CAR_Public/160119.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 12


                            Headlines


ALIBABA GROUP: "Buelow" Suit Removed to N.D. California
ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of Zymar(R) Case Under Appeal
ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Class Suits Over Celexa and Lexapro
ALLERGAN PLC: Deal Reached in Missouri Suits Over Celexa, Lexapro
ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on TCPA Class Suits

ALLERGAN PLC: Motion to Dismiss TRT Class Action Remains Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Class Suit by Sales Reps in Early Stage
ALLERGAN PLC: Alendronate Cases Remain Active in N.J.
ALLERGAN PLC: 1,230 Actions Over Benicar(R) Still Open
ALLERGAN PLC: 9 Celexa/Lexapro Actions v. Forest Labs Pending

ALLERGAN PLC: 195 Birth Defect Cases v. Forest Labs Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Metoclopramide Cases in Initial Stage
ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Actions Over Propoxyphene
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Testosterone Litigation in Early Stage
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Narrows Claim in "Tabor" Suit

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Cone" Suit Moved from M.D.N.C. to Wash. D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Scribner" Suit Moved from N.D. Ill. to D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Carte" Suit Goes from C.D. Calif. to D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kraft" Suit Moved From N.D. Ill to Wash D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Walker" Suit Moved from N.D. Ga. to D.C.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "De La Garza" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Costantino" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to D.C.
ATLAS AIR: April 18 Jury Trial in Pricing Class Action
BALTIMORE ORIOLES: "Senne" Suit Moved from Md. to N.D. Cal.
BAY STATE GAS: Appeal Over Credit Sale Junked

BRANCH BANKING: D.C. Judge Sends "Roland" Suit to Maryland
BREG INC: Magistrate Judge Rules on Discovery Bid in "Lucas" Suit
CALIF. CHECK CASHING: "Gilberg" Suit Transferred to Sacramento
CASE DETECTIVE: Former Security Guard Sues Over Wage Practices
JPMORGAN CHASE: Suit Against Former Employee Dismissed

CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Dismissal of Securities Case Sought
CHICAGO, IL: Homeless Sex Offenders Win Class Certification
CRYPTSY: Sued Over Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
DELTA FUNDING: Judge Won't Remand Suit to State Court
DON THORNTON: "Dunham" Suit Moved to N.D. Okla.

DRAFTKINGS & FANDUEL: "Bandy" Suit Moved to N.D. Okla.
DUKE ENERGY: Settlement in Merger Suit Finally Approved
EXCELLUS HEALTH: "Baldwin" Suit Goes to N.D.N.Y.
FANNIE MAE: Texas Judge Dismisses "Nguyen" Suit
FUHU INC: Judge Denies Bid to Certify Class Over Nabi Tablet PCs

GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Discovery Okayed in Copper Coils Suit
GRUBHUB INC: "Tan" Misclassification Suit Goes to N.D. Calif.
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morales" Suit Says
HUNTER WARFIELD: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
INTEGRITY SURVEILLANCE: Judge Rules on Discovery Bid in TCPA Suit

L & R STRUCTURAL: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LEE ON GRILL: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
LEGACY PRESSURE: Faces "Guyton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LOS ANGELES, CA: LAPD Sued For Violating Protesters' Rights
MARTHA STEWART: Defending Class Actions Over Sequential Merger

MERCK: Settles Securities Class Action Suit for $830MM
METLIFE INC: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in Westland Case
METLIFE INC: Must Face Birmingham Retirement System Suit
METLIFE INC: Must Defend Against "Owens" TCA Action
METLIFE INC: "Robainas" Reinsurance Litigation Tossed

METLIFE INC: Show Cause Order Issued in "Intoccia"
METLIFE INC: Settlement in "Fauley" TCPA Suit Under Appeal
METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Case Pending in California Court
MICHIGAN: Sued Over Flint Water Crisis
MIRAKUYA JAPANESE: Faces "Han" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

NRRM LLC: Faces "Trumbell" Suit in Ill. Over Automated Calls
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Sims" Suit Goes to Wash. D.C.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Hanagan" Moved to Wash. D.C.
PETERSBURG, VA: Police Officers Sue to Recover OT Wages
PLANET FITNESS: "Truglio" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Court

POLLO OPERATIONS: Judge Reopens Case to Approve Class Settlement
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bouder" Case
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Sterling
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: LIBOR Suits Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
RIG POWER: Judge Narrows Plaintiffs' Claim in "Morgan" Suit

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Sued Over Refusal to End Fracking Operations
SCANA ENERGY: "Garrett" Suit Moved from Cobb Court to N.D. Ga.
SHINY STAR: Recalls Wafer Stick Products Due to Egg
SKI-DOO: Recalls Snowmobile 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Facing Suit Over AGL Resources Merger

STARCRAFT: Recalls Travel Trailer 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
STARCRAFT: Recalls AR-One Trailer 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
STARCRAFT: Recalls Travel Trailer 2016 Model Due to Fall Risk
STARS TRADING: Recalls White Pepper Powder Due to Gluten
SUBARU: Recalls Legacy and Outback 2016 Models Due to Fire Risk

SYNTHES USA: Recalls Distal Radius Plate Systems Locking Screw
TEMPUR SEALY: "Benning" Suit Now Closed
TEMPUR SEALY: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Todd" Case
TESLA: Recalls Model S Vehicles Due to Injury Risk
TOLO TOYS: Recalls Twist and Turn Rattles Due to Choking Hazard

UNFI CANADA: Recalls Cheese Ravioli Products Due to Salmonella
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Settlement in "Moore" Case Has Preliminary OK
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Status Conference Set for March 3
VOLKSWAGEN: Casper Law Firm Sues Over "Defeat Devices"
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shipley" Suit Sent to E.D. Arkansas Court

WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Indoor Mini Light Sets
WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls LED Light Sets Due to Fire Hazard
WARNER CHILCOTT: Defending 209 Actonel(R) Injury Cases
WARNER CHILCOTT: Facing 4 Class Suits Related to Actonel(R)
WHOLESOME HARVEST: Recalls Bread Products Due to Spoilage

WILLIS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Troice" Action Pending
WILLIS GROUP: Rupert v. Winter Pending in Texas Court
WILLIS GROUP: Plaintiffs Did Not Oppose Bid to Dismiss "Casanova"
WILLIS GROUP: Defending Rishmague v. Winter Lawsuit
WILLIS GROUP: Still Faces MacArthur v. Winter Action

WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond in Ranni and Barbar
WILLIS GROUP: "Janvey" Action Remains Pending in N.D. Tex.
WILLIS GROUP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Merger Case
WYNN LAS VEGAS: "May" Suit Goes to Nevada Dist. Court
YAHOO INC: Settles Class Suit Over Scanning Email

ZANIMO INC: Recalls Oculex Soin des Yeux Products


                            *********


ALIBABA GROUP: "Buelow" Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Buelow et al. v. Alibaba Group
Holding Limited et al., Case No. CIV-535692, was removed from
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-
05179 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserted strict liability claims under sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Defendants.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates
as an online and mobile commerce company in the People's Republic
of China and internationally.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          One Montgomery St., Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 228 4545

The Defendants are represented by:

          James G. Kreissman, Esq.
          Simona G. Strauss, Esq.
          Stephen P. Blake, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 251 5000
          Facsimile: (650) 251 5002
          E-mail: jkreissman@stblaw.com
                  sstrauss@stblaw.com
                  sblake@stblaw.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of Zymar(R) Case Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in an antitrust class action lawsuit related to
Zymar(R) and Zymaxid(R) have taken an appeal from a dismissal
order, Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a
complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju
Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging
monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in
the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which
includes Allergan's ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3%
and ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products. On
May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to
the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries
occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex
obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan
and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also
filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related
patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay
the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent
dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to
renew. On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to
dismiss the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint. The court dismissed
Allergan's motion on May 2, 2015. Thereafter, Allergan filed an
answer to Apotex's complaint on June 1, 2015.

On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was
filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same
defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that
defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in
the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions
of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)).

On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants' motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  On August 19, 2015, the
court granted Allergan's motion to dismiss.  On September 18,
2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Class Suits Over Celexa and Lexapro
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited provided updates on class
action lawsuits related to Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) products in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates are defendants
in three federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who
purchased Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of
which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in an MDL
proceeding in the federal district court Massachusetts (the
"Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL"). These actions, two of which were
originally filed as putative nationwide class actions, and one of
which is a putative California-wide class action, allege that
Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for off-label
pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce
prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).

The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims
under the state consumer protection statutes and state common
laws. Plaintiffs in the various actions sought to have certified
California, Missouri, Illinois and New York state-wide classes.
However, only the Missouri state class was certified. Forest
subsequently reached an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs to
settle the Missouri class claims, including claims by both
individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or
Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for
$7.65 million with a potential to increase the amount to $10.35
million if settling plaintiffs meet certain thresholds. On
September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the
settlement.

Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R) have been filed all of which have been consolidated in
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL. On May 3, 2013, an action was filed
in federal court in California on behalf of individuals who
purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a
state-wide class action in California and alleging that our
promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has been
deceptive. On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest's motion to
dismiss this complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district
court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and
on February 20, 2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of
the complaint, ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims
were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in
Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party
payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for
pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that
Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R). Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December
12, 2014, the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims
under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the
remaining portions of the motion.

On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in
Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a
nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R)
and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state
common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label
marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The court
granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint in its December
12, 2014 ruling.

On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district
court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of
consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers
that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in
off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to
physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).
Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014.
On June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to
dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part.


ALLERGAN PLC: Deal Reached in Missouri Suits Over Celexa, Lexapro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the Company has reached agreements to resolve two class
action lawsuits in Missouri over certain purchases of Celexa(R)
and Lexapro(R).

Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates are named as
defendants in two actions filed on behalf of entities or
individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri
state court. These claims arise from similar allegations as those
contained in the federal actions described in the preceding
paragraphs.

One action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities
that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

The other action, filed on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative
class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who
purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri
common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri
domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at
any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but
who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached
agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to
resolve each matter for payments that are not material to the
Company's financial condition or results of operations.


ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on TCPA Class Suits
-----------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited provided updates on class
action lawsuits over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

A putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a
subsidiary of the Company, in Missouri state court alleging
conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. An amended complaint alleges that by
sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated
the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they
received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged
unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in
violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. The complaint seeks to assert class action
claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated
third parties.

On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking
certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone
numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004
through January 2008 but the court vacated the class certification
hearing until the FCC Petition was addressed.

On May 1, 2012, a separate action was filed in federal court in
Florida, purportedly on behalf of the "end users of the fax
numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes
advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent."

On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses.
The parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the
resolution of the FCC Petition which the court granted.

In addition, in October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates
were named as defendants, in a putative class action in federal
court in Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another
defendant violated the TCPA and was filed on behalf of a proposed
class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the
filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of
material advertising the commercial availability of any property,
goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not
display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation
promulgated by the FCC.

On July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest's motion to
stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by
the pending FCC Petition and a separate petition Forest filed.

In a related matter, in November 2010 Anda filed a petition with
the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its
regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with express
permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition"). On May 2, 2012,
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed
the FCC Petition.

On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for review of the
Bureau's dismissal by the full Commission, requesting the FCC to
vacate the dismissal and grant the relief sought in the FCC
Petition. The FCC did not rule on the application for review.

On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling
with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at
issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the
FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC
regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA.

On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking
comment on several other recently-filed petitions, all similar to
the one Anda filed in 2010. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a
final order on the FCC Petition granting Anda, Forest and several
other petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice
requirement for all faxes sent with express consent.

The litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January
2014 Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. Anda, Forest and other
petitioners have moved to intervene in the appeal seeking review
of that portion of the FCC final order addressing the statutory
basis for the opt out/express consent portion of the regulation.

Anda and Forest believe they have substantial meritorious defenses
to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and intend
to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Motion to Dismiss TRT Class Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that a motion to dismiss an amended complaint filed in the
Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action remains pending.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and
other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws
including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws in connection
with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement
therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the
Company's Androderm(R) product.  This matter was filed in the TRT
Products Liability MDL, notwithstanding that it is not a product
liability matter.

Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing
TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff
seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive
relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and
to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after
which plaintiff amended its complaint.  Defendants jointly filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the motion remains
pending.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend the action.
However, an adverse determination in the case could have an
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Class Suit by Sales Reps in Early Stage
-----------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the class action complaint brought by certain former
company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives
in the federal district court in New York is in its early stages
and the parties are beginning to work on discovery matters.

In July 2012, Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates
were named as defendants in an action brought by certain former
company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives
in the federal district court in New York. The action is a
putative class and collective action, and alleges class claims
under Title VII for gender discrimination with respect to pay and
promotions, as well as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,
and a collective action claim under the Equal Pay Act.

The proposed Title VII gender class includes all current and
former female sales representatives employed by the Company
throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the
proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and
former female sales representatives who have been, are, or will
become pregnant while employed by the Company throughout the U.S.
from 2008 to the date of judgment.

The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes
current, former, and future female sales representatives who were
not compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees
during the applicable liability period.

The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on
behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment
and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family
and Medical Leave Act.

On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's
motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part,
striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead
limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class
members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs'
claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of
an Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the
Company has opposed.

On September 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs motion to
conditionally certify a collective action. The litigation is still
in its early stages and the parties are beginning to work on
discovery matters.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
action. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


ALLERGAN PLC: Alendronate Cases Remain Active in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that lawsuits over injuries related to the use of
Alendronate remain active are part of a mass tort coordinated
proceeding in New Jersey state court.

Starting in 2010, approximately 130 product liability suits on
behalf of approximately 175 plaintiffs have been filed against the
Company and certain of its affiliates, including Cobalt
Laboratories, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of
alendronate for personal injuries including AFF and ONJ allegedly
arising out of the use of alendronate. The actions are pending in
various state and federal courts. Several of the cases were
consolidated in an MDL proceeding in federal court in New Jersey.

In 2012, the MDL court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all
of the cases then pending against the Company in the New Jersey
MDL. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

Any new cases against the Company filed in the MDL are subject to
dismissal unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims should
be exempted from the 2012 dismissal order.

Other cases were consolidated in an MDL in federal court in New
York, where the Company filed a similar motion to dismiss. The
Court granted, in part, the motion to dismiss which has resulted
in the dismissal of several other cases.

The Company has also been served with nine cases that are part of
a consolidated litigation in the California state court. In 2012,
the California court partially granted a motion filed on behalf of
all generic defendants seeking dismissal. Appeals in the
California cases have been exhausted and the Company has not yet
been able to determine how that will affect the cases filed
against it.

The remaining active cases are part of a mass tort coordinated
proceeding in New Jersey state court. In the New Jersey
proceeding, the Court granted, in part, a motion to dismiss. The
Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do
not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could
adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: 1,230 Actions Over Benicar(R) Still Open
------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the Company is named in approximately 1,230 actions
involving allegations that Benicar(R), a treatment for
hypertension that Forest co-promoted with Daiichi Sankyo between
2002 and 2008, caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. Under
Forest's Co-Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending the
Company in these lawsuits.


ALLERGAN PLC: 9 Celexa/Lexapro Actions v. Forest Labs Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that Forest Laboratories and its affiliates are defendants
in approximately nine actions pending in various federal district
courts involving allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused
or contributed to individuals committing or attempting suicide, or
caused a violent event. The Company recently reached agreements in
principle to resolve eight of the nine matters.  The remaining
case is stayed.


ALLERGAN PLC: 195 Birth Defect Cases v. Forest Labs Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that approximately 195 actions are pending against Forest
and its affiliates involving allegations that Celexa(R) or
Lexapro(R) caused various birth defects. Several of the cases
involve multiple minor-plaintiffs. The majority of these actions
have been consolidated in state court in Missouri where one case
is set for trial in May 2016. Five actions remain in New Jersey
state court, none of which are set for trial.  There are birth
defect cases pending in other jurisdictions but none currently are
set for trial.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) cases and maintains product liability
insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently
uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not
provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Metoclopramide Cases in Initial Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that discovery in the Metoclopramide litigation is in the
preliminary stages.

Starting in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed
against certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and
Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors
of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of
the use of metoclopramide. Approximately 1,500 cases remain
pending against Actavis, Watson and/or its affiliates in state and
federal courts, representing claims by multiple plaintiffs.
Discovery in these cases is in the preliminary stages as the
Company is actively moving to dismiss the suits and either
initiating or defending appeals on such motions.

The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the
cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in
and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom
the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late
2008.

With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis
companies, the Company recently reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the majority of the matters. The Company believes that
it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and
maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However,
litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict
the outcome of this litigation.

"These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification
arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows," the Company
said.


ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Actions Over Propoxyphene
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the Company continues to defend several cases over the
use of Propoxyphene.

Starting in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Watson and certain of its affiliates, as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal
injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths
allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are
pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in various state and
federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,400
plaintiffs. A number of the cases were consolidated in an MDL in
federal district court in Kentucky.

On June 22, 2012, the MDL court granted the generic defendants'
joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL cases. On June 27, 2014,
the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.
Plaintiffs did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court.

In addition, approximately 35 cases were filed in California state
court. These cases were removed to federal district courts and,
after disputes over whether the cases should be remanded to state
court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the
removals to federal court were proper. Many of the cases in
California federal courts were transferred to the MDL in Kentucky.

Once the remaining procedural matters are resolved, the defendants
will file demurrers and motions to dismiss the remaining suits.

In addition, approximately eight lawsuits have been filed in
Oklahoma which plaintiffs are seeking to have remanded from
federal to state court.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Testosterone Litigation in Early Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that product liability cases alleging injury due to the use
of testosterone products are in the initial stages and discovery
is in the early stages.

Starting in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed
against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as
other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for
personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular
events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm(R)
testosterone cypionate, AndroGel and/or testosterone enanthate.

Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been
served in approximately 253 currently pending actions, all of
which are pending in federal court. These actions have been
consolidated in an MDL in federal court in Illinois.

The defendants have responded to the plaintiffs' master complaint.
Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss all claims relating to any of
Actavis' generic TRT products from the cases.  These cases are in
the initial stages and discovery is in the early stages.

The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. The
Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Narrows Claim in "Tabor" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motions to dismiss in the case RODNEY TABOR, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 15-2602 (E.D. Penn.)

Prior to November 1999, the majority of Allstate Insurance
Company's captive agency force acted as employee agents, under
either an R830 or an R1500 contract, and was entitled to a wide
range of company-sponsored health, welfare, and retirement
benefits. On November 10, 1999, Allstate announced the Preparing
for the Future Group Reorganization Program by noting that, as
part of a new business model, it was reorganizing its entire
captive agency force into a single exclusive agency independent
contractor program. With few exceptions, Allstate terminated the
employment contracts of the 6,200-plus R830 and R1500 employee
agents effective no later than June 30, 2000. While the Program
applied to all agents regardless of age, productivity, or
performance, approximately ninety percent of the R830/R1500 agents
were over 40 years of age.

In connection with the termination of the R830 and R1500
employment contracts, Allstate offered the agents working under
those contracts four options. The first three release options were
conditioned upon the agents' agreement to execute a release of
claims, while the fourth option did not.

Several employee agents subject to the Program brought age
discrimination charges against Allstate with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On August 1, 2001, 32 employee
agents or the so-called Romero plaintiffs filed a putative class
action complaint against Allstate in connection with the Program.
The Romero plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on
October 18, 2001, and their second amended complaint on July 28,
2010.

On February 27, 2014, the court ruled on the parties' cross-
motions for summary judgment regarding the validity of the release
and held that a genuine issue of fact remained as to whether the
release was knowingly and voluntarily signed.

Following the October 6, 2014 denial of class certification on
issues regarding the validity of the release, the court determined
that the statute of limitations for the non-party employee agents
resumed running and that they were required to file an action in
order to pursue their claims.

On May 11, 2015, 10 new release-signers or the Tabor plaintiffs
filed a complaint and subsequently moved to intervene. The
complaint brought the following causes of action:

     (1) a request for declaratory judgment on the invalidity
         of the Release under ERISA, the ADEA, and common law
         (Count I);

     (2) breach of the R830 contract (Count II);

     (3) breach of the R1500 contract (Count III);

     (4) interference with employment and retaliation in
         violation of Section 510 of ERISA (Count IV);

     (5) discriminatory termination and retaliation in violation
         of 29 U.S.C. Section 623(a) and (d) (Count V);

     (6) breach of fiduciary duty (Count VI);

     (7) cutback of beefed up early retirement benefits in
         violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1054(g)(2) (Count VIII);
         and

     (8) cutback of early retirement benefits in violation of
         29 U.S.C. Section 1054(g) (Count IX).

The Tabor plaintiffs moved to intervene in Romero v. Allstate
matter, Civil Action No. 01-3894.  The court granted the motion to
intervene.

Defendants Allstate and Edward M. Liddy filed motions to dismiss
the Tabor plaintiffs' complaint.

Judge Buckwalter ruled that as to the Plaintiffs' state law
claims, the Plaintiffs' failure to tender back or offer to tender
back some or all of the consideration received for signing the
Release now constitutes a ratification of that document with
respect to those state law claims.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' claims under Sec. 510 ERISA, the
Court agrees with the Defendants that those claims are time-barred
under a technical application of the statute of limitations, but
nonetheless finds that the statute of limitations should be
equitably tolled for the period between the Court's October 6,
2014 Order denying class certification and the Court's December
11, 2014 Order regarding the resumption of the statute of
limitations.  A calculation of the lapse of time, with that tolled
period removed, results in a determination that Plaintiffs'
Complaint was timely filed.

As to the Plaintiffs' causes of action under Sec. 204(g) of ERISA,
the Court holds that they adequately state claims upon which
relief may be granted because the early retirement benefits were
"accrued" benefits, as defined by controlling precedent.

A copy of Judge Buckwalter's memorandum dated December 1, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/tcajP6from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Alan L. Yatvin, Esq.
     POPPER & YATVIN
     230 S Broad St #503
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Telephone: 215-546-5700
     Email: main@popperyatvin.com

          - and -

     Jessica F. Salonus, Esq.
     Jonathan L. Bobbitt, Esq.
     Justin S. Gilbert, Esq.
     GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
     341 CoolSprings Boulevard, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Telephone: 615-354-1144
     Facsimile: 731-664-1540

Allstate Insurance Company and The Allstate Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jordan M. Heinz --
jordan.heinz@kirkland.com -- at KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP; Katherine M.
Katchen -- kkatchen@akingump.com -- at AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
FELD, LLP

Edward M. Liddy, Defendant, represented by John B. Langel --
langel@ballardspahr.com -- at BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL
LLP; Christopher Todd at MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS, LLP


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Cone" Suit Moved from M.D.N.C. to Wash. D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cone v. American Airlines, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00728, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01924-
CKK to the proceeding.

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 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: "Scribner" Suit Moved from N.D. Ill. to D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Scribner v. American Airlines
Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06915, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 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-01920-CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into an alleged
illegal agreement, combination, or conspiracy to raise and
maintain the price of domestic airfare in the United States.

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:

          Susan M. Coler, Esq.
          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          Charles D. Moore, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          1650 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605 4098
          Facsimile: (612)605 4099
          E-mail: coler@halunenlaw.com
                  halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
                  moore@halunenlaw.com

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: "Carte" Suit Goes from C.D. Calif. to D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carte v. American Airlines Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05208, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01917-CKK
to the proceeding.

The Defendants allegedly conspired in fixing, raising,
maintaining, and/or stabilizing the prices of domestic airline
tickets The Plaintiff seeks damages and for injunctive relief for
price fixing under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
and the antitrust laws of the United States against the Defendants

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:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Brian Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Thomas J. Kennedy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
                  bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  tkennedy@glancylaw.com

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: "Kraft" Suit Moved From N.D. Ill to Wash D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kraft et al. v. American Airlines
Group et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06216, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 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-01894-
CKK to the proceeding.

Plaintiffs brought the action pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of the
Clayton Act, for injunctive relief and to recover treble damages
and the costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
for Defendants' violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John R. Malkinson, Esq.
          Seth R. Halpern, Esq.
          MALKINSON & HALPERN, P.C.
          208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1750
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 427 9600
          Facsimile: (312) 750 1912
          E-mail: jmalkinson@mhtriallaw.com
                  shalpern@mhtriallaw.com

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: "Walker" Suit Moved from N.D. Ga. to D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Walker v. American Airlines Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03081, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01896-CKK
to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brought the lawsuit for
injunctive relief and treble damages, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, arising from Defendants' alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act

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:

          W. Daniels Miles III., Esq.
          Archie I. Grubb, Esq
          Andrew E. Brashier, Esq
          Leslie Pescia, Esq
          BEASLEY, ALLENM CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          P.O. Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269 2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954 7555
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Archie.Grubb@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Andrew.Brashier@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William Parker Sanders, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3100
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3592
          Telephone: (404) 815 3500
          Facsimile: (404) 685 6984
          E-mail: psanders@sgrlaw.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 AIRLINES: "De La Garza" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled De La Garza et al. v. American
Airlines Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06858, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of 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-01891-CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit to
obtain injunctive relief and treble damages arising from
Defendants' alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Tyler J. Story, Esq.
          WEXLERWALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346 2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346 0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
          tjs@wexlerwallace.com

                  - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          David G. Scott, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (281) 488 8854
          Facsimile: (281) 488 8867
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
                     dscott@emersonfirm.com

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: "Costantino" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Costantino et al. v. American
Airlines, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06323, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
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-01893-CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize the price of domestic airfares in the
United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act.

Delta Air Lines is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than
5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

American Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its principal
places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. American is the
largest airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per
day to 339 locations in 54 countries.

Southwest Airlines is a Texas corporation with its principal place
of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than
3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six
additional countries.

United Airlines is Delaware corporations with its principal places
of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to
more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating
more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six
continents.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Robert E. Litan, Esq
          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                  rlitan@koreintillery.com
                  stillery@koreintillery.com
                  gbroshuis@koreintillery.com

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


ATLAS AIR: April 18 Jury Trial in Pricing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, 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
jury trial has been scheduled to to commence on April 18, 2016, in
a class action over pricing practices.

The Company and Old Polar have been named defendants, along with a
number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the
United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices
of Old Polar and a number of air cargo carriers that have now been
centralized for pretrial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants,
including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price
for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the
use of surcharges, in violation of United States, state, and
European Union antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose
prior to July 28, 2004, the date on which the Company and Old
Polar emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented
to the injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court
entered an order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company
claims arising prior to July 28, 2004.

The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a
number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs'
motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional
defendant, which the court granted for discovery purposes on April
13, 2011. There was substantial pretrial written discovery and
document production, and a number of depositions were taken.

On October 15, 2014, the magistrate judge issued a decision
recommending that the District Court enter an order certifying the
class for adjudicating the claims. On July 10, 2015, the District
Court judge issued an order affirming the magistrate judge's
decision and certifying the class.

On August 31, 2015, the District Court judge held a hearing on the
various motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs and
defendants. Ruling from the bench, the judge granted plaintiffs'
motions and denied defendants' motions.

The District Court judge has scheduled a jury trial to commence on
April 18, 2016.

"We are unable to reasonably predict the outcome of the
litigation," the Company said.


BALTIMORE ORIOLES: "Senne" Suit Moved from Md. to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Senne v. Baltimore Orioles, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02940, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-mc-80268-JCS to the
proceeding.

Baltimore Orioles is a professional baseball team that plays in
Major League Baseball. The company was founded in 1993 and is
based in Baltimore, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P Moylan, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
          Telephone: (410) 783 7000
          Facsimile: (410) 783 8823
          E-mail: dmoylan@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Garrett R Broshuis
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          505 N. 7th St Ste 3600
          St Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241 3525
          E-mail: gbroshuis@koreintillery.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marie Celeste Bruce, Esq.
          RIFKIN, WEINER, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN AND SILVER, LLC
          7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (301) 951 0150
          Facsimile: (301) 951 0172
          E-mail: cbruce@rwlls.com


BAY STATE GAS: Appeal Over Credit Sale Junked
---------------------------------------------
Diane Saia entered into an agreement with Bay State Gas Company
for the installation of a new water heater at her home in
Longmeadow.  She signed a document entitled "Appliance Lease
Agreement," which obligated her to pay $28.16 per month for three
years for use of a water heater. The total lease payments for the
three-year "minimum term" amounted to $1,013.76. That amount
combined with a $220 upfront installation fee brought her total
obligation under the agreement to $1,233.76. At the end of the
minimum term, both Saia and Bay State could cancel the lease at
any time upon a 30-day written notice. Absent the written
cancellation notice, the lease could continue indefinitely. Saia
was also given the option to purchase the water heater at any time
during the lease including within the minimum term.

After making 13 lease payments totaling $366.08, Saia chose to
exercise the purchase option and paid an additional $1,381.66
pursuant to the contract buyout formula. Adding together the lease
payments, the upfront installation fee, the buyout price, and the
sales tax, she spent a total of $1,967.74 to take ownership of the
water heater.

On November 10, 2010, Saia filed a four-count amended class action
complaint against Bay State, asserting misrepresentation (Count
I), violations of G. L. c. 93A (Count II), unjust enrichment
(Count III), and seeking rescission on the basis that the
defendant had violated G. L. c. 93, Section 48 (Count IV).  She
contends that a transaction involving the lease of a water heater
was actually a credit sale in disguise, and, consequently, that
the defendant's failure to make certain required disclosures
amounted to common-law misrepresentation and a violation of G. L.
c. 93A.

A Superior Court judge dismissed the entire complaint for failure
to state a claim pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754
(1974).

Saia appealed.

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, in an unpublished decision in
2012, affirmed the dismissal of counts III and IV and reversed the
dismissal of the remaining claims which, resting on the Consumer
Credit Cost Disclosure Act (CCCDA) and the defendant's failure to
disclose interest charges, alleged common-law misrepresentation
and violation of G. L. c. 93A.  Following remand on the reinstated
counts, the lower court judge entered summary judgment in favor of
the defendant on the plaintiff's amended complaint.

Saia again appealed.

Justice Diana Maldonado of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts,
Suffolk, affirmed the summary judgment entered by the Superior
Court of Massachusetts in a decision dated December 15, 2015,
available at http://goo.gl/l096pxfrom Leagle.com.

The appealed case is DIANE SAIA, v. BAY STATE GAS COMPANY, No. 14-
P-1010 (Mass. App. Ct.)

For Plaintiff:

     Valeriano Diviachhi, Esq.
     DIVIACHHI LAW OFFICE
     111 Beach St.
     Boston, MA 02111
     Telephone: 617-542-3175

J. Christopher Allen, Jr. -- Troy Lieberman --
tlieberman@nixonpeabody.com -- at Nixon Peabody LLP, for the
defendant

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts panel consists of Justices
Diana Maldonado, Cynthia J. Cohen and Gabrielee R. Wolohojian.


BRANCH BANKING: D.C. Judge Sends "Roland" Suit to Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rudolph Contreras of the District of Columbia
denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case BERNARD ROLAND,
Plaintiff, v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-00040 (RC) (D.D.C.)

Bernard Roland executed a mortgage loan agreement with Liberty
Mortgage Corporation against property located Fort Washington,
Maryland. Mr. Roland alleges that Liberty dissolved in 2011 and
that Branch Banking & Trust Corporation (BB&T) subsequently
appeared claiming to be a note holder. On November 5, 2013,
substitute trustees commenced a foreclosure proceeding against Mr.
Roland in Maryland state court relating to the property. Defendant
White P.C. appears to have represented the substitute trustees in
the action. After the commencement of the foreclosure proceeding,
Mr. Roland filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Maryland.

Mr. Roland commenced an action on January 12, 2015 against
defendants, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated
plaintiffs, and claiming various violations of the Truth in
Lending Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and common law fraud
primarily arising from the foreclosure proceeding in Maryland
state court. On the same day, a process server hired by Mr. Roland
served a summons on Valena Metcalfe, a legal assistant employed by
White P.C., at White P.C.'s offices in Rockville, Maryland.  The
next day, a different process server served a summons on Pam Adam-
Motley, who, according to the process server's affidavit, was
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of BB&T.

Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Roland's complaint on multiple
grounds, including insufficient service of process, improper
venue, res judicata, and various jurisdictional reasons.

Judge Contreras denied defendants' motion to dismiss; and
transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District
Court of Maryland.

A copy of Judge Contreras's memorandum and opinion dated December
14, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/X2yA7yfrom Leagle.com.

BERNARD ROLAND, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by:

     Daniel Jay Pesachowitz, Esq.
     SAMUEL I. WHITE PC
     611 Rockville Pike
     Sandy Spring Bank Financial Center Suite 100
     Rockville, MD  20852
     Telephone: 301-804-3400
     Facsimile: 301-838-1954


BREG INC: Magistrate Judge Rules on Discovery Bid in "Lucas" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
regarding discovery in the case STACY LUCAS, an individual, TAREK
ALBABA, an individual, RIGOBERTO VINDIOLA, and individual, DAVID
GAMMA, an individual, SARAH FISHER, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs,
v. BREG, INC., a California corporation; GARY LOSSE, an
individual; MARK HOWARD, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-00258-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs and the putative class allege defendants engaged in a
false, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, and unlawful advertising
campaign regarding the sale of Breg Inc.'s Polar Care 500, a
motorized cold therapy device. Plaintiffs contend the product was
defective and dangerous because it can produce a non-freezing cold
injury. They allege defendants were aware of the risk but
concealed it and failed to alert consumers of the risk.

On November 5, 2015, plaintiffs served via mail deposition notices
for three-non-party witnesses. Specifically, plaintiffs seek to
depose (1) the Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) for Orthofix, Inc.;
(2) the PMK for Water Street Healthcare Partners, LLC; and (3)
Bradley Mason.

Plaintiffs allege that Orthofix purchased Breg in November of
2003, and Water Street purchased Breg from Orthofix in April of
2012. Bradley Mason is the former president and CEO of Breg, and
is the current President and CEO of Orthofix.

The parties conferred and determined the depositions would not go
forward on the date noticed, but were unable to resolve the
dispute as to whether the depositions would proceed at all. The
parties filed a joint motion for determination of discovery
dispute.

Breg moves the court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)
and 16(b)(4) for an order prohibiting the depositions from
proceeding at all.

Magistrate Judge Stormes granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion. Breg's motion is granted to the extent it
seeks an order prohibiting plaintiffs from deposing the three non-
party witnesses for class discovery purposes. Plaintiffs are not
permitted to depose the PMK for Orthofix, Inc., the PMK for Water
Street and Bradley Mason for class discovery purposes.  Breg's
motion is denied without prejudice to the extent it seeks an order
prohibiting plaintiffs from deposing the three non-party witnesses
at all.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Stormes's order dated December 8, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/pGHjaQfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Chase Stern --
stern@morrissullivanlaw.com -- William A Lemkul --
lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com -- at Morris, Sullivan & Lemkul; Marc
O Stern -- moslaw@san.rr.com -- Law Offices of Marc O Stern

Breg, Inc. and Mark Howard, Defendants, represented by David
Jeffrey Duke -- david.duke@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Eden Darrell --
eden.darrell@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Marion V. Mauch --
marion.mauch@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Mary Novacheck --
mary.novacheck@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Paul Gerard Cereghini --
paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Susan Elizabeth Burnett --
susan.burnett@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman & Brook LLP

Gary Losse, Defendant, represented by C. Christopher Brown --
C.Christopher.Brown@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP


CALIF. CHECK CASHING: "Gilberg" Suit Transferred to Sacramento
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gilberg v. California Check
Cashing Stores, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06770, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California (Sacramento). The Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02309-JAM-AC to the proceeding.

California Check Cashing Stores, LLC is a financial institution
that provides short-term cash solutions in California. Its
solutions include title loans, payroll advances, signature loans,
check cashing, prepaid cards, auto insurance, Western Union money
transfer, tax services, and money orders. The company was founded
in 1987 and is headquartered in Oakland, California. Checksmart
Financial is a Delaware limited liability company, based in
Dublin, Ohio. The Company, doing business as CheckSmart, provides
financial services in the United States. The company's services
include cash advances, check cashing, MoneyGram, money transfers,
money orders, bill payment, insight silver prepaid MasterCard,
title loans, Western Union services, deferred deposits, payroll
advances, small loans, deferred presentment transactions, consumer
loans, consumer lines of credit, and open-ended credit lines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin
          LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  tuvia@setarehlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony J. DeCristoforo, Esq.
          Crystal S. Chase, Esq.
          Timothy W. Snider, Esq.
          Bryan L. Hawkins, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES, LLP
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 447 0700
          Facsimile: (916) 447 4781
          E-mail: ajdecristoforo@stoel.com
                  crystal.chase@stoel.com
                  twsnider@stoel.com
                  blhawkins@stoel.com

               - and -

          Eve H Wagner, Esq.
          SAUER & WAGNER, LLP
          1801 Century Park E, Suite 1150
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712 8100
          Facsimile: (310) 712 8108
          E-mail: ewagner@swattys.com


CASE DETECTIVE: Former Security Guard Sues Over Wage Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Potthoff, writing for Noozhawk, reports that a former
security guard for Santa Barbara's Case Detective Agency has filed
a class-action lawsuit against the investigative firm, alleging he
was not paid overtime and was often paid in cash without proper
wage statements.

Santa Barbara law firm Anticouni & Associates filed the complaint
in Santa Barbara County Superior Court against Craig Case, who
owns the investigative agency and provider of uniformed security
officers in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura counties.

In the lawsuit, former employee and county resident Jeffrey Harris
alleges Case violated California's wage-and-hour laws by failing
to pay overtime and minimum wage, failing to reimburse for
business expenses, engaging in unfair business practices and more.

Harris worked as a security guard for the agency from May 15,
2015, until Dec. 5, 2015 -- predominantly in Santa Barbara and
Montecito -- and was paid on an hourly basis, attorney Bruce
Anticouni said.

"Defendants did not keep timecards, they relied on plaintiff and
other class member to total their hours for the week, and
defendant would often pay them in cash," the lawsuit states.

Anticouni said the class-action case would seek nearly $1 million
in damages and could involve between 75 and more than 100 current
or former non-exempt hourly employees from the past four years.

The penalty for issuing an incorrect itemized wage statement --
Case allegedly failed to pay the agency's Social Security share,
unemployment insurance and state disability -- is $100 per pay
period, Anticouni said.

"That adds up very quickly," he told Noozhawk, noting that another
plaintiff might be added to the original complaint. "We've had a
number of calls from (impacted) people."

The lawsuit also alleges hourly employees weren't allowed a meal
period of at least 30 minutes when shifts exceeded five hours,
according to California Labor code, and weren't paid in a timely
fashion, since accurate payroll records weren't maintained.

Case, who did not respond to requests for comment, was described
in the complaint as "willful or reckless."

Anticouni is asking for payment of lost wages, reimbursement of
business expenses, damages and attorney fees.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Suit Against Former Employee Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of
California ruled on the parties' motion in the case JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. SELENA ARMAS, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-
03704-WHO (N.D. Cal.)

Selena Armas, a former JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase)
Assistant Branch Manager, signed a Binding Arbitration Agreement
(BAA) on or about May 1, 2013. Covered claims include all legally
protected employment-related claims as well as violations of any
common law, federal, state or local statute and the right to
submit, initiate, or participated in a representative capacity or
as a plaintiff, claim or member in a class action, collective
action, or other representative or joint action.

In early January 2015, Armas filed a putative class action
complaint in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging
misclassification and other California Labor Code violations.
Chase removed the action to the federal court a month later. A few
days after removal, Chase received a copy of Armas's amended
complaint, which added a representative Private Attorney Generals
Act of 2004 (PAGA) claim. Armas's attorney sent an email to
Chase's counsel communicating Armas's intention to dismiss the
case and move to individual arbitration.

Approximately two weeks later, Armas filed a representative action
lawsuit under PAGA with the San Francisco County Superior court
seeking civil penalties for various California Labor Code
violations stemming from Chase's misclassification of Armas and
other Assistant Branch Managers.  Armas also commenced individual
arbitration proceedings before the American Arbitration
Association concerning allegations in her original complaint.

On July 28, 2015, Chase filed a counterclaim in the arbitration
regarding Armas's purported breach of the BAA claiming that she
has refused to arbitrate all of her claims pursuant to the BAA.

On August 13, 2015, Chase filed the present lawsuit alleging a
claim in equity that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts
PAGA, California public policy, and the rule announced in Iskanian
v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014)
cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1155 (2015), a claim for declaratory
relief that Armas's representative action is unenforceable under
the FAA and a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 that Armas's
representative action deprives Chase of its federally protected
rights under FAA and the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution.

Armas moves to dismiss Chase's complaint, saying Sakkab v.
Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015)
forecloses Chase's ability to state a claim. Chase opposes on the
theory that Sakkab was wrongly decided and instead seeks a stay
pending a rehearing of Sakkab and a subsequent change in law.

Judge Orrick granted Armas's motion to dismiss with leave to amend
and denied Chase's motion to stay, but allowed Chase to amend its
complaint within 30 days of the date of the order.

A copy of Judge Orrick's order dated December 8, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/W3BnkDfrom Leagle.com.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander L.
Grodan -- agrodan@morganlewis.com -- Carrie Anne Gonell --
cgonell@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Selena Armas, Defendant, represented by:

     Ori Edelstein, Esq.
     THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
     535 Mission St Fl 14
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Telephone: 415-463-1257


CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Dismissal of Securities Case Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
ChannelAdvisor Corporation has sought dismissal of a consolidated
securities class action complaint, 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 30,
2015.

On January 23, 2015, plaintiff Justin Dice filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), Dice v. ChannelAdvisor
Corporation et al., alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against the Company and certain of its executive officers.

"Plaintiff Dice alleges that the defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our common
stock by making false and misleading statements to investors
concerning our financial guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014,"
the Company said.

On January 26, 2015, plaintiff David Gracia also filed a purported
class action complaint in the S.D.NY., Gracia v. ChannelAdvisor
Corporation et al., in which Plaintiff Gracia brings the same
claims, against the same named defendants, as in the action
brought by Plaintiff Dice. On May 5, 2015, the S.D.N.Y.
consolidated the Dice and Gracia actions, captioned the actions as
In re ChannelAdvisor Securities Litigation, and appointed
Plaintiff Dice as lead plaintiff for the putative class.

On July 2, 2015, the S.D.N.Y. granted the defendants' motion to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina. On September 28, 2015, the defendants
moved to dismiss the case. The motion is not yet fully briefed.

"We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter
vigorously," the Company said.


CHICAGO, IL: Homeless Sex Offenders Win Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Robert Blakely of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case MICHAEL BELEY and DOUGLAS MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 12 C 9714
(N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs Michael Beley and Douglas Montgomery are convicted sex
offenders who reside in the City of Chicago and are required to
register under the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA),
750 ILCS 150. Sex offenders lacking a fixed residence must report
weekly in person to their local law enforcement agency. Failure to
register carries legal consequences, including serving at least
seven days in jail and paying a $500 mandatory minimum fine.

Plaintiffs allege that the City of Chicago through the Chicago
Police Department, in contravention of SORA and in violation of
their procedural due process rights, has a policy of refusing to
register homeless sex offenders despite its obligations to do so
under the statute.

On November 20, 2012, Beley, who was then homeless, sought to
register with the Chicago Police Department. The Department,
however, refused to register Beley because he lacked
identification with a fixed address. As a result, from November 22
to December 11, 2012, Beley was in violation of SORA, and that
violation was posted on the state police website. On December 11,
2012, the Chicago Police Department allowed Beley to register with
a temporary address at a homeless shelter.

Montgomery raises similar allegations, that is, while homeless and
living on Wacker Drive, he sought to register with the Chicago
Police Department, but the Department turned him away, telling
Montgomery that he was not going to be registered as a homeless
person. Unable to register, around July 13, 2011, Montgomery was
charged with having violated SORA but was later acquitted.

Plaintiffs move to certify a class of:

     All persons who attempted to register under the Illinois
     Sex Offender Registration Act with the City of Chicago
     from December 6, 2010 to the date of entry of judgment and
     who were not permitted to register because they were
     homeless.

Plaintiffs argue that the proposed class satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).

Judge Blakely granted plaintiffs' class certification motion and
certifies a class of:

     All persons who attempted to register under the Illinois Sex
     Offender Registration Act with the City of Chicago from
     December 6, 2010 to the date of entry of judgment and who
     were not permitted to register because they were homeless.

The court designates plaintiffs Michael Beley and Douglas
Montgomery as the class representative. The court appoints Thomas
G. Morrissey and Patrick W. Morrissey of Thomas G. Morrissey Ltd.
and Kenneth N. Flaxman and Joel A. Flaxman of Kenneth N. Flaxman
P.C. as class counsel.

A copy of Judge Blakely's memorandum opinion and order dated
December 7, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/zTqLojfrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Thomas Gerard Morrissey, Esq.
     Patrick William Morrissey, Esq.
     Thomas G. Morrissey, Ltd.
     10249 South Western Avenue
     Chicago, IL 60643-1917
     Telephone: 773-233-7900
     Facsimile: 773-239-0387

          - and -

     Joel A. Flaxman, Esq.
     Kenneth N Flaxman, Esq.
     KENNETH N. FLAXMAN, P.C.
     200 south Michigan Avenue, Suite 201
     Chicago, IL 06604
     Telephone: 312-427--3200

City Of Chicago, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Mine, City of
Chicago, Law Department, Mary Eileen Cunniff Wells, City Of
Chicago, Department Of Law &Rebecca Alfert Hirsch, City of Chicago


CRYPTSY: Sued Over Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Stan Higgins, writing for CoinDesk, reports that two Florida law
firms have filed a class action lawsuit in US district court
against digital currency exchange Cryptsy and its CEO, Paul
Vernon.

Filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on 13th January, the case alleges negligence, unjust
enrichment, conversion and violation of Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit was filed by Jinyao Liu, a
Cryptsy customer based in Virginia.

Liu, in addition to other members of the class, is being
represented by Wites & Kapetan, PA and the Silver Law Group, the
latter of which filed suit in state court on behalf of a Cryptsy
customer.  That case was later settled, according to the firm.

Attorney David Silver told CoinDesk that the new suit grew out of
a growing number of complaints that his firm received regarding
withdrawals.

In interview, Silver highlighted that Cryptsy is registered with
the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), arguing that
the exchange needs to be forthcoming with its customers about site
issues.

He told CoinDesk: "As a FinCEN member, you have certain
obligations, and those obligations require you to communicate with
your customers. And here, customers don't know why they are being
denied access to their money."

The exchange, founded in 2013, offers a number of markets for
bitcoin and alternative cryptocurrencies. Customers have
complained for months that Cryptsy has withheld their withdrawals
for extended periods of time, an issue the exchange has attributed
to technical problems.

Vernon did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Case details:

According to the complaint, the plaintiff made a deposit on 27th
December, and since that date has not received a withdrawal
despite repeated requests.

"Plaintiff, on December 27, 2015, deposited 84,000,000 Dodge Coin
(a commonly used cryptocurrency) to fund his CRYPTSY account. The
value of that deposit, according to CRYPTSY, was approximately
33.6 BTC ($14,100.00 USD)," the filing states.

The complaint claims that withdrawal requests were submitted on
the 28th, 29th and 30th of December, as well as 2nd and 8th
January, and further claims that the customer has received no
funds as of the filing date.

The plaintiff goes on to state that other members of the class are
in a similar situation: "Plaintiff's experience with CRYPTSY is
not unique. CRYPTSY has refused to honor the requests of other
members of the Class, who have likewise requested to liquidate or
transfer their account balances to other Money Service Businesses,
only to have those requests met with silence."

According to the filing, the plaintiff is seeking restitution and
damages for an unspecified amount, as well as legal fees.

Phishing attack response

The filing of the lawsuit comes amid continued problems for the
exchange. In recent days, the exchange has moved to suspend
trading, most recently in response to a reported customer phishing
attack.

Cryptsy later said in a 13th January blog post that an account it
uses to issue text messages to customers had been compromised, but
claimed that exchange's mailing service had not. The company said
it was unsure how the mailing list had been obtained.

The post, attributed to Vernon, said that more details regarding
the months of customer withdrawal issues would be forthcoming.

"Regarding other issues that have been apparent at Cryptsy for the
last couple months, I will be making another post to explain what
has been happening in the next couple days," he wrote.

At press time, the exchange is reporting market trades but a
notice states that all withdrawals have been cancelled and remain
unavailable.


DELTA FUNDING: Judge Won't Remand Suit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division denied plaintiff's motion to remand to
state court the case, FELICIA SMITH, individually and as the
Personal Representative of the Estate of Rena Johnson, a/k/a Renee
Johnson, dec'd & on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DELTA FUNDING CORP., WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., as
Trustee f/k/a Northwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., as. Trustee for the
registered holders of Renaissance Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2004-1, Advantage Investors Mortgage
Corporation, WAYNE COUNTY, MI SHERIFF and WAYNE COUNTY, MI
REGISTER OF DEEDS, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-13387 (E.D. Mich.)

Felicia Smith filed a three-count complaint in Wayne County
Circuit Court, which contains:

     (A) Count I - Complaint To Set Aside Real Estate Mortgage
         Foreclosure Sale Against Defendants Wells Fargo, Wayne
         County Sheriff & Wayne County Register Of Deeds,

     (B) Count II - Individual & Class Action Complaint For
         Damages For Violating The Federal Fair Housing Act,
         The Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Michigan
         Consumer Mortgage Protection Act And The Michigan
         Mortgage Brokers, Lenders, And Servicers Licensing Act
         Against Defendants Delta Funding, Advantage & Wells
         Fargo,

     (C) Count III - Complaint For Modification Of Real Estate
         Mortgage Against Defendant Wells Fargo.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells
Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee f/k/a Northwest Bank
Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee for the registered holders of
Renaissance Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series
2004-1 ("Trustee"), removed the action to the present court.

Smith filed a motion to remand contending that the remaining
defendants were served with the state court complaint. Plaintiff
seeks to remand to state court arguing that the Trustee failed to
seek concurrence from the non-removing defendants who were
properly served with the state court complaint and the Wayne
County defendants were not fraudulently joined.

A copy of Judge Steeh's order dated December 3, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/w9ZlJqfrom Leagle.com.

Felicia Smith, Plaintiff, represented by:

        Herman J. Anderson, Esq.
        HERMAN J. ANDERSON, PLLC
        19613 Lochmoor St
        Harper Woods, MI 48225
        Telephone: 313-331-2964

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Robert H. Ellis
-- rellis@dykema.com -- Thomas M. Schehr -- tschehr@dykema.com --
Thomas H. Trapnell -- ttrapnell@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett
PLLC

Wayne County Sheriff and Wayne County Register of Deeds,
Defendants, represented by Aaron C. Thomas, Wayne County
Corporation Counsel


DON THORNTON: "Dunham" Suit Moved to N.D. Okla.
-----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dunham v. Don Thornton Volkswagen
of Tulsa et al., Case No. CJ-15-03502, was removed from the Tulsa
County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 4:15-cv-00636-JED-FHM to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the class
vehicles were sold for a higher price than non-class vehicles. The
base model price of the diesel-equipped class vehicle was $2,860
higher than the price of the corresponding model car that was not
equipped with the diesel engines installed in the class vehicles.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia. Don Thornton Volkswagen of Tulsa is domestic
limited liability company based in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Michael Thetford, Esq.
          Terence Patrick Brennan, Esq.
          LEVINSON, SMITH & HUFFMAN, P.C.
          1743 E 71st ST
          Tulsa, OK 74136-5108
          Telephone: (918) 492 4433
          Facsimile: (918) 492 6224
          E-mail: j.thetford@lsh-law-firm.com
                  terry.brennan@lsh-law-firm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Michael Reed, Esq.
          John T Richer, Esq.
          HALL ESTILL HARDWICK GABLE GOLDEN & NELSON (TULSA)
          320 S Boston STE 200
          Tulsa, OK 74103-3706
          Telephone: (918) 594 0400
          Facsimile: (918) 594 0505
          E-mail: jreed@hallestill.com
                  jricher@hallestill.com

               - and -

          Colin Hampton Tucker, Esq.
          John H Tucker, Esq.
          Kerry R Lewis, Esq.
          RHODES HIERONYMUS JONES TUCKER & GABLE
          P O BOX 21100
          Tulsa, OK 74121-1100
          Telephone:(918) 582 1173
          Facsimile: (918) 592 3390
          E-mail: chtucker@rhodesokla.com
                  jtuckercourts@rhodesokla.com
                  klewiscourts@rhodesokla.com


DRAFTKINGS & FANDUEL: "Bandy" Suit Moved to N.D. Okla.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bandy v. DraftKings, Inc. et al.,
Case No. CJ-15-03821, was removed from the District Court for
Tulsa County District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00637-JED-TLW to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff asserted that Defendants allegedly allowed employees of
other Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) sites to enter fantasy sports
contests on Defendants' respective websites, and that the
employees of other DFS sites used "material, non-public, valuable
data and information" in connection with their participation in
the contests. The supposed information allegedly gave the
employees of other DFS sites an advantage over other players.

FanDuel operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables
users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The company is
based in New York, New York with an additional office in
Edinburgh, Scotland. DraftKings provides online daily and weekly
fantasy sports contests for cash prizes in major sports in the
United States and Canada. The company is based in Boston,
Massachusetts. The Defendants offer leagues for fantasy football,
baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college
basketball.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Michael Thetford, Esq.
          Terence Patrick Brennan, Esq.
          LEVINSON, SMITH & HUFFMAN, P.C.
          1743 E 71st ST
          Tulsa, OK 74136-5108
          Telephone: (918) 492 4433
          Facsimile: (918) 492 6224
          E-mail: j.thetford@lsh-law-firm.com
                  terry.brennan@lsh-law-firm.com

               - and -

          Matthew James Sill, Esq.
          Timothy Michael Bunson, Esq.
          SILL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          14005 N Eastern Ave
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 509 6300
          Facsimile: (405) 509 6368
          E-mail: matt@sill-law.com
                  tim@sill-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles D. Neal, Jr., Esq.
          Gary C. Crapster, Esq.
          STEIDLEY & NEAL, PLLC.
          CityPlex Towers, 53rd Floor
          2448 East 81st Street
          Tulsa, OK 74137
          Telephone: (918) 513 3521
          Facsimile: (918) 664 4133
          E-mail: cdn@steidley-neal.com
                  gcc@steidley-neal.com


DUKE ENERGY: Settlement in Merger Suit Finally Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation, the 11 members of the Board of Directors
who were also members of the pre-merger Board of Directors (Legacy
Duke Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers were
defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman
v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates
three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012 and is pending in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act and
Exchange Act claims based on allegations of materially false and
misleading representations and omissions in the Registration
Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into
other documents, all in connection with the post-merger change in
Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

On August 15, 2014 the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the litigation. On March 10, 2015, the parties filed a
Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Settlement. The court issued an order for preliminary approval
of the settlement on March 25, 2015. Under the terms of the
agreement, Duke Energy agreed to pay $146 million to settle the
claim.

On April 22, 2015, Duke Energy made a payment of $25 million into
the settlement escrow account. The remainder of $121 million was
paid by insurers into the settlement escrow account. Notice has
been sent to members of the class and a final approval hearing was
held on August 12, 2015. The final order approving the settlement
was issued on November 2, 2015.

A copy of the Nov. 2 decision is available at http://is.gd/US82Uk
from Leagle.com.


EXCELLUS HEALTH: "Baldwin" Suit Goes to N.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Baldwin et al. v. Excellus Health
Plan, Inc., Case No. EFCA2015002705, was removed from New York
State Supreme Court, Broome County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01324-GTS-DEP to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to
protect sensitive information of customers stored in their system.

Excellus Health Plan operates as a nonprofit health insurance
company in New York. It provides medical, Medicare, and dental
health insurance plans for individuals and businesses. The company
is based in Rochester, New York, and is a subsidiary of Lifetime
Healthcare, Inc.

The Defendant is represented by:

          John G. Schmidt , Jr., Esq.
          Mark J. Moretti, Esq.
          Richard T. Tucker, Esq.
          PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP-BUFFALO OFFICE
          One Canalside
          125 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14203
          Telephone: (716) 847 8400
          Facsimile: (716) 852 6100
          E-mail: jschmidt@phillipslytle.com
                  mmoretti@phillipslytle.com
                  rtucker@phillipslytle.com


FANNIE MAE: Texas Judge Dismisses "Nguyen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, MINH NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION a/k/a FANNIE MAE, Defendant, Civ. A. No. H-15-1958
(S.D. Tex.), District Judge Melinda Harmon of the Southern
District of Texas weighed on (i) Fannie Mae's motion to dismiss
and motion to remove lis pendens, to which plaintiff Minh Nguyen
has failed to file a response, and (ii) United States Magistrate
Frances Stacy's memorandum and opinion recommendation that the
motion to dismiss be granted and the motion to remove lis pendens
be denied.

Fannie Mae explains that in a previous case, plaintiff,
represented by counsel at the time, claimed that Fannie Mae was
not entitled to foreclose on the property located at 103 Nina
Lane, Stafford, Texas, as it was not the holder of the note, where
the court disagreed and held that Fannie Mae was entitled to
enforce its rights under the note, including foreclosure.

Fannie Mae then tried to sell the property, and plaintiff entered
into a contract to purchase the property, but was unable to close.
He requested and was granted a 10-day extension to close on the
property or, as warned, if he failed to do so he would lose his
earnest money.  Because he did not want to lose the earnest money,
he terminated the contract two days prior to closing and released
the earnest money contract.

Fannie Mae contends that because Plaintiff admits that he
terminated the contract, he cannot show that he was ready, willing
and able to complete the contract. Fannie Mae notes that plaintiff
also filed a lis pendens in the Official Real Property Records of
Fort Bend County under Clerks Number 2015055598, which Fannie Mae
states has impaired Fannie Mae's ability to transfer and sell the
property. Since plaintiff has voluntarily terminated the contract
without tendering performance, he has no interest in or claim to
the property. Fannie Mae has also requested an award of attorney's
fees and costs.

Judge Harmon adopts the Magistrate Judge's ruling on Fannie Mae's
motion to dismiss, and grants the motion.  Judge Harmon, however,
overrules the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the court
deny Fannie Mae's motion to remove lis pendens and grants that
motion.

A copy of Judge Harmon's opinion and order dated December 8, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/85PhK7from Leagle.com.

Minh Nguyen, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by:

     Michael Clifton Maus, Esq.
     BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER & ENGEL, LLP
     15000 Surveyor Blvd # 100
     Addison, TX 75001
     Telephone: 972-386-5040


FUHU INC: Judge Denies Bid to Certify Class Over Nabi Tablet PCs
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Snyder of the Central District of
California denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in
the case SCOTT MILLER, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, THE
GENERAL PUBLIC AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. FUHU INC., et al.,
No. 2:14-cv-06119-CAS-AS. (C.D. Cal.)

Fuhu, Inc. and Fuhu Holdings, Inc. manufacture electronic tablets
for children. Among these products are the Nabi XD, Nabi 2, Nabi 2
S, Nabi Jr., and Disney and Nickelodeon special edition Nabi 2
tablets.  To promote the sales of Nabi tablets, defendants provide
advertising materials and information to their retail partners,
and also communicate such information directly to consumers
through their website. Defendants market, advertises, and
represent to retailers, and on their website, that each Nabi
tablet includes a power adapter, that is rechargeable, and has
rechargeable batteries. Similar representations also appear in
Nabi tablet user manuals. Among other things, the manuals
represent that the tablets may be used while connected to an
external power source.

Plaintiff Scott Miller purchased a Nabi 2 tablet from Best Buy for
$199.99 for his grandson.  Plaintiff specifically wanted to
purchase a tablet that was both rechargeable and could be used
while it was recharging, such as during a car ride or while
plugged directly into a wall outlet.  Moreover, plaintiff alleges
that he read and relied upon each of defendants' affirmative
misrepresentations and omissions before completing his purchase.

According to plaintiff, defendants' representations are false
because the Nabi tablets have defective power adapters that fail
to reliably recharge the tablets. In particular, consumers
attempting to recharge the Nabi tablets using the provided power
adapters experience intermittent recharging failures, well within
the first year of operation, which includes failure of the tablets
to begin recharging, failure of the tablets to power on after
recharging and/or failure of the tablets to function while
recharging. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have not informed
potential consumers or instructed retailers to inform potential
consumers that the Nabi tablets are not rechargeable or that they
cannot be used while charging or plugged in, instead defendants
knowingly and intentionally failed to disclose the information to
the consumers.

On July 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative class action against
defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Defendants
removed the action to the present court on August 5, 2014,
asserting diversity jurisdiction. The operative complaint alleges
claims for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
Cal. Civil Code Section 1750, et seq. (CLRA), violation of
California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section
17500, et seq. (FAL), common law fraud, deceit, and/or
misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, in violation of
Cal. Com. Code Section 2100, et seq., breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, in violation of the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civil Code Section 1790, et seq.
(Song-Beverly Act; and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.
(UCL).

On June 29, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification
seeking to certify the following class and subclasses:

     "All persons, who between July 3, 2010 and the present
     purchased, in the United States, a Nabi tablet (the Class);
     All members of the Class who purchased and registered their
     Nabi tablet with one or more Defendants prior to September
     24, 2014 (the Unconsionability Subclass); All members of the
     class who purchased their Nabi tablets from a third-party
     retailer (the Warranty Subclass)."

Judge Snyder denied plaintiff's motion to certify the proposed
class without prejudice.

"However, this denial is without prejudice to a renewed motion for
class certification," the judge said.  "[P]laintiff's proposed
methodology could, in theory, provide a legally justifiable
measurement for classwide damages. If plaintiff is able to provide
more concrete details regarding his proposed survey, the Court may
be able to certify a class similar to that proposed here."

A copy of Judge Snyder's decision dated December 1, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/XBLyaSfrom Leagle.com.

Scott Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Joshua Gutride --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- Marie Ann McCrary --
marie@gutridesafier.com -- Seth A Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com
-- Todd Kennedy -- todd@gutridesafier.com -- at Gutride Safier LLP

Defendants, represented by Ivo M Labar -- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com
-- Anna P Chang -- chang@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Michael J Von
Loewenfeldt -- mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com -- at Kerr and Wagstaffe LLP;
Matthew D Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- Richard Blair Goetz
-- rgoetz@omm.com -- Cynthia Merrill -- cmerrill@lomm.com --
Edmundo Clay Marquez - cmarquez@omm.com -- Matthew Alan Bahleda
-- mbahleda@omm.com -- at O'Melveny and Myers LLP


GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Discovery Okayed in Copper Coils Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers of the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part plaintiffs'
motion to compel in the case ROCCO SIRIANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, L.P., et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 2:14-cv-1131, (S.D. Ohio)

Plaintiffs brought a breach of warranty, products liability, and
consumer protection action against defendants, alleging that the
evaporator coils and condenser coils found in defendants' air
conditioners, air handlers and heat pumps have defects that cause
premature corrosion and holes or cracks in the coils.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant Goodman Products' copper coils,
as the result of a design or manufacturing defect, are too thin
and prematurely corrode or crack causing refrigerant to leak
through the fissures.  The defects are widespread, affecting as
much as 80% of the products sold.  Plaintiffs finally allege that
defendants knew about it, but failed to disclose, the defects.

Defendants denied the allegations and on December 1, 2014,
defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs seek a court order compelling defendants to fully
respond to a number of outstanding requests for production of
documents especially to the discovery related to condenser coils.

Defendants submit that production of the requested information
would be unduly burdensome. Specifically, defendants assert that
gathering the information plaintiffs request would require more
than the 4,000 hours of lawyer review time over several months
they expended in preparing responses to discovery.

Magistrate Judge Deavers granted in part plaintiffs' motion to
compel discovery related to condenser coils.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Deavers' opinion and order dated
December 9, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/Nf1D3Ufrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Jack Landskroner, Esq.
     Drew T Legando, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC
     1360 W 9th St #200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Telephone: 216-522-9000

          - and -

     Glen L Abramson, Esq.
     Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
     Shanon J Carson, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: 1-800-424-6690
     Facsimile: 215-875-4604
     Email: gabramson@bm.net
            ldeutsch@bm.net
            scarson@bm.net

          - and -

     Gregory F Coleman, Esq.
     Lisa A White, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Telephone: 865-247-0080
     Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
            lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

Defendants, represented by Louis A Chaiten --
lachaiten@jonesday.com -- Elizabeth G Myers --
egmyers@jonesday.com -- Sharyl A Reisman -- sareisman@jonesday.com
-- at Jones Day


GRUBHUB INC: "Tan" Misclassification Suit Goes to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tan v. Grubhub, Inc., Case No.
GCG-15-548103, was removed from San Francisco Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of. California
(San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-
cv-05128-JSC to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly misclassified
Plaintiff and other GrubHub drivers as independent contractors,
and failing to reimburse them for expenses they paid in violation
of the California Labor Code.

GrubHub, together with its subsidiaries, provides online and
mobile platform for restaurant pick-up and delivery orders in the
United States. The company connects approximately 35,000 local
restaurants with diners in approximately 900 cities, and is based
in Chicago Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone:(415) 817 1470
          E-mail: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Thomas Fowler, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  tfowler@llrlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Esq.
          Justin T. Goodwin, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: 213.229.7000
          Facsimile: 213.229.7520
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
                  dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com
                  jgoodwin@gibsondunn.com


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morales" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Morales, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC and John Does 1
to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-08401 (D.N.J., December 2, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC operates a healthcare
collection agency in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


HUNTER WARFIELD: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amir J. Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-09319 (C.D. Cal., December 2, 2015)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Hunter Warfield, Inc. is a Florida corporation that provides
revenue recovery and risk mitigating services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Climaco Limbo, 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: jcl@consumercounselgroup.com


INTEGRITY SURVEILLANCE: Judge Rules on Discovery Bid in TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Avern Cohn of the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs'
motion in the case ROGER KEY and JANET GAJEWSKI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
INTEGRITY SURVEILLANCE SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a Integ Security
Solutions, a Michigan corporation, Defendant, Case No. 15-11235
(E.D. Mich.)

Plaintiffs Rogery Key and Janet Gajewski are suing Integrity
Surveillance Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Integ Security Solutions
claiming that Integ violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq (TCPA) by placing unsolicited
telemarketing calls to plaintiffs and other similarly situated
individuals without prior consent.

Integ responded to the complaint with affirmative defenses, which
includes an assertion of a complete defense to liability because
Integ does not employ an automatic telephone dialing system as
defined by the TCPA.  Further, Integ asserted the alleged calls
may be exempt from an action under the TCPA in that calls qualify
as research, market surveys, and/or political polling which do not
involve solicitation. Integ filed a motion to dismiss and/or deny
class certification.

During the hearing, Integ's counsel argued that the case should be
dismissed and discovery should be denied, because class discovery
would be burdensome and expensive. In addition, at the hearing,
plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint under seal to include
their telephone numbers. The court made an order on July 23, 2015
and on July 30, 2015, plaintiffs served Integ with written
interrogatories and requests for production of documents (RTPs).
On August 3, 2015, plaintiffs served their requests for admission
(RTAs).

On September 1, 2015, Integ filed its responses to plaintiffs'
discovery requests, which Integ provided only a three page
contract between Integ and MyAutoBlast, its contracted automatic
call service. Integ then objected to answering all but one of
plaintiffs' 22 interrogatories because the requested information
is beyond the scope of the limited discovery ordered in the
matter.

On September 9, 2015 plaintiffs sent Integ a letter outlining the
deficiencies in its responses. Plaintiffs requested that Integ
withdraw its affirmative defenses nos. 3 and 12 because they were
meritless based on Integ's responses to discovery. On September
17, 2015, Integ replied via email to plaintiffs that it disagreed
with plaintiffs' objections to its responses to the discovery
requests. Further, Integ said that it provided a complete
narrative with supporting documentation and that the discovery
requests were broad and ignored the court's specific limitations
on discovery. Finally, Integ said that plaintiffs are
inappropriately using discovery to find additional plaintiffs for
the class action.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel complete responses to
discovery as well as a motion for leave to conduct a Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Integ, to serve subpoenas on MyAutoBlast
and plaintiffs' telephone carriers, and to exchange initial
disclosures.

Judge Cohn granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion.
Plaintiffs' motion to compel complete responses to discovery,
motion to subpoena MyAutoBlast, motion to compel complete exchange
of initial disclosures, and request to compel the withdrawal of
Integ's affirmative defense no. 3 are granted. The motion for
leave to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition and to
serve a subpoena on plaintiffs' telephone carriers and plaintiffs'
request to compel the withdrawal of Integ's affirmative defense
no. 12 are denied without prejudice.

A copy of Judge Cohn's memorandum and order dated December 8,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/ytDOIWfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Steven L. Woodrow --
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC

Integrity Surveillance Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Integ Security
Solutions, Defendant, represented by:

     Jan J. Rubinstein, Esq.
     THE RUBINSTEIN LAW FIRM
     30150 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 444
     Bingham Farms, MI 48025
     Telephone: 248-220-1415
     Facsimile: 248-213-6394


L & R STRUCTURAL: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Alberto Torres and all others similarly situated v.
L & R Structural Corp., Inc., a/k/a L&R Structural, Inc.,
Hi-Rite Woods I Inc., Carlos Marquez, and David Sonck, Case No.
1:15-cv-24473-DPG (S.D. Fla., December 4, 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 a construction company located at
7102 SW 44th St, Miami, FL 33155.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


LEE ON GRILL: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Martinez and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v. Lee on Grill Inc. d/b/a Grill on Lee
and Bobby [Last Name Unknown], Case No. CV156897 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 4, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 196 Hewes
Street, Brooklyn, NY 11211.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


LEGACY PRESSURE: Faces "Guyton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Guyton and David Brown, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Legacy Pressure Control, Inc., Robert
D. Myrick, and Isha Myrick, Case No. 5:15-cv-01075 (W.D. Tex.,
December 6, 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 an oilfield services company that
operates in East Texas/North Louisiana, South Texas/West Texas,
and Ohio/West Virginia/Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Austin Kaplan, Esq.
      KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 540
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 553-9390
      Facsimile: (512) 692-2788
      E-mail: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com

         - and -

      Parker P. Polan, Esq.
      S.A. Hayden Briggle, Esq.
      BRIGGLE & POLAN, PLLC
      812 San Antonio St., Ste. 310
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 472-1926
      Facsimile: (512) 472-1174
      E-mail: parker@brigglepolan.com
              hayden@brigglepolan.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: LAPD Sued For Violating Protesters' Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winton, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
individuals arrested in Los Angeles while protesting the killing
of a black man in Ferguson, Mo., have filed a class-action lawsuit
accusing the city and police of violating their constitutional
rights.

The federal lawsuit alleges that in November 2014, the Los Angeles
Police Department surrounded several hundred protesters as they
marched downtown and in the Westlake district. Police then
arrested or detained and questioned dozens of individuals without
lawful dispersal orders, the suit says.

One of the protests occurred Nov. 26 at Sixth and Hope streets and
involved about 130 protesters. Two days later, about 40 protesters
were detained and questioned at Beverly and Alvarado streets, the
suit says. Other demonstrations also resulted in arrests and
detentions.

The suit, filed on behalf of protesters by the National Lawyers
Guild Los Angeles, alleges that police corralled, "detained,
interrogated" protesters and that the demonstrators were "forced
to give up personal information."

Protesters were told they were detained for blocking traffic,
according to the lawsuit.

The Los Angeles protests were among dozens around the country
after the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson,
Mo., and the subsequent decision by a grand jury not to indict the
white police officer involved. Most of those protests resulted in
few arrests. But more than 323 protesters were arrested over
several days in Los Angeles. Only about 9% of those arrested had
been charged, according to a Times review.

The class-action suit, which names police Chief Charlie Beck and
other high-ranking officers, alleges the LAPD gave dispersal
orders at one location, but arrested protesters at another
location who had not heard the order or warnings that they could
be arrested.

The suit accuses the LAPD of violating the 1st, 4th and 14th
Amendment rights of the protesters. Most of the plaintiffs,
according to the suit, were held for about 14 hours and not
allowed release on their own recognizance, which is typically
granted. Beck, however, eventually ordered their release because
of the Thanksgiving holiday.

Carol Sobel, a veteran civil rights lawyer and one the attorneys
who filed the suit, said the city and police have failed to
curtail alleged rights violations that have resulted in large
damage awards to plaintiffs involved in past protests.

Those settlements include a $5-million award to protesters
arrested during the 2000 Democratic National Convention, nearly
$13 million awarded to those arrested during a 2007 May Day
protest, and $2.45 million awarded to protesters arrested during
Occupy L.A. sit-ins in 2012.

"They don't learn from the mistakes of the past," Sobel said.

Sobel said that as part of the 2000 and 2007 settlements the LAPD
agreed to provide officers better training on the rights of
protesters, but has failed to do so. During the 2007 May Day
rally, officers swung batons and fired rubber bullets on a mostly
peaceful crowd, injuring 250 people.

An LAPD spokesman, Capt. Andrew Neiman, declined to comment on the
latest lawsuit, citing the ongoing litigation.

Police have previously defended their actions during the Ferguson-
related protests. The objective was to allow protesters to
exercise their 1st Amendment rights, but concerns over public
safety led to police action, said LAPD Capt. Jeff Bert, who
oversaw the on-the-ground response.

Bert said he delivered dispersal orders but acknowledged that the
chaotic circumstances posed challenges, particularly during the
first night of demonstrations.

On Nov. 26, protesters initially gathered outside the federal
courthouse in downtown Los Angeles but moved to 7th and Figueroa
streets, where police said they ordered the crowd to disperse.

But many protesters and others say they never heard such an order.
The lawsuit alleges that the crowd was allowed to move to 6th and
Hope streets where they and other demonstrators were detained.
Charmaine Chua, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said she asked to
leave and police refused. About 130 arrests were made, including
people there who were not protesting, the suit alleges.

Two nights later, protesters marched to 8th and Alvarado and about
40 protesters were penned by riot-clad officers. An order to
disperse was given about an hour later and protesters were
informed they would be individually questioned. Those protesters
weren't arrested, but they say they were handcuffed, searched,
videotaped and questioned about their identities before they were
allowed to leave.


MARTHA STEWART: Defending Class Actions Over Sequential Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, 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
since the announcement of the merger with Sequential Brands Group,
Inc., a number of putative stockholder class action lawsuits have
been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
alleging, among other things, that the members of the MSLO board
breached their fiduciary duties and that Sequential and its board
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
Company, Sequential and each of their respective directors believe
these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend them
vigorously.

On June 22, 2015, the Company and Sequential, a Delaware
corporation, entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant
to which Sequential would acquire 100% of the outstanding shares
of MSLO for aggregate consideration valued at $6.15 per share,
payable 50% in stock and 50% in cash (the "Merger"). Under the
terms of the Merger, each of Sequential and MSLO will merge with
and into subsidiaries of Singer Madeline Holdings, Inc., a newly
formed public holding company ("TopCo"). TopCo will continue as a
publicly traded company on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the
symbol "SQBG" and will be renamed "Sequential Brands Group, Inc."
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger, each share of Sequential
common stock will be converted into one share of TopCo common
stock. MSLO stockholders will be entitled to elect to receive
either (a) $6.15 in cash or (b) a number of shares of TopCo common
stock equal to $6.15 divided by the volume weighted average price
of Sequential common stock during the five-day period ending on
the trading day immediately prior to the closing of the Merger,
for each share of MSLO common stock held.

The cash and stock elections by MSLO stockholders will be subject
to proration in the event of oversubscription, although any
stockholder who elects 50% stock and 50% cash will not be subject
to proration. The transaction is subject to customary closing
conditions and approval by the holders of a majority of MSLO
outstanding common stock not owned directly or indirectly by
Martha Stewart or her affiliates.


MERCK: Settles Securities Class Action Suit for $830MM
------------------------------------------------------
Merck (NYSE: MRK) announced that it has reached an agreement with
plaintiffs to resolve In re Merck & Co., Inc. Securities
Litigation, a multi-district class action lawsuit pending in New
Jersey federal court. The settlement class consists of persons who
purchased Merck securities during the period from May 21, 1999,
through Oct. 29, 2004, inclusive, and who seek to recover damages
under the federal securities laws for certain Merck statements
regarding Vioxx.

Under the agreement, Merck will pay $830 million to resolve the
settlement class members' claims, plus an additional amount for
approved attorneys' fees and expenses. After available funds under
certain insurance policies, Merck's cash payment for the
settlement and fees will be approximately $680 million, for which
the company will record a charge in the fourth quarter of 2015,
which will be excluded from non-GAAP results. The agreement is
subject to court approval.

The settlement does not constitute any admission by Merck or any
of the individual defendants of any liability or wrongdoing.

Merck still faces previously disclosed individual securities
lawsuits related to Vioxx.

Judge Stanley R. Chesler is presiding over the case. Merck is
represented by Evan Chesler of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and Ted
Wells of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.


METLIFE INC: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in Westland Case
---------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 Plaintiffs have
filed a third amended complaint in the case, City of Westland
Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et al.
(S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012)

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that
MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and
executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of
1933 ("Securities Act"), as well as the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and
misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential
liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that
should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On September 11, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing all
claims under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and dismissing all
claims under the Securities Act except for those based on alleged
misrepresentations of mortality ratios.  A copy of the Court's
decision is available at http://is.gd/N323Dnfrom Leagle.com.

Following the court's September 11, 2015 order, the plaintiff
filed a third amended complaint that supplemented the factual
allegations of the second amended complaint. The defendants intend
to continue to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Must Face Birmingham Retirement System Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. must defend against the case, City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, filed July 5, 2012), after a
court tossed its motion to dismiss the complaint, MetLife 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.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife,
Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers
of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act related to the filing of the
registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On March 31, 2015, a federal court granted plaintiff's motion to
remand this action to state court. On October 14, 2015, the state
court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The
defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Must Defend Against "Owens" TCA Action
---------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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
continues to defend the case, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).

This putative class action lawsuit alleges that MLIC's use of the
total control accounts or TCA as the settlement option for life
insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies
violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks
disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by
members of the putative class. The court denied MLIC's motion to
dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to defend this action
vigorously.


METLIFE INC: "Robainas" Reinsurance Litigation Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
A New York court has dismissed the case, Robainas, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), MetLife,
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.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies").
Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both
of these actions were consolidated with the Robainas action.

The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately
disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain
reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies
were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the
adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under
Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty
in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies.

On October 9, 2015, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing because they did not allege any concrete injury as a
result of the alleged conduct.


METLIFE INC: Show Cause Order Issued in "Intoccia"
--------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 show cause order
has been issued in the case, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts
with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The court
consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y.,
April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case, and the consolidated,
amended complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its
statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions
with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using
"contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly
misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its
reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New
York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the
premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to
the Annuities.

On October 9, 2015, the court issued an order to show cause why
the Intoccia action should not be dismissed pursuant to the
reasoning in the court's order dismissing the Robainas case.


METLIFE INC: Settlement in "Fauley" TCPA Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 objectors have
taken an appeal from the order approving the settlement reached in
the case, Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al.
(Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill.,
July 3, 2014).

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants, including MLIC
and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging
that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to
plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec.  227. The court issued a final order certifying a
nationwide settlement class and approving a settlement under which
MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to
fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014. Objectors
to the settlement have appealed the approval order.


METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Case Pending in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015), remains
pending, MetLife, 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.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in
California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff
alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of
living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


MICHIGAN: Sued Over Flint Water Crisis
--------------------------------------
Click On Detroit reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against the state of Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder and the city
of Flint for what plaintiffs are calling negligence in the Flint
water crisis.

Plaintiffs Doris Collins, Robin Pleasant and Jason Phinisee claim
to have suffered injury from contaminated drinking water after the
state "connected to the Flint River in a cost-cutting move," the
lawsuit reads.

"Plaintiffs are currently still billed for the undrinkable water,"
the suit reads.

Gov. Rick Snyder, the state of Michigan, the city of Flint, former
Flint emergency financial manager Darnell Earley (who is the
current emergency manager for Detroit Public Schools), Howard
Croft and "all others similarly situated" are named as defendants.

Croft recently resigned from his position as Flint Public Works
director.

Attorney Brenda Williams is representing the plaintiffs.


MIRAKUYA JAPANESE: Faces "Han" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gen Wang Han, Individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. Mirakuya Japanese Restaurant Inc.
d/b/a Mirakuya Japanese Restaurant, Yun Jun Gao, "John Doe" and
"Jane Doe" # 1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-02339-RDM (M.D. Penn.,
December 6, 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 Mirakuya Japanese Restaurant at 700
W. Broad St., Hazleton, PA 18201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq., Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


NRRM LLC: Faces "Trumbell" Suit in Ill. Over Automated Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Trumbell, Kevin Amato, Craig Mehr, and Nick Davis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NRRM, LLC, d/b/a stoprepairbills.com, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
10923 (N.D. Ill., December 4, 2015) seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of using automatic dialing equipment and
robocalls to sell extended vehicle warranties.

NRRM, LLC is in the business of selling extended vehicle service
contracts and product warranties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
      BARDO LAW, P.C.
      One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2100
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 219-6980
      Facsimile: (312) 219-6981
      E-mail: stacy@bardolawpc.com

         - and -

      Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
      Steven A. Skalet, Esq.
      MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
      1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 822-5100
      Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
      E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com
              sskalet@findjustice.com

         - and -

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
      Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
      E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
              jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
              sstrauss@terrellmarshall.com


OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Sims" Suit Goes to Wash. D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sims v. United States of America,
Office of Personnel Management et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-13426, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01931-ABJ to the proceeding.

The United States Office of Personnel Management is an independent
agency of the United States government that manages the civil
service of the federal government. Key Point Government Solutions
provides specialized investigative and risk mitigation services to
the U.S. federal government organizations that span across the
civilian, defense, and intelligence sectors. The company is based
in Loveland, Colorado.


OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Hanagan" Moved to Wash. D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hanagan v. United States Office of
Personnel Management et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06045, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01933-ABJ to the proceeding.

The United States Office of Personnel Management is an independent
agency of the United States government that manages the civil
service of the federal government. Key Point Government Solutions
provides specialized investigative and risk mitigation services to
the U.S. federal government organizations that span across the
civilian, defense, and intelligence sectors. The company is based
in Loveland, Colorado.

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Kenneth Theis, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 883
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 305 7632
          Facsimile: (202) 616 8460
          E-mail: john.k.theis@usdoj.gov


PETERSBURG, VA: Police Officers Sue to Recover OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Bowes, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that more
than two dozen current and former Petersburg police officers have
filed a class-action lawsuit against the city seeking to recover
overtime wages that they claim have been routinely unpaid in
violation of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act and Virginia law.

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond, the 28
police officers and detectives of the 140-member department said
they and similar employees were regularly required to work in
excess of their regularly scheduled hours but were not receiving
compensation for all the extra time -- or at the required overtime
scale of 1-1/2% times their regular pay.

"Defendant's current pay plan is such that plaintiffs are
automatically paid for 80 hours in a 14-day cycle," the suit says.
"In order for plaintiffs to receive pay for any hours worked above
80, they must turn in a handwritten overtime slip. However, even
if plaintiffs turn in an overtime slip, they are not always paid
time and a half for all hours worked over 80 or 86 in a 14-day
period."

Further, the department has a policy or practice or paying a
straight rate for certain types of overtime, the suit says.

"For instance, plaintiffs regularly work past the end of their
regularly scheduled shift." the suit says. "These hours are
designated as 'end-of-shift' hours. Plaintiffs also regularly
spend time in training outside their regularly scheduled shift.
Upon information and belief, (the department) only pays a straight
rate for end-of-shift hours and training, regardless of whether
these hours are over 40 in a week, 80 in a 14-day period, or 86 in
a 14-day period."

Petersburg City Attorney Brian K. Telfair said the city was made
aware of the lawsuit on the morning of Jan. 14 and received a copy
of it about noon that day. "We're still in the process of
evaluating the complaint and as well as performing our initial
investigation," he said.

The suit comes at a difficult time for the department, which
already is under scrutiny for allegations of officer misconduct
and corruption.

Petersburg's chief prosecutor announced that she has asked
Virginia State Police to investigate city police issues that have
come to her attention. They include at least $13,356 in missing
cash from the department's evidence room and serious officer
misconduct allegations raised by the city's Public Defender's
Office.

The overtime lawsuit also alleges that the department's payroll
system is in disarray and the agency does not employ a dedicated
worker to administer its payroll. That function is currently
assigned to a secretary, the suit says.

"Defendant's pay records are nearly impossible to decipher and are
written in such a way that conceals the number of hours that
plaintiffs work and the number of hours plaintiffs are being
paid," the suit says. "The nature of these pay records prevent
plaintiffs from identifying any discrepancies in their pay."

The suit also claims the department fails to pay overtime
compensation for the week that it was earned. The department often
pays overtime on the next pay period or even several pay periods
after it is earned, the suit says.

"This further prevents plaintiffs from identifying discrepancies
in their pay," according to the suit.

The complaint says federal law requires the department to provide
overtime to its employees for all hours worked that exceed 86 in a
14-day period, assuming the department meets the law enforcement
exemption set by federal statute. If the department cannot claim
the exemption, officers are entitled to overtime pay for all hours
worked beyond 40 per week.

In addition, Virginia law was amended in 2005 to require law
enforcement agencies with more than 100 employees to pay overtime
compensation for the difference in the regularly scheduled
workweek and the federal maximum by law.

"The department has had knowledge of Virginia's law enforcement
overtime provisions, as local news media outlets have widely
reported on similar police officer lawsuits against, and
settlements paid by, the city of Richmond, Henrico County, the
city of Norfolk, the city of Hampton and other Virginia localities
with at least 100 law enforcement employees," the complaint says,
which provides a link to a 2011 Richmond Times-Dispatch story on
the issue.

The suit was filed on behalf of the officers by attorneys Craig J.
Curwood and Philip J. Dean of the Curwood Law Firm, and attorney
Ryan H. Ash of Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click. The suit seeks
to recover unpaid overtime pay, "liquidated damages" and
attorneys' fees.


PLANET FITNESS: "Truglio" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Truglio v. Planet Fitness, Inc. et
al., Case No. MON-L-15-03596, was removed from Superior Court of
New Jersey Monmouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-07959-FLW-LHG to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly violated the
Health Club Services Act, Consumer Fraud Act, and Truth-in
Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

Planet Fitness is an American franchise of fitness centers based
in Newington, New Hampshire. Each gym features exercise equipment
and fitness instructors to assist its members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 459 7971
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
                  jkj@legaljones.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Craig R. Tractenberg, Esq
          NIXON PEABODY, LLP
          437 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-7001
          Telephone: (212) 940 3722
          Facsimile: (212) 940 3111
          E-mail: ctractenberg@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          Louis A. Felicetta, Esq.
          CARLUCCIO, LEONE, DIMON, DOYLE & SACKS LLC
          9 Robbins Street
          Toms River, NJ 08753
          Telephone: (732) 797 1600
          E-mail: Elfelicetta@cldds.com

               - and -

          Craig R. Tractenberg, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          437 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-7039
          Telephone: (212) 940 3722
          Facsimile: (866) 852 2714
          Email: ctractenberg@nixonpeabody.com


POLLO OPERATIONS: Judge Reopens Case to Approve Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, granted an agreed upon motion to
reopen a class action lawsuit for purposes of approval of a class
settlement.

That case is, DAISY, INC., a Florida corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
Plaintiff, v. POLLO OPERATIONS, INC., EDWARD PRIORE and JOHN DOES
1-10, Defendants Case No. 2:14-cv-564-FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.)

Daisy, Inc. asked the court to enter an order reopening the case
for purposes of approval of the parties' class-wide settlement,
preliminarily approving the proposed class-wide settlement
agreement, approving the form of class notice, and authorizing the
distribution to the class, and setting dates for opt-outs,
objections, and a fairness hearing at which time final judgment
can be entered.

Judge Chappell granted plaintiff's motion and the case is reopened
for the express purpose of approving the parties class settlement
agreement and providing Opt-in Opt-out notice to class members.
The settlement agreement is preliminarily approved.

The court finds that the notice satisfies the requirements of due
process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The plan is approved and adopted.
The court orders that the parties provide the notice to the
settlement class as proposed in the settlement agreement. The
court approves the form of the notice and also approves The
Angeion Group as the settlement administrator.

The Court appoints plaintiff, Daisy, Inc. as the class
representative and appoints attorney Brian J. Wanca of Anderson +
Wanca as class counsel.

The Court set a final approval hearing for March 16, 2016, at
9:30am.

A copy of Judge Chappell's order dated December 3, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/TLeh7Hfrom Leagle.com.

Daisy, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good --
RGood@andersonwanca.com -- Brian J. Wanca --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Ryan M. Kelly --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- at Anderson & Wanca; Roy W. Foxall --
oxalldocs@comcast.net -- at Law Office of Roy W. Foxall

Pollo Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine A.
Miller -- catherine.miller@akerman.com -- Jason L. Margolin --
jason.margolin@akerman.com -- Jeffrey J. Mayer --
jeffrey.mayer@akerman.com -- at Akerman LLP; Marc H. Kallish --
mkallish@ralaw.com -- at Roetzel & Andress, LPA

Edward Priore, Defendant, Pro Se


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bouder" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. continues to defend the case, Bouder v.
PFI, in New Jersey, 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 30, 2015.

In February 2015, the federal District Court for New Jersey
granted in part, and denied in part, plaintiffs' renewed class
certification motion. It certified for class treatment plaintiffs'
wage payment claims which include allegations that the Company
made improper deductions from the wages of its former common law
agents in California, New York, and Pennsylvania, and its
financial services associates in California and New York. The
Court denied plaintiffs' attempt to certify a class based on the
Company's alleged failure to pay overtime to its former common law
agents and its financial services associates in California,
Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania.  In March 2015, the Company
filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its decision
to partially grant plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion
with regard to its former common law agents.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Sterling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 Plaintiffs'
class certification motion in the case, City of Sterling Heights
General Employees' Retirement System v. Prudential Financial,
Inc., et al., was granted in August 2015. In September 2015,
defendants filed a petition with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking permission to file an appeal
from the order certifying a class.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: LIBOR Suits Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 following an
August 2015 decision, granting in part defendants' motions to
dismiss, in September 2015, Prudential filed the following LIBOR
complaints:

     (1) in the Southern District of New York, captioned
Prudential Investment Portfolios 2 et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et
al. (the "New York Complaint"), naming as defendants Barclays Bank
PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays PLC, Citibank, N.A.,
Citigroup Funding Inc., Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG,
Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC
Holdings PLC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Royal Bank of Canada, and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC. These
defendants were dismissed from the original LIBOR action on
jurisdictional grounds. The New York Complaint reasserts the
causes of action brought in the original LIBOR action; and

     (2) in the Western District of North Carolina, captioned
Prudential Investment Portfolios 2 et al. v. Bank of America
Corporation et al. (the "North Carolina Complaint"), naming as
defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.
These defendants were dismissed from the original LIBOR action on
jurisdictional grounds. The North Carolina Complaint reasserts the
causes of action brought in the original LIBOR action.

Both the New York Complaint and the North Carolina Complaint have
been transferred for pre-trial purposes to the LIBOR multi-
district litigation presided over by Judge Buchwald in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The case is, Prudential Investment Portfolios 2, f/k/a Dryden Core
Investment Fund, o/b/o Prudential Core Short-Term Bond Fund and
Prudential Core Taxable Money Market Fund v. Bank of America
Corporation et al.


RIG POWER: Judge Narrows Plaintiffs' Claim in "Morgan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David Alan Ezra of the Western District of Texas,
Midland-Odessa Division, granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and notice to
potential opt-in plaintiffs in the case GARLAND MORGAN, RUBEN
RAMIREZ, JORGE PINEDO, DAVID DURON, and ALFELIO MARTINEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. RIG POWER, INC. and M3P ENERGY, LLC, Defendants,
No. 7:15-CV-73-DAE (W.D. Tex.)

Rig Power, Inc. is a Texas corporation that provides rental
equipment and services to companies in the oil and gas industry.
M3P Energy, LLC (M3P) is Rig Power's parent company.

Plaintiffs were employed by Rig Power and M3P as field technicians
to perform manual labor related to the transportation, operation,
and maintenance of oilfield equipment. On May 22, 2015, plaintiffs
filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq (FLSA).

Plaintiffs allege that they routinely worked more than 40 hours
per week and that defendants failed to compensate them at the
required overtime rate for such work. Plaintiffs specifically
allege that Rig Power paid a fixed amount for each day an employee
worked more than eight hours, regardless of how many additional
hours the employee worked on those days or how many additional
hours the employee worked in a given week.

Plaintiffs further allege that similarly situated field
technicians were also not paid overtime for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week. The purported class members also show that
they worked as field technicians at a variety of Rig Power field
offices such as in San Angelo, Texas, Midland, Texas, Wysox,
Pennslyvania, and Seguin, Texas. Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification and notice
to potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Judge Ezra granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification and notice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs. The conditional class is defined as:

     "Field Technicians who have worked for Rig Power within
     three years of the date of this Order."

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the notice to
the class and consent form, and to file with the court a proposed
agreed notice to the class and consent form for the court's
approval.

The defendants must produce, in a useable electronic format, the
names, last known addresses, and dates of employment of all
putative class members.

A copy of Judge Ezra's order dated December 10, 2015 is available
at http://goo.gl/QX8cKpfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Joshua C. Borsellino, Esq.
     BORSELLINO, P.C.
     1020 Macon St., Ste. 15
     Forth Worth, TX 76102
     Telephone: 817-908-7718
     Facsimile: 814-394-2412

Defendants, represented by:

     Lisa K. Hooper, Esq.
     Randall L. Rouse, Esq.
     LYNCH, CHAPPELL & ALSUP, P.C.
     The Reliance Building, Suite 700
     300 North Marienfeld
     Midland, TX 79701
     Telephone: 432-897-1697
     Facsimile: 432-683-2587


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Sued Over Refusal to End Fracking Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Greco, writing for Koco.com, reports that a New York-
based law firm announced it has filed a class-action petition
against four Oklahoma energy companies that they say have refused
to end fracking operations.

Weitz & Luxenberg, in partnership with Poynter Law Group, filed
the lawsuit against SandRidge Energy, New Dominion, Chesapeake
Energy and Devon Energy, according to a news release. The lawsuit
was filed in the District Court of Logan County after an increase
in the number and magnitude of earthquakes in Oklahoma.

"Despite compelling evidence, these companies continue to inject
wastewater into wells at an alarming rate, all the while knowing
that their activities are jeopardizing residents' homes and
livelihoods," said Robin Greenwald, head of Weitz & Luxenberg's
environmental, toxic tort and consumer protection litigation unit.
"They must compensate the many thousands of Oklahomans who not
only worry about the value of their homes but also their personal
safety should one of the earthquakes cause even greater harm,
including the loss of life.

"The state was rocked by two of the largest earthquakes seen in
recent years, which followed a series of smaller earthquakes in
the week prior.  This lawsuit seeks redress for the damage these
earthquakes and those before them have caused."

The suit claims the companies are liable to the plaintiffs and the
class for private nuisance, ultra-hazardous activities, negligence
and trespass in their actions, which the lawsuit says have led to
Oklahoma residents' harm and suffering.

"These companies have acted with reckless abandon in their
drilling practices and it is time they be held accountable for the
damage they have caused and continue to cause," said Curt
Marshall, an attorney in the firm's environmental, toxic tort and
consumer protection litigation unit.

Weitz & Luxenberg is asking the four Oklahoma energy companies to
strengthen structures that could be damaged or destroyed by large
earthquakes. The law firm also is looking to establish an
independent earthquake monitoring and prediction center to analyze
and predict the connection between increased seismic activity and
fracking, the news release said.


SCANA ENERGY: "Garrett" Suit Moved from Cobb Court to N.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Garrett v. Scana Energy Marketing,
Inc., Case No. 15A2478-4, was removed from the State Court of Cobb
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-03881-RWS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by initiating non-emergency
telephone calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to
cellular telephone numbers without the prior express consent of
the subscribers of those cellular telephone numbers.

SCANA Energy Marketing provides natural gas distribution and
contract services. It offers the procurement of natural gas,
capacity management, asset management, risk management, scheduling
and balancing, and alternate fuel analysis and sourcing services.
The company is based in Columbia, South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR AND FEAGLE, LLP
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373 1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601 1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barry Goheen, Esq.
          Nicholas G. Hill, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100


SHINY STAR: Recalls Wafer Stick Products Due to Egg
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Shiny Star Canada Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10163

  Brand name    Common name   Size   Code(s) on   UPC
  ----------    -----------   ----   product      ---
                                     ----------

  W. L. Foods   Barquillos-   480 g  All packages 4 806511 015603
  First Love    Fresh Milk           where eggs
                Wafer Sticks         are not
                                     declared on
                                     the label.
  W. L. Foods   Barquillos-   480 g  All packages 4 806511 010578
  First Love    Chocolate            where eggs
                Wafer Sticks         are not
                                     declared on
                                     the label.


SKI-DOO: Recalls Snowmobile 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Snowmobile
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 5408
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015545TC
ID number: 2015545

Certain snowmobiles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 1201 - Snowmobile Standards.
The rear side reflectors may fall off due to inadequate adhesion
to the structure. This could render the vehicle less visible to
other motorists during hours of darkness, possibly resulting in a
crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Correction:
Dealers will inspect and replace affected reflectors.

  Make        Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----      ----------------------
  SKI-DOO                2016, 2016


SOUTHERN COMPANY: Facing Suit Over AGL Resources Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
The Southern 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 30, 2015, that AGL Resources and
each member of the AGL Resources board of directors have been
named as defendants in four purported shareholder class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia in September and October 2015. These
actions were filed on behalf of named plaintiffs and other AGL
Resources shareholders challenging the Merger and seeking, among
other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
enjoining the merger with Southern Company, and, in certain
circumstances, damages.

Southern Company and Merger Sub were also named as defendants in
two of these lawsuits. Southern Company intends to vigorously
defend these suits. Southern Company does not believe these suits
will impact the completion of the Merger, and they are not
expected to have a material impact on Southern Company's financial
statements. However, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot
be determined at this time.


STARCRAFT: Recalls Travel Trailer 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 13
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015540TC
ID number: 2015540

On certain travel trailers, the tires may have inadequate
clearance with the wheel wells. Inadequate clearance between the
wheel and wheel well may cause premature tire wear or possible
tire failure, which could lead to a crash, resulting in injury
and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the
hanger brackets on the frame with a new tube and bracket assembly.

  Make        Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----      ----------------------
  STARCRAFT              2016


STARCRAFT: Recalls AR-One Trailer 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 104
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015544TC
ID number: 2015544

On certain travel trailers, the labels on the breaker box and 12
volt fuse panel may be incorrect. Incorrect labels may create a
possibility of electrical shock hazard when working on the travel
trailer, which could result in injury. Correction: Labels will be
sent to current owners instructing them to replace the incorrect
label on the breaker box and 12 volt fuse panel.

  Make        Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----      ----------------------
  STARCRAFT   AR-ONE     2016, 2016, 2016, 2016


STARCRAFT: Recalls Travel Trailer 2016 Model Due to Fall Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 81
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015547TC
ID number: 2015547

On certain travel trailers equipped with a "Happy Jack" bed, the
brackets for the bed may have been incorrectly positioned. This
could cause the bed to lift up too far, which could damage the
bed's brackets and motor. This could result in the brackets
potentially breaking, and allowing the bed to possibly fall onto
an occupant that may be under it, increasing the risk of injury.
Correction: Dealers will reposition the bed's brackets to ensure
that it will not lift up too far.

  Make        Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----      ----------------------
  STARCRAFT              2016


STARS TRADING: Recalls White Pepper Powder Due to Gluten
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Stars Trading Co. Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10164

                                   Code(s) on
  Brand name  Common name   Size   product       UPC
  ----------  -----------   ----   ----------    ---
  Wu Hsing    White Pepper   42 g   23.03.2017   4 710868 801010
              Powder


SUBARU: Recalls Legacy and Outback 2016 Models Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Powertrain
Units affected: 185
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015555TC
ID number: 2015555
Manufacturer recall number: WQV-57

On certain vehicles, the nuts securing the propeller shaft to the
rear differential may have not been tightened to specification
during assembly and could loosen over time. This could cause the
propeller shaft to come loose from the rear differential, which
would result in excessive noise and may contact and eventually
damage the fuel tank, which may result in a fuel leak. Fuel
leakage, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a
fire causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers
will inspect the nuts fastening the propeller shaft to the rear
differential and tighten or replace the nuts and bolts as
necessary.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  SUBARU    LEGACY     2016
  SUBARU    OUTBACK    2016


SYNTHES USA: Recalls Distal Radius Plate Systems Locking Screw
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 20, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56194

It was discovered that part number (212.818) and lot 7856527 of
2.4mm locking screws may contain the incorrect package insert
(GP2613, VA-LCP distal radius system). The correct package insert
for the above part is GP2615 (Modular Mini Fragment LCP system).

Affected products: DISTAL RADIUS PLATE SYSTEM - LOCKING SCREW SELF
TAPPING W/STARDRIVE
Lot or serial number: 7856527
Model or catalog number: 212.818

Manufacturer: Synthes USA LLC
              1101 SYNTHES AVENUE
              Monument
              80132
              Colorado
              UNITED STATES


TEMPUR SEALY: "Benning" Suit Now Closed
---------------------------------------
Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc.,
Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012, has
been resolved in the Company's favor after the Plaintiff declined
to seek Supreme Court review of a dismissal order, Tempur Sealy
International, 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.

On June 20 and 25, 2012, the suits were filed against the Company
and two named executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly on behalf
of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased the Company's
stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The complaints
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements
and concealment of material information concerning the Company's
competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per diluted
share and related financial performance for the Company's 2012
fiscal year. The plaintiffs sought damages, interest, costs,
attorney's fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive
relief.

On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and
on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On
March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss with prejudice the consolidated complaint. The
Court issued its memorandum of opinion and entered final judgment
on May 23, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
("Appeals Court"). Following oral argument, the Appeals Court
issued an order on June 4, 2015, ruling in favor of the Company.
The Plaintiff had until September 2, 2015 to file a petition
seeking review by the United States Supreme Court. The Plaintiff
did not file for review, therefore this matter has now been
resolved in the Company's favor.


TEMPUR SEALY: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Todd" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
A third amended complaint has been filed in the case, Alvin Todd,
and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy
International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International,
Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants.

On October 25, 2013, the suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec.  1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the
first time in the case but with an amended petition adding
additional class representatives for additional states. The
purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable
state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The
Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously.

In an August 26, 2015 Order, District Judge Jon S. Tigar for the
Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file their proposed Third Amended Complaint.  The TAC:

     (1) adds a nationwide class claim for unjust enrichment,
         applying Kentucky law;

     (2) adds new factual allegations based on information
         learned during discovery;

     (3) removes two claims based on North Carolina law; and

     (4) removes the names and details of Plaintiffs who no
         longer wish to pursue this litigation and have been
         dismissed.

Defendants' deadline for filing their opposition to Plaintiffs'
class certification motion was September 3, 2015, and the hearing
was scheduled for November 19, 2015.

A copy of the Aug. 26 Order is available at http://is.gd/S4lRpJ
from Leagle.com.

"The Court was scheduled to consider class certification motions
in the fourth quarter of 2015 and the outcome is uncertain,"
Tempur Sealy 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.

"As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this
litigation, or whether the Company's applicable insurance policies
will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly,
the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations," Tempur said.


TESLA: Recalls Model S Vehicles Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 3911
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015553TC
ID number: 2015553

On certain vehicles, the driver and front passenger seatbelt
anchor plate may not have been properly bolted to the pretensioner
anchor plate during assembly. In the event of a crash, the
seatbelt may be unable to provide sufficient restraint force,
which could increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant.
Correction: Tesla Service Technicians at authorized locations will
inspect and affect repairs as necessary.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  TESLA      MODEL S     2012, 2013, 2014, 2015


TOLO TOYS: Recalls Twist and Turn Rattles Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 20, 2015
Posting date: November 20, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55914

This recall involves the Twist and Turn Rattle.  This rattle is 13
centimeters long.  It is composed of six connected rotating
sections which can change the shape of the rattle.  In some
sections, there are small balls which create a sound when the toy
is shaken. This toy is intended for children under 3 years of age.

The product is sold in a cardboard box with a transparent window.
The model number is 86445 and the UPC is 019287864455.

The rattle can break and release small parts, posing a choking
hazard to young children.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product in Canada. Tolo
Toys has received one incident report of the rattle breaking. No
injury was reported.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

Approximately 24 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled product was sold from January 2015 to May 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Tolo Toys
              Kowloon, Hong Kong
              CHINA


UNFI CANADA: Recalls Cheese Ravioli Products Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: UNFI Canada, Inc.
Distribution: New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10169

                                     Code(s) on
  Brand name   Common name    Size   product         UPC
  ----------   -----------    ----   ----------      ---
  Conte's      Gluten Free    340 g   Use By Date:   7 341589-
               Cheese Ravioli         021117         94445 8
               with Marinara
               Sauce


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Settlement in "Moore" Case Has Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement in the case ALEXANDER MOORE,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. URBAN OUTFITTERS WHOLESALE,
INC., D/B/A ANTHROPOLOGIE, a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:13-cv-02245-JSW,
Related Case No. 13-cv-02628-JSW, No. 14-cv-00024-JSW., 14-cv-
01580-JSW, 14-002601-JSW (N.D. Cal.)

Judge White conducted a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement on December 4,
2015.

Judge White said the settlement class shall be conditionally
certified for settlement purposes only and shall consist of all
persons who were employed at Anthropologie stores in California as
hourly managers or hourly supervisors (i.e., Operations
Supervisors, Selling Supervisors, or Managers in Training) at any
time during the period from April 10, 2009 to the date of
preliminary approval.

The court approved, as to form and content, the proposed notice of
class action settlement. The court directed the mailing, by first-
class U.S. mail, of the class notice to class members in
accordance with the schedule and the other procedures described in
the settlement agreement. The court said the method selected for
communicating the preliminary approval of the settlement agreement
to class members is the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, constitutes due and sufficient notice to all
persons entitled to notice, and thereby satisfies due process.

Named plaintiffs Alexander Moore and Charlotte Whitmore are
appointed class representatives for the settlement class; the
court appointed Capstone Law APC as class counsel. The court
approves and appoints Simpluris, Inc. as the settlement
administrator.

The court will hold a hearing on March 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., to
consider final approval of the class action settlement and motion
for attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative enhancement
payments.

A copy of Judge White's order dated December 2, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/2yafeBfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Arnab Banerjee at Initiative Legal
Group APC; Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Suzy E Lee --
Suzy.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC

Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cheryl
D. Orr -- Cheryl.Orr@dbr.com -- Jaime Danielle Walter --
Jaime.Walter@dbr.com -- Thomas J Barton -- Thomas.Barton@dbr.com -
- William Robert Horwitz -- William.Horwitz@dbr.com -- at Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Status Conference Set for March 3
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed off on a Joint Stipulation
and Order settling schedules in the securities class action
against Vocera Communications, Inc.  The stipulation is entered
into by and among Lead Plaintiffs Baltimore County Employees'
Retirement System and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System; and
defendants Vocera Communications, Inc., Robert J. Zollars, Brent
D. Lang and William R. Zerella.

The Court previously entered orders: (1) setting a deadline for a
CMC statement to be filed by January 21, 2016; (2) scheduling a
status conference for January 28, 2016; and (3) setting a deadline
for Lead Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement to be filed by December 7, 2015.

In the interest of judicial efficiency, the parties jointly
request that the Court issue an order adopting the following
revised schedule in connection with the formal documentation of
the settlement and pending submission of the motion for
preliminary approval:

     1. The deadline for submission of the CMC statement on
        January 21, 2016 is reset for February 25, 2016.

     2. The status conference is reset for March 3, 2016 at
        10:30 a.m.

     3. Lead Plaintiffs will submit a motion for preliminary
        approval of the settlement on or before January 15, 2016.

Background on the lawsuit is discussed in Vocera's Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On August 1 and 21, 2013, two putative securities class action
suits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its officers, its board of directors, a former director and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering.  On
November 20, 2013, the court consolidated the actions as In re
Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed
Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint on September 19, 2014.

The consolidated complaint names certain current and former
officers and directors and the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering and secondary offering and alleges claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly
false and materially misleading statements and omissions in the
registration statement for the Company's initial public offering
and secondary offering and in communications regarding its
business and financial results. The suit is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between March 28,
2012 and May 2, 2013, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission,
fees and costs, as well as other relief.  On November 3, 2014,
Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On
February 11, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Securities Act claims, but denied the motion as to the
Exchange Act claims, allowing the matter to proceed on that basis.
On April 27, 2015, Defendants filed answers to the consolidated
complaint.

In connection with a mediation, an agreement in principle to
settle the suit was reached in October 2015. The settlement, which
is subject to the parties' execution of final settlement documents
and the approval of the Court, calls for payment of $9 million,
which will be funded entirely by the Company's insurance carriers.

A copy of the Dec. 7 Stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/9d4HA2from Leagle.com.


VOLKSWAGEN: Casper Law Firm Sues Over "Defeat Devices"
------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Schrock, writing for Star Tribune, reports that a Casper
law firm filed a federal class action lawsuit against Volkswagen
on behalf of Wyomingites who bought cars installed with software
designed to cheat emission tests.

The German automobile manufacturer admitted last 2015 to
installing "defeat devices" in its vehicles to evade clean air
standards.

The suit, filed by attorney Jason Ochs, contends Volkswagen
deceived its customers by requiring them to pay high prices for
vehicles marketed as "clean, fuel efficient and powerful,"
according to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of
Wyoming. In fact, the cars emitted up to 40 times the amount of
nitrogen oxide allowed under United States law. The devices were
installed in VW cars dating back to 2009.

Ochs filed the suit on behalf of Casper resident Ron Weiss, who
purchased in 2013 a Volkswagen Jetta from Fremont Volkswagen in
Casper. Weiss bought the diesel version of the Jetta specifically
for the lower emissions marketed by VW, according to the lawsuit.
A defeat device was installed in the car.

"People thought they were buying clean diesel vehicles that would
be efficient and not only safe for the environment, but also safe
for their health," Ochs said during a phone interview. "In order
for Wyomingites to seek their day in court, there needed to be
someone and some firm to step up and represent them. My firm is
honored to represent Wyomingites all over the state, any of whom
have been victims of these corporate decisions."

Ochs said Weiss reached out to his firm for legal assistance.
Weiss was unavailable for comment.

Had Weiss known about the defeat devices before purchasing his
Jetta, he would never have bought the car, Ochs said.

Nitrogen oxide pollutants have been linked to respiratory- and
cardiovascular-related illnesses, the lawsuit contends.

A phone call to Mario Guerreiro, executive vice president of group
communications for Volkswagen of America, went unreturned.

Officials became aware of Volkswagen's actions after a clean air
group tested the emission levels of certain diesel cars. The
International Council for Clean Transportation found in 2014 that
the levels of nitrogen oxide emissions by Volkswagen's diesel
models were significantly higher than permitted by federal
regulations, according to the lawsuit.

The group notified the Environmental Protection Agency of its
findings. The California Air and Resources Board commenced an
investigation into the reasons for the elevated emissions.
Meanwhile, Volkswagen asserted the higher emissions were related
to technical issues, and issued a recall of the cars.

In May 2015, testing to determine the effectiveness of the recall
found that nitrogen oxide emissions were still significantly
higher than they should be. Eventually, Volkswagen admitted to
installing the defeat devices.

The lawsuit claims Volkswagen knew the devices were meant to
bypass emission standards. This is because, during federal tests,
the emission control system operated at its highest levels, but it
operated at lower levels when the car was not undergoing official
testing.

The EPA has ordered Volkswagen to recall nearly 500,000 cars with
the defeat devices and modify them so they comply with emission
requirements.

The lawsuit requests a judge order Volkswagen to buy back the cars
purchased by Wyomingites that contain the defeat devices, or
institute a free replacement program for the cars, or remove the
defeat devices and ensure the cars comply with emission standards
while also retaining their promised fuel efficiency and drive
performance.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in San Francisco has been
tasked with overseeing consumer lawsuits filed throughout the
country against Volkswagen.

Ochs said if his case were to go to trial, it would be tried in in
front of a Wyoming jury.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shipley" Suit Sent to E.D. Arkansas Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Shipley et al. v. Landers Auto
Group LLC et al., Case No. 60CV-15-04551, was removed from the
Pulaski County Circuit Court, Arkansas Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00696-JLH to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly sold
Defective Device Vehicles, which were promoted and advertised as
Clean Diesel vehicles.

Landers Auto was founded in 2001 headquartered in Benton,
Arkansas. The company's line of business includes the retail sale
of new and used automobiles.  Volkswagen Group of America designs,
manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and
internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of
Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allison Koile, Esq.
          Maryna Jackson, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  maryna@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gail Ponder Gaines, Esq.
          Mark Evan Stallings, Esq.
          Michael E. Hale, Esq.
          BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone (501) 372 6175
          Facsimile: (501) 375 2802
          E-mail: ggaines@barberlawfirm.com
                  estallings@barberlawfirm.com
                  mhale@barberlawfirm.com


WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Indoor Mini Light Sets
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 19, 2015
Posting date: November 19, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55902

This recall involves the Holiday Time 100 count Indoor Mini Light
Set seasonal lights.  The affected product has a length of
approximately 6.7 meters (22 feet), has clear bulbs and a green
wire.  The recalled product has model number HPCA100B/2S,
manufacturing date 07/2014, CSA file number 241989 and UPC
628915113020.  Consumers can find the model number, manufacturing
date and CSA file number on the white tag affixed to the wire and
the UPC on the back of the product's packaging.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the seasonal lights may pose an overheating and fire hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Wal-Mart Canada Corp. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these products.

Approximately 104,588 units of the seasonal lights were sold at
Walmart Canada retail stores across Canada.

The recalled products were sold from October 2014 to October 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
          Mississauga
          Ontario
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co. Ltd.
              Zhejiang
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal
lights and return them to a Walmart Canada retail store for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact Wal-Mart Canada Corp. customer
service toll-free at 1-800-328-0402 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
EST, Monday through Friday.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

For the complete list of recalls posted as a result of this
sampling and evaluation project, visit the Consumer Product Update
on seasonal lights.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/c1iWSQ


WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls LED Light Sets Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 19, 2015
Posting date: November 19, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55906

This recall involves the Holiday Time Multi-Colour 100 LED C6
Light Set of 100 seasonal lights.  The affected product has a
length of approximately 7.46 meters (24.5 feet), has multi-
coloured bulbs and a green wire.  The recalled product has model
number HPCAL100WCX/2S, manufacturing date 06/2015, CSA file number
241989 and UPC 628915150667.  Consumers can find the model number,
manufacturing date and CSA file number on the white tag affixed to
the wire and the UPC on the back of the product's packaging.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the seasonal lights may pose an overheating and fire hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Wal-Mart Canada Corp. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these products.

Approximately 750 units of the seasonal lights were sold at
Walmart Canada retail stores across Canada.

The recalled products were sold from September 2015 to November
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
          Mississauga
          Ontario
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co. Ltd.
              Zhejiang
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal
lights and return them to a Walmart Canada retail store for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact Wal-Mart Canada Corp. customer
service toll-free at 1-800-328-0402 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
EST, Monday through Friday.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

For the complete list of recalls posted as a result of this
sampling and evaluation project, visit the Consumer Product Update
on seasonal lights.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/04njqC


WARNER CHILCOTT: Defending 209 Actonel(R) Injury Cases
------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 209
cases and a potential defendant with respect to approximately 385
unfiled claims involving a total of approximately 602 plaintiffs
and potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's
bisphosphonate prescription drug Actonel(R). The claimants allege,
among other things, that Actonel(R) caused them to suffer
osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition
that involves severe loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or
atypical fractures of the femur ("AFF"). All of the cases have
been filed in either federal or state courts in the United States.
Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of discovery in these
litigations.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Facing 4 Class Suits Related to Actonel(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that Warner Chilcott is aware of four purported product
liability class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott
in provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that
Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members
who ingested Actonel(R) to suffer atypical fractures or other side
effects. It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class
certification.

Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified monetary and
injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner Chilcott is
indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel claims pursuant to a
collaboration agreement relating to the two parties' co-promotion
of the product in the United States and other countries.

Warner Chilcott is partially indemnified by the Proctor & Gamble
Company ("P&G") for ONJ claims that were pending at the time
Warner Chilcott acquired P&G's global pharmaceutical business in
October 2009. In May and September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered
into two settlement agreements which resolved a majority of the
then-existing ONJ-related claims which are subject to the
acceptance by the individual respective claimants.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Warner
Chilcott maintains product liability insurance against such cases.
However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


WHOLESOME HARVEST: Recalls Bread Products Due to Spoilage
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Wholesome Harvest Baking Inc.
Distribution: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec,
Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10147

  Brand name   Common       Size     Code(s) on     UPC
  ----------   name         ----     product        ---
               ------                ----------
  Wholesome    White        9.6 kg   Best Before    00 64342-
  Harvest      Baguette              June 6, 7,     21501 0
  Baking                             12 and 13,
                                     2016
  Wholesome    White        7.9 kg   Best Before    1 00 56884-
  Harvest      Baguette              June 6, 7,     31022 0
  Baking                             12 and 13,
                                     2016
  Wholesome    Par Baked    7.9 kg   Best Before    1 00 56884-
  Harvest      Baguette              June 6, 7,     31023 7
  Baking       - Multigrain          12 and 13,
                                     2016
  Wholesome    Par Baked    7.9 kg   Best Before    1 00 56884-
  Harvest      Batard                June 11, 2016  31110 4
  Baking       - White
  Wholesome    Par Baked    6.8 kg   Best Before    1 00 56884-
  Harvest                            June 11, 2016  32745 7
  Baking
  Wholesome    Cara         9 kg     Best Before    1 00 56884
  Harvest      Multigrain            June 11, 2016
  Baking       Dinner Roll
  Wholesome    Cara         7.9 kg   Best Before    1 00 56884-
  Harvest      White Dinner          June 6, 7,     32744 0
  Baking       Roll                  12 and 13,
                                     2016
  Wholesome    Maison       8.6 kg   Best Before    0 00 64342-
  Harvest      Cousin                June 7, 8,     21506 5
  Baking       White                 14, 15 and
               French                16, 2016
               Bread
  Wholesome    66% Whole    9.6 kg   Best Before    0 00 64342-
  Harvest      Wheat                 June 12, 2016  21502 7
  Baking       Baguette
  Wholesome    Baguettine   7.3 kg   Best Before    0 00 64342-
  Harvest                            June 12, 2016  21515 7
  Baking


WILLIS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Troice" Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company has sought dismissal
of the "Troice" class action lawsuit in Texas, 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 30, 2015.

Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-
CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings
plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among
others.

On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative,
worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a
defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that
the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').

On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N. On August 31, 2011, the court
issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with
prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision and (ii) dismissing without prejudice
those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint
on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court
entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of
briefing and oral argument.

Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March
19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On
April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for
rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing
en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed
a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January
18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted our petition. Opening briefs
were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral
argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme
Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision.

On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court "so ordered" that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting
a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in
further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation
also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on
June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the
motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The
motion was scheduled to be fully briefed as of November 19, 2015.


WILLIS GROUP: Rupert v. Winter Pending in Texas Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company still faces the case,
Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., 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 30,
2015.  The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in
Rupert, the report said.

Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed
on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same
Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar
County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of
1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and
seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300
million, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas.

On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state
court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of
the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September
16, 2014.

On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated
the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et
al. action, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of
March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held
on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint
in Rupert.


WILLIS GROUP: Plaintiffs Did Not Oppose Bid to Dismiss "Casanova"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion to dismiss the case,
Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis Group
Holdings Public Limited 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 30, 2015.

Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven
Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for
Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal
of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in
the Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action discussed
below. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis
Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action.
On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.


WILLIS GROUP: Defending Rishmague v. Winter Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company still faces the
lawsuit captioned as, Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, 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 30, 2015.  The defendants have not yet responded
to the complaint in Rishmague, the report said.

Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was
filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of
Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it
is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined
with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift
the court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the
court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but
stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the
stay to the Fifth Circuit.

On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with
the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was
fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the
consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September
16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in Rishmague.


WILLIS GROUP: Still Faces MacArthur v. Winter Action
----------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company continues to face the
case, MacArthur v. Winter, according to its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The defendants
have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on
February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately
$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the
Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a
determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred
to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the
Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties
stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County))
and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in
accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in
Rishmague), which stipulation was "so ordered" by the court on
October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaint in MacArthur.


WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond in Ranni and Barbar
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited 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 30,
2015, that defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in
Ranni or Barbar in Florida.

On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis
Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in
Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging violations of
Florida common law. The five suits are:

     (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
         Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf
         of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages
         in excess of $30 million;

     (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
         Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed
         on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory
         damages in excess of $83.5 million;

     (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
         Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf
         of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages
         in excess of $3 million;

     (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
         Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed
         on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory
         damages in excess of $6.5 million; and

     (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
         Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf
         of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages
         in excess of $12.5 million.

On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases
to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified
the JPML of the pendency of these related actions.

On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua
sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a
determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred
to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other
four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20,
2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the
transfer of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas,
the transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for
any opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition
having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer
to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court.

On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015
and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.

|We believe the dismissals were in error and that appeals are
likely to be reinstated," the Company said.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in
its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21,
2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21
days. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among
other things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant).

On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints. The motions were scheduled to be fully briefed
as of November 3, 2015. The defendants have not yet responded to
the complaints in Ranni or Barbar.


WILLIS GROUP: "Janvey" Action Remains Pending in N.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------
Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., remains pending,
according to Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company's Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-
CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 in the Northern District
of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis
North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his
capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership
Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC')
against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide
class of Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc.

Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common
law and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the
putative class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and
common law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1
billion, punitive damages and costs.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended
Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with
Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions were granted in
part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On
December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order.

On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended
Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion
to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory
appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court
granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent necessary,
reconsider the December 5 order

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court "so ordered" that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015.

By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the
court consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and
Janvey to provide for a class certification submission date of
April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered
an order consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey,
providing for a class certification submission date of April 20,
2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class
certification submission date in the original Janvey scheduling
order.


WILLIS GROUP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Merger Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited 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 30,
2015, that five putative class action complaints challenging the
merger with Towers Watson were filed in the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware, captioned New Jersey Building Laborers'
Statewide Annuity Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No.
11270-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), Stein v. Towers Watson & Co., et
al., C.A. No. 11271-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), City of Atlanta
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 11275-CB
(filed on July 10, 2015), Cordell v. Haley, et al., C.A. No.
11358-CB (filed on July 31, 2015), and Mills v. Towers Watson &
Co., et al., C.A. No. 11423-CB (filed on August 24, 2015). The
Stein action was voluntarily dismissed on July 28, 2015.

The complaints were filed by purported stockholders of Towers
Watson on behalf of a putative class comprised of all Towers
Watson stockholders and name as defendants Towers Watson, the
members of its board of directors, Willis and Merger Sub. (The
various named defendants, to the extent they are stockholders of
Towers Watson, are excluded from the putative class.)

The complaints generally allege that Towers Watson's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Towers Watson stockholders by
agreeing to merge Towers Watson with Willis through an inadequate
and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair
consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices,
and that Willis and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. The complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the
Merger.

On August 17, 2015, the court consolidated the first three filed
actions (the fourth, Mills, had not yet been filed) and any other
actions then pending or thereafter filed arising out of the same
issues of fact under the caption In re Towers Watson & Co.
Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11270-CB. Pursuant
to the court's consolidation order, the plaintiffs in the first
three filed actions were to designate one of their three
complaints as the operative complaint or file a consolidated
amended complaint, after which the parties would negotiate a
schedule for the defendants to respond.

On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a verified consolidated amended complaint, which, among
other things, added claims for alleged misstatements and omissions
in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed initially on August
27, 2015 in connection with the Merger. On September 17, 2015,
they filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for a
preliminary injunction, which motions they voluntarily withdrew on
October 19, 2015. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaint in the consolidated action.


WYNN LAS VEGAS: "May" Suit Goes to Nevada Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled May et al. v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC,
Case No. A157261, was removed from Eighth Judicial District Court,
Clark County, Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada (Las Vegas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-02142 to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada
law.

Wynn Las Vegas develops, owns, and operates destination casino
resorts. It operates Wynn Las Vegas/Encore, an integrated
destination casino resort on the 'Strip' in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leon Greenberg, Esq.
          A POROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          2965 S. Jones Blvd., Suite E-3
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 383 6085

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott M. Abbott, Esq.
          Jen J. Sarafina, Esq
          Kaitlin H. Ziegler, Esq.
          KAMER ZUCKER & ABBOTT
          3000 West Charleston Blvd.
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Telephone: (702) 259 8640
          Facsimile: (702) 259 8646
          E-mail: sabbott@kzalaw.com
                  jsarafina@kzalaw.com
                  kziegler@kzalaw.com


YAHOO INC: Settles Class Suit Over Scanning Email
-------------------------------------------------
Lisa Vaas, writing for Nakes Security, reports that Yahoo has
settled a class action lawsuit over automatically scanning email
sent by non-Yahoo Mail customers -- including attachments --
without consent, in order to deliver targeted ads to Mail users.

The upshot: Yahoo's going to keep scanning email, but it's
tweaking the timing so that it scans only after the email has
reached a user's inbox.

Outgoing messages will also still continue to be scanned, but only
after they show up in the sent folder.

The settlement, first spotted by The Recorder, doesn't include
payouts to class members, given that the plaintiffs had earlier in
the case dropped demands for statutory damages.

The plaintiffs do plan to seek a $5,000 service award for each of
the four class representatives, according to The Recorder, and the
lawyers plan to ask for up to $4 million in fees and costs.

The class action lawsuit, which tied together six lawsuits filed
in 2013, was given the go-ahead by a US District judge in May
2015.

In the settlement posted by Ars Technica, Yahoo agreed that e-mail
content will be "only sent to servers for analysis for advertising
purposes after a Yahoo Mail user can access the email in his or
her inbox."

As far as the plaintiffs are concerned, this will bring Yahoo in
line with the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

That law was enacted to prohibit wiretapping of any conversation
if there's a reasonable expectation that it's not being overheard
or recorded.

The plaintiffs had also argued that Yahoo violated the Stored
Communications Act (SCA) when it tested Google's AdSense for Mail
in 2013, as well as the federal Wiretap Act.

The SCA addresses voluntary and compelled disclosure of "stored
wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held
by third-party internet service providers (ISPs).

Yahoo, which wasn't found guilty of acting unlawfully, has argued
that plaintiffs failed to show lack of consent.

The judge found that Yahoo's terms of service agreement explicitly
acknowledged Yahoo's scanning, fulfilling the Wiretap Act's
requirement that at least one party consent to interception of
communications.

The settlement refers to Yahoo's changes to system architecture
and website -- i.e. that email will be scanned only after it hits
an inbox or outbox -- as "significant structural changes."

These changes have everything to do with getting square with the
laws' restrictions on intercepting email while in transit.

But those changes, which also include tweaks to its privacy
statement and other online verbiage, don't appear to usher in any
changes to the actual privacy implications of Yahoo's habit of
scanning email.

Thus, it's unclear how the settlement will satisfy the plaintiffs,
privacy-wise.

Ars Technica points to a redacted September filing (PDF) in which
the lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote that Yahoo's "invasion of the
privacy of class members constitutes an irreparable injury."

Plaintiffs at the time were seeking an injunction that would force
Yahoo to stop its scanning without having first secured "consent"
and that would require the company to "permanently delete all
information it has collected and stored from class members' email
without their consent."

The plaintiffs have in the past argued that Yahoo could stop
scanning email in order to target ads if it wanted to, while still
scanning for spam and other abuse.

Ars's Joe Mullen questions why the class action lawyers are
celebrating a settlement that "will change none of those
practices. In fact, it explicitly authorizes them."

The reaction of many has been to look to the $4 million those
lawyers will be seeking and to wonder whether the actual wronged
parties -- non-Yahoo users whose emails were scanned -- should
have gotten a payout.

But as other internet commenters are pointing out, a class action
lawsuit such as this one is more about righting a wrong than
scoring a jackpot that's divisible by the number of parties.


ZANIMO INC: Recalls Oculex Soin des Yeux Products
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 19, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Veterinary Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56080

Product sold without a valid market authorisation (DIN)

Depth of distribution: Retailers and pet stores - Quebec and
Ontario

Affected products: Oculex Soin des Yeux
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
N/A
Dosage form: Eye drops
Strength: Eyebright 100 mg/mL
          Cornflower water 50 mg/mL
          Rose water 5 mg/mL
          Witch-hazel 1 mg/mL
Lot or serial number: 4I070
                      5F011

Recalling Firm: Zanimo Inc.
                231 chemin du Marais
                St-Adolphe-d'Howard
                J0T 2B0
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder Not Applicable


                            *********

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  * * *