28, 2015 and by HVHC's
shareholders at a special meeting held on April 30, 2015.

The Company, HVHC and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations made by the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Company, HVHC
and the other defendants have agreed to settle the action in order
to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further
litigation.


STRATEGIC HOTELS: Eight Putative Class Action Lawsuits Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
between September 10, 2015 and November 4, 2015, eight putative
class action lawsuits purportedly on behalf of holders of SHR
common stock were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland against members of SHR's board of directors, as well as
the Buyer Parties in connection with merger agreements.  Certain
of the lawsuits also name SH Funding, Blackstone, BRE Partnership
VIII and/or SHR as defendants. One lawsuit also purports to bring
a derivative claim on behalf of SHR.

The lawsuits generally allege that members of SHR's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to holders of SHR common
stock by, among other things:  (i) failing to undertake an
adequate sales process; (ii) failing to maximize stockholder value
and agreeing to a sales price that undervalues SHR; (iii)
implementing preclusive or coercive deal protection devices; (iv)
engaging in self-dealing and failing to act in the best interests
of holders of SHR common stock; and (v) failing to act with good
faith, due care and loyalty.  The lawsuits also allege that SHR,
SH Funding, and/or certain of the Buyer Parties aided and abetted
the members of SHR's board of directors in allegedly breaching
their fiduciary duties.  The lawsuits seek, among other things,
declaration of the action as a proper class action, equitable
relief that would enjoin the consummation of the Mergers,
rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the Merger
Agreement and the terms thereof and fees and costs associated with
the litigation.

On October 26, 2015, the defendants filed an Unopposed Motion to
Consolidate Actions and Designate the Consolidated Action to the
Business and Technology Case Management Program and to Stay
Defendants' Obligation to Answer or Otherwise Plead.  Also on
October 26, 2015, certain plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Consolidation and Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel and
Interim Liaison Counsel, and a certain plaintiff also filed a
Motion for Expedited Discovery as well as a First Amended Class
Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint").  The Amended Complaint
includes the same claims set forth in the initial complaint and
includes additional allegations for breach of fiduciary duty with
respect to the definitive proxy statement that SHR filed with the
SEC on October 20, 2015.  On October 28, 2015, the court issued an
order which, inter alia, consolidated the eight pending actions
under the caption In re Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Incorporated
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 24-C-15-004668.


THE DAVENPORT: "Singh" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Varinder Singh And Hermeregildo Almendarez, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Andrew Tejada, individually and d/b/a The Davenport, Case No.
5:15-cv-01040-OLG (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division, November 24,
2015), actual damages for unpaid overtime and minimum wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest as provided by law in accordance to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 201- et seq.)

Singh and Almendarez worked for Defendants as bartenders. Both
have claimed to have worked over forty hours per week without
compensation and to have received less than the mandated minimum
wage.

The Davenport, is an unincorporated bar and lounge in
2203 North Presa Street, San Antonio, Texas 78205 with Andrew
Tejada as the owner and operator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIMBERTECH LTD: Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle denied Defendant CPG
International LLC's partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended
class action complaint in the captioned case JOHN M. PERUTO, et
al., Plaintiff, v. TIMBERTECH LTD, et al., Defendant, Civil Action
No.: 15-2166 (JBS/JS), (D. N.J.)

Plaintiffs John M. Peruto and Lori A. Peruto began purchasing and
installing TimberTech's XLM decking product line for their second
home in Margate, New Jersey in May 2012. Plaintiffs filed a
putative class action Complaint on February 11, 2015 against
TimberTech Ltd. (TimberTech) and CPG International LLC (CPG) in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, Law Division.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant marketed XLM decking as a high-
quality, low-maintenance, and long-lasting alternative to
traditional wooden decking materials, but that XLM decking is
prone to discoloration and fading soon after installation.
Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of implied warranty, breach
of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
(NJCFA), and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On March 25, 2015, Defendant removed this action to the District
of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1446, 1453
and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Defendant previously filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
complaint in its entirety. In their opposition to that motion,
Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their breach of implied warranty and
unjust enrichment claims.

The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim
based on the Limited Warranty, Plaintiffs' negligent
misrepresentation claim based on an omission, and Plaintiffs'
NJCFA claim without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to file an
amended complaint curing deficiencies.  In particular, the Court
found that Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim failed to adequately allege an
ascertainable loss.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 16, 2015.

Defendant again moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended NJCFA claim.
Defendant argues that although Plaintiffs have amended their
complaint to adequately allege an ascertainable loss, they still
have demonstrated neither unlawful conduct by CPG nor causation.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated December 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/bsDFvTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simandle denied
Defendant CPG's partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended
class action complaint. Defendant does not seek to dismiss
Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim on an affirmative misrepresentation
theory; even disregarding the marketing statements this Court
previously found to be mere puffery, the Amended Complaint
undeniably describes assurances of fact on which Plaintiffs and
their contractor could have reasonably relied. Rather, Defendant
argues that Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim should be dismissed "to the
extent Plaintiffs seek to proceed on an omission theory" because
they have not shown with enough particularity "that the defendant
acted with knowledge." Plaintiffs are correct that the Rule
permits intent and knowledge to be alleged generally. Plaintiffs
may not rest upon conclusory statements to generally allege
knowledge and intent any more than they can for any other element
of a claim under Ashcroft v. Iqbal. "Even under a relaxed
application of Rule 9(b), boilerplate and conclusory allegations
will not suffice."

The amended complaint alleges plausible grounds for knowledge and
intent to omit accurate information about the product's
shortcomings, based upon their receiving reports of defects and
failures of the product's essential characteristics. One can
readily infer that the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant received
reports of premature wear and discoloration in this product, and
that Plaintiffs' decking suffered from the same deficiency, and
yet Defendant continued to sell the product without improving it,
while maintaining silence about the deficiencies that were
contradicted by its sales materials touting their resistance to
fading and wear. Plaintiffs have thus adequately alleged a claim
under the NJCFA under an affirmative misrepresentation theory. The
Amended Complaint identifies actionable unlawful conduct, an
ascertainable loss, and causation. The Court will deny Defendant's
motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs'
NJCFA claim under an affirmative misrepresentation theory.

Christopher Michael Placitella, Esq. and Michael Coren, Esq. of
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. serve as counsel for Plaintiffs
John M. Peruto and Lori A. Peruto

Lorna A. Dotro, Esq. -- ldotro@coughlinduffy.com -- and Mark K.
Silver, Esq. -- msilver@coughlinduffy.com -- of Coughlin Duffy LLP
serve as counsel for Defendant CPG International LLC


TOP RANK: Suit Over Pacquiao-Mayweather Fight Moved to E.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lake et al. v. Home Box Office et
al., Case No. 1522-CC10590, was removed from 22nd Judicial Circuit
Court of St. Louis City, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01619 to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff alleges Missouri consumers were deceived in connection
with their purchase of the pay-per-view broadcast of the
boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr that
took place on May 2, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada, by intentional
false representations and material omissions about Pacquiao's
health made by the Defendants.  Plaintiff asserts Defendants
violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and seeks actual
damages.

Top Rank, which is founded in 1970, has line of business which
includes providing theatrical presentations, such as road
companies and summer theaters. Home Box Office which is founded in
1972, is a streaming service company, and delivers programs that
include series, films, documentaries, comedy, and sports to
subscribers. Home Box Office is based in New York, New York.
Showtime Networks owns and operates television networks and
multiplex channels; produces and delivers original programming;
and markets and distributes sports and entertainment events for
exhibition to subscribers on a pay-per-view basis. Showtime
Networks is based in New York, New York. Mayweather Promotions  is
a boxing promotional firm founded by five-division world and
eleven-time world champion Floyd Mayweather, Jr. in 2007.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dominic M. Pontello, Esq.
          PONTELLO LAW, LLC
          5988 Mid Rivers Mall Dr., Suite 114
          St. Charles, MO 63304
          Telephone: (636) 541-7673
          Facsimile: (636) 441-6881
          E-mail: dominicpontello@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bradley R. Hansmann, Esq.
          Robert L. Carter, Esq.
          BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.
          800 Market St., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 421-3400
          Facsimile: (314) 421-3128
          E-mail: bhansmann@bjpc.com
                  rcarter@bjpc.com


TRAVEL MEDIA PARTNER: Faces "Montgomery" Suit Over Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Montgomery, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Travel Media Partner, Defendant,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01897 (C.D. Cal., November 16, 2015), seeks
damages resulting from the violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47. U.S.C. 227 et seq.

Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system to place its
call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services without prior
express consent to receive calls using such system.

Travel Media Partner sells and markets vacation plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Sena" Class Suit Removed to District Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled David Sena, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Uber Technologies
Incorporated, et al., Case No. CV2015-054061, was removed from the
Maricopa County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02418-ESW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Uber Technologies Incorporated is an international transportation
network company headquartered in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brittany Weiner, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW PC
      450 7th Ave., Ste. 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 736-0007
      E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com

          - and -

      David Wilson Lunn, Esq.
      DKL LAW PLLC
      14555 N Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 240
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Telephone: (480) 500-1360
      Facsimile: (480) 500-7341
      E-mail: david@dkllawfirm.com

          - and -

      Marie Napoli, Esq.
      NAPOLI LAW PLLC
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Fl.
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000

The Defendant is represented by:

      Cory G. Walker, Esq.
      Mark Ogden, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON PC
      2425 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 900
      Phoenix, AZ 85016-2907
      Telephone: (602) 474-3616
      Facsimile: (602) 957-1801
      E-mail: cgwalker@littler.com
              mogden@littler.com


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Fein" Action Hits Shadowy Biz Dealings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan and Ariel Fein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.,
J. Michael Pearson, Howard B. Schiller and Robert L. Rosiello,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-07809-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., October 30,
2015), seeks compensatory damages arising from the violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

Valeant allegedly failed to disclose material business
transactions resulting in the drop of share prices.

Alan and Ariel Fein purchased Valeant securities.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. is incorporated in
British Columbia, Canada and trades publicly in the New York Stock
Exchange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Albert G. Kroll, Esq.
      Seth Ptasiewicz, Esq.
      KROLL HEINEMAN CARTON, LLC
      Metro Corporate Campus One
      99 Wood Avenue South, Suite 307
      Iselin, NJ 08830
      Tel: (732) 491-2100
      Fax: (732) 491-2120

         - and -

      Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
      Kevin Cooper, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: isquith@whafh.com


VERDE ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Richardson" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Richardson, Michelle Hunt, and John White, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Verde Energy USA,
Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-06325 (E.D. Pa., November 25, 2015) seeks
to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

Verde Energy USA, Inc. operates a utility company in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
      1622 Locust St.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4674
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net


VIVUS INC: Oral Argument Set for January 14 in Jasin Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivus, 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 will conclude in
late 2015, and oral argument is set for January 14, 2016, in the
complaint filed by Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin.

On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be
purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud
against the Company and three of its former officers and
directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case
No. 114-cv-261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California's
securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs
alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for
the Company's success, including with respect to the launch of
Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit.
Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8 million, and sought
damages and other relief.

On June 5, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed a
demurrer to the Amended Complaint seeking its dismissal.

With the demurrer pending, on July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, in an action captioned Jasin v.
VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-03263. The Jasins' federal complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on facts substantially
similar to those alleged in their state court action.

On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the
parties, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice,
the state court action. In the federal action, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on November 12, 2014.

On December 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in
the federal action. On January 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

By Order dated June 18, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, but granted plaintiffs
leave to amend their pleading. Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint on August 14, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss on October 2, 2015.  Briefing will conclude in late 2015,
and oral argument is set for January 14, 2016.

The Company and the defendant former officers and directors cannot
predict the outcome of the motion to dismiss or the lawsuit
generally, but believe that the lawsuit is without merit and
intend to continue vigorously to defend against the claims.

The Company maintains directors' and officers' liability insurance
that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipa


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Cook" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cook, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:15-cv-05431-DMR (N.D. Cal., November 25, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged installation of defeat devices in
approximately 5,000 diesel Volkswagen vehicles manufactured and
sold and leased in the United States in the 2009 to 2016 model
years, to switch engines to a cleaner mode during official
emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Kelson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KELSON
      483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (510) 465-1326
      Facsimile: (510) 465-0871
      E-mail: kelsonlaw@sbcglobal.net

          - and -

      Jerry K. Cimmet, Esq.
      ATTORNEY AT LAW
      177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
      San Mateo, CA 94402
      Telephone: (650) 866-4700
      Facsimile: (650) 866-4770
      E-mail: cimlaw@me.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Walther" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cassie Walther, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., and Volkswagen AG, Defendants, Case No. Case 1:15-cv-06243
(E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2015), seeks equitable relief, including an
order enjoining Volkswagen from further sales and lease of
vehicles containing the alleged defeat device, demanding repair
the affected vehicles, compensatory, exemplary, punitive and
statutory damages including interest, disgorgement all or part of
the ill-gotten profits received from the sale or lease of the
affected vehicles, return of the purchase price of the affected
vehicles with interest from the time it was paid, reimbursement of
the reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale and for reasonable
attorney fees in accordance to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-
7671q and in violation of New York General Business Law 349.

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

Plaintiff purchased a 2012 Volkswagen Jetta TDI Diesel.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 397-1000
      Email: hunter@napolilaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Struck" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Struck, H. Peter Fester, John Rinehart, Grace Fritz, Thomas
Mullen, Robert Henry, Marisa Garcia and Travis Boothe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01516-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., October 16, 2015), seeks
treble and/or punitive damages resulting from the violation of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act Wash. Rev. Code 19.118.

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

Fester purchased a 2013 Volkswagen Beetle Convertible TDI. Steve
Struck purchased the Volkswagen Golf TDI. Rinehart purchased a
2010 Volkswagen Jetta Wagen TDI. Fritz purchased a 2014 Volkswagen
Jetta Sport Wagen TDI. Mullen purchased a 2013 Volkswagen Jetta
Sport Wagen TDI. Henry purchased a 2012 Volkswagen Jetta TDI.
Garcia purchased a 2014 Volkswagen Jetta TDI. Boothe purchased a
2009 Volkswagen Jetta Sport Wagen TDI.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon,
Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

      Michael D. Padilla, Esq.
      O'MARA & PADILLA, LLP
      12770 High BluffDrive, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92120
      Tel: (858) 481-5454
      Email: padilla@oplawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Stone-Manning" Suit Moved to D. Montana
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Stone-Manning et al. v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Case No. DV-15-1011, was removed from the
Montana Fourth Judicial District court to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana (Missoula). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 9:15-cv-00139-DLC to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
is based in Herndon, Virginia, and houses operations of a family
of brands worldwide, including Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini
and Volkswagen.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Heenan, Esq.
          Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq.
          BISHOP AND HEENAN
          1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste 1
          Billings, MT 59102
          Telephone: (406) 839-9091
          Facsimile: (406) 839-9092
          E-mail: john@bishopandheenan.com
                  tim@bechtoldlaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen D. Bell, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          370 17th Street, Suite 4700
          Denver, CO 80206-5644
          Telephone: (303) 629-3405
          Facsimile: (303) 629-3450
          E-mail: bell.steve@dorsey.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Ross" Suit Moved to New Mexico Dist. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ross et al. v. Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft et al., Case No. CV-15-02150, was removed from
First Judicial District, County of Santa Fe, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00968-KBM-KK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly violated the
New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. The defendants misrepresented the
quality of its 2.0L TDI Clean Diesel engine, which is vastly less
efficient and vastly more polluting than advertised.

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells automobiles primarily in Europe, North
America, South America, and the Asia-Pacific. The company operates
through four segments: Passenger Cars, Commercial Vehicles, Power
Engineering, and Financial Services. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
is based in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen Group designs,
manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and
internationally. The Volkswagen Group is headquartered in Herndon,
Virginia. University of Volkswagen is engaged in the retail sale
if new and used automobiles. The University of Volkswagen was
founded in 1975 and is based in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian F. Egolf Jr, Esq.
          Jamison Barkley, Esq.
          John W. Day, Esq.
          Katherine M. Ferlic. Esq.
          THE EGOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          128 Grant Ave., Suite 301
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (505) 986-9641
          Facsimile: (800) 520-8345
          E-mail: Ebrian@egolflaw.com
                  jamison@egolflaw.com
                  jday@egolflaw.com
                  kate@egolflaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric R. Burris, Esq.
          BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
          201 Third St NW, Suite 1700
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 244-0770
          Facsimile: (505) 244-9266
          E-mail: eburris@bhfs.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Rubin" Suit Moved to Connecticut Dist. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rubin et al. v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc. et al., Case No. NNH-CV-15-6057960-S, was removed
from Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of New
Haven, Case no. NNH-CV-15-6057960-S, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01565 to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants are engaged in wrongful and
fraudulent business practices including charging a Clean Diesel
price premium over the base Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price
for Clean Diesel vehicles.

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells automobiles primarily in Europe, North
America, South America, and the Asia-Pacific. The company operates
through four segments: Passenger Cars, Commercial Vehicles, Power
Engineering, and Financial Services. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
is based in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen Group designs,
manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and
internationally. The Volkswagen Group is headquartered in Herndon,
Virginia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ann H. Rubin, Esq.
          CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY, LLP - NH
          195 Church St. 18th floor
          PO Box 1950
          New Haven, CT 06510-1950
          Telephone: (203) 573-1200
          Facsimile: (203) 575-2600
          E-mail: arubin@carmodylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul D. Williams, Esq.
          Michael Thad Allen, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY LLP-HTFD-CT
          242 Trumbull St.
          Hartford, CT 06103-1212
          Telephone: (860) 275-0223
          Facsimile: (860) 275-0343
          E-mail: pdwilliams@daypitney.com
                  mallen@daypitney.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Nelson" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald W. Nelson and Nick J. Widmar, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC. and VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants., Case No. 2:15-cv-
14017-JEL-RSW (E.D. Mich., October 16, 2015), seeks compensatory
damages resulting from the violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, Consumer Fraud Law Minn. Stat. 325F.69, Unlawful Trade
Practices Law Minn. Stat. 325D.13, False Advertising Law set forth
at Minn. Stat. 325F.67 and Deceptive Trade Practices Law set forth
at Minn. Stat. 325D.44.

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

Nelson purchased and owns a 2009 Volkswagen Jetta equipped with a
2.0 Liter TDI engine.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
      Nicholas S. Kuhlmann, Esq.
      HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
      8050 West 78th Street
      Edina, MN 55439
      Tel: (952) 746-2169
      Fax: (952) 941-2337
      Emails: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com
              nkuhlmann@hjlawfirm.com

           - and -

      Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq.
      ROXANNE CONLIN & ASSOCIATES, PC
      319 Seventh Street, Ste. 600
      Des Moines, IA 50309


W. P. CAREY: Case by Ira Gaines Has Been Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
W. P. Carey Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the case by Ira
Gaines has been dismissed.

The Company said, "On December 31, 2013, Mr. Ira Gaines and
entities affiliated with him commenced a purported class action
(Ira Gaines, et al. v. Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global
Incorporated, Index. No. 650001/2014, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)
against us, WPC REIT Merger Sub Inc., CPA(R):16 - Global, and the
directors of CPA(R):16 - Global regarding the CPA(R):16 Merger."

"On April 11, 2014, we and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, as amended, in its entirety, and on October
15, 2014, the judge granted that motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal on November 24, 2014 and had until August
24, 2015 to file that appeal. On August 21, 2015, plaintiffs
withdrew with prejudice their Notice of Appeal. As a result, the
decision that the trial court rendered in our favor on October 15,
2014 is now final, and the case has been dismissed."


WALTER INVESTMENT: Defendants Opposed Class Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
defendants have filed their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck
v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880
(S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint
was filed. The amended complaint named as defendants the Company,
Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian
Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter
Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The
amended complaint asserted federal securities law claims against
the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional
claims are asserted against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On December 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice.

On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint asserted the same legal claims and
alleged that between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Company
and the individual defendants made material misstatements or
omissions relating to the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance
with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Ditech
Financial, the liabilities associated with the Company's
acquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaint
sought class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities
between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014.

On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decision
that granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motions
in part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claims
against Messrs. O'Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claims
relating to statements about the Company's acquisition of RMS.

On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that,
among other things, added certain allegations concerning the
Company's settlement with the FTC and CFPB.

On July 24, 2015, the Company and Messrs. Anderson and Corey filed
an answer to the third amended complaint, which denied the
substantive allegations and asserted various defenses.

On August 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. On October 30, 2015, the defendants filed their
opposition to that motion.

The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of the
putative shareholder class action or that such an outcome will not
have a material adverse effect on its reputation, business,
prospects, results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Ditech Financial Facing Putative Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
Ditech Financial is subject to several putative class action
lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance. These actions allege
that Ditech Financial and its affiliates improperly received
benefits from lender-placed insurance providers in the form of
commissions for work not performed, services provided at a reduced
cost, and expense reimbursements that did not reflect the actual
cost of the services rendered. Plaintiffs in these suits assert
various theories of recovery and seek remedies including
compensatory, actual, punitive, statutory and treble damages,
return of unjust benefits, and injunctive relief.

One such matter is Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et
al. filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 17, 2014 and amended on October 16,
2014. Pursuant to a settlement agreement reached between the
parties in the Circeo-Loudon matter on September 11, 2015, which
remains subject to court approval, all of the defendants
collectively, including Ditech Financial, are required to pay
damages to class members who timely file a claim, administrative
costs to effectuate the settlement and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes it has accrued the full amount expected to be
paid under the settlement agreement in its consolidated financial
statements as of September 30, 2015. The settlement agreement also
provides that Ditech Financial and its subsidiary, Green Tree
Insurance Agency, Inc., and their affiliates will be released from
certain claims and may no longer receive commissions on the
placement of certain lender-placed insurance for a period of five
years commencing 120 days from the effective date of the
settlement.

The Company expects that this settlement, if approved by the
court, will lead to the ultimate resolution of the other putative
class action lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance to which
Ditech Financial is currently subject, although the proposed
settlement does not apply to potential claims by class members who
opt out of the proposed settlement.


WATTS WATER: Filed Bid to Dismiss "Ponzo" Connector Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the case,
Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co.

In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and
Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate
putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts
Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based
on the alleged failure of water heater connectors.  On June 26,
2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a consolidated amended
complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co.,
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in
an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On August 7,
2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.


WATTS WATER: Filed Partial Bid to Dismiss "Klug" Connector Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company has filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint, Klug
v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al.

In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in
a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., et  al., United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief
based on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe
connectors.

On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss
the complaint.  In response, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, Klug v. Watts Regulator Co., United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska. The complaint seeks
among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On
July 31, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the
complaint.


WELLS FARGO: Merchants Filed Motion to Vacate Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 several merchants
have now filed a motion to vacate the class settlement in the
Interchange Litigation.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A.
and Wachovia Corporation are named as defendants, separately or in
combination, in putative class actions filed on behalf of a
plaintiff class of merchants and in individual actions brought by
individual merchants with regard to the interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.
These actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. Visa, MasterCard and several
banks and bank holding companies are named as defendants in
various of these actions. The amended and consolidated complaint
asserts claims against defendants based on alleged violations of
federal and state antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as
injunctive relief. Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa,
MasterCard and payment card issuing banks unlawfully colluded to
set interchange rates. Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of
certain Visa and MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling
of services offered to merchants are anticompetitive. Wells Fargo
and Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities, are
parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide
that they, along with other entities, will share, based on a
formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class actions and reached a separate settlement in principle of
the consolidated individual actions. The settlement payments to be
made by all defendants in the consolidated class and individual
actions total approximately $6.6 billion before reductions
applicable to certain merchants opting out of the settlement. The
class settlement also provided for the distribution to class
merchants of 10 basis points of default interchange across all
credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months.

The District Court granted final approval of the settlement, which
has been appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by
settlement objector merchants. Other merchants have opted out of
the settlement and are pursuing several individual actions.
Several merchants have now filed a motion to vacate the class
settlement.


YAMAHA MOTOR: "Wilkerson" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hubert Wayne Wilkerson, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Yamaha
Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Case No. 37-02015-00035501-CU, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02657-
H-JLB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts product liability claims.

Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. is a manufacturer of motorcycles,
marine products such as boats and outboard motors, and other
motorized products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manfred Patrick Muecke Jr., Esq.
      BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN AND BALINT PC
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 798-4292
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Theane E. Kapur, Esq.
      GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
      333 South Grand Avenue, 48th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 229-7726
      Facsimile: (213) 229-6726
      E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com


YAHOO! INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Buch" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the class action filed by Cathy Buch.

On April 22, 2015, a stockholder action captioned Cathy Buch v.
David Filo, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Yahoo and all current members of the Board. The complaint
asserts both derivative claims, purportedly on behalf of Yahoo,
and class action claims, purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff
and all similarly situated stockholders, relating to the
termination of, and severance payments made to, the Company's
former chief operating officer, Henrique de Castro. The plaintiff
alleges that the board members breached their fiduciary duties by
enabling or acquiescing in the payment of severance to Mr. de
Castro, and by allowing Yahoo to make allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the value of his severance. The
plaintiff has also asserted claims against Mr. de Castro. The
plaintiff seeks to recoup the severance paid to Mr. de Castro, an
equitable accounting, disgorgement in favor of Yahoo, monetary
damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss the action.



                            *********

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  * * *