CAR_Public/160120.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 20, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 13


                            Headlines


AMERICAN FURNITURE: "Abusiam" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AMERICAN HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Late Fees
AMSHER COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Aharonov" Suit Says
ANIMAL BEHAVIOR: Faces "Barahona" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ANTHEM INC: "Mertlich" Suit Goes from W.D. Wash. to N.D Calif.

ASAADA CORP: "Herrera" Labor Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
AUTO CLUB SOUTH: "Rothstein" Goes from S.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y.
BANK OF AMERICA: April 15 CDS Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BANK OF AMERICA: "Belevich" Suit from Superior Court to C.D. Cal.
BECERRA ENTERPRISES: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims

BIG TOP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Pizano" Suit Claims
BONSAI 2013: Faces "Sun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BP PLC: February 8 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
CANADA: B.C. Faces Class Action Over Sawmill Explosions
CANADA: Nova Scotia AG Faces Class Action Over Deaf School Abuse

CAPITAL FINANCE: "Read" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
CENTRAL CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
CFHS HOLDINGS: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Product Misbranding
CLASSIC ARCHITECTURAL: "Womac" Suit Moved to M.D. Florida

COGGINS PRODUCE: "Owen" Suit Transferred from N.D to M.D. Georgia
CR BARD: Faces "Caldwell" Suit Over Defective IVC Filter Device
CREDICO USA: "Vasto" Suit Transferred from N.D. Ill. to S.D.N.Y.
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Spira" Suit Says
CRYPTSY: Bitcoin Account Owners File Class Action

CRYSTAL QUEEN: McCall Law Firm Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
DELTA AIRLINES: "McEnerney" Suit Goes from E.D. Pa. to Wash. D.C.
DIAMOND RESORTS: "Smith" Suit Goes to C.D. California
DIRECTV LLC: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cordoba" Suit Claims
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Walls" Suit Moved to W.D. Tenn.

DRAKE CONSTRUCTION: "Cortez" Suit Moved to W.D. Texas
DUNCAN: "Verser" Suit Transferred from C.D. to S.D. Illinois
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: March 14 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
EXCELLUS HEALTH PLAN: "Baldwin" Suit Moved from N.D to W.D.N.Y.
EXPERIAN INFO: "Ali" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to S.D. Calif.

EXPERIAN INFO: "Barbashov" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to C.D. Cal.
EXPERIAN INFO: "Patton" Suit Goes from Orange County to C.D. Cal.
EXPERIAN INFO: "Yoo" Suit Transferred to S.D. California
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: "Luster" Suit Goes to N.D. Ga.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Goodwin" Suit Goes from N.D. Ala. to Mass.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Goodwill" Suit Goes from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Marotz" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Brown" Suit Goes from Idaho to Massachusetts
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Johnson" Suit Goes from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Johnson" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Jordan" Transferred to Massachusetts Dist. Ct.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Sims" Suit Transferred to Mass. Dist. Court
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Dixon" Suit Moved from S.D. Ala. to Mass.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Hinton" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Pilkington" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala to Mass.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Gibson-Smith" Suit Moved to Mass. Dist. Court
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Norris" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Lenseigne" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Cox" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Generation Companies Suit Goes to N.D. Ga.

HONEST CO: "Rubin" Suit Transferred from N.D. to C.D. California
HSBC SERVICES: "Medeiros" Suit Moved from S.D to C.D. California
ITG BRANDS: "Whitney" Suit Transferred from N.D to C.D California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Garcia-Catalan" Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
JP MORGAN CHASE: NYTL Suit Moved from N.D. Calif. to S.D.N.Y.

KENNETH COLE: "Cabrera" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y to C.D. Calif.
KEURIG GREEN: "Rainwater" Suit Moved from E.D. Ark. to S.D.N.Y.
LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Settles Class Action for $3.4 Million
LOCAL MEDIA GROUP: "Miguel" Suit Moved to Mass. Dist. Court
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: "Luna" Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.

MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court to Decide on Xbox 360 Class Action
NATURAL HEALTH: March 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
NCL BAHAMAS: "Schimidt" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
NEW SOURCE ENERGY: "Vaccaro" Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
NOBLE RECOVERY: "Stallworth" FLSA Suit Goes to N.D. Ga.

NYK: Faces Class Action Over Price-Fixing Deals
OHIO: Suit Over Juvenile Correctional Facilities Terminated
OREGON: Linn County Mulls Class Action Over Mismanagement of Lands
PAYPAL INC: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement
PRESSLER AND PRESSLER: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims

QUALCOMM INC: Jan. 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
RADIANCY INC: "Olivo" Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to D.C.
REMINGTON ARMS: Class Action Settlement Talks Ongoing
RESTAURANT COLLECTION: "Roque" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
RIGHTSCORP: Settles Robocall Class Action

ROSS STORES: "Castellanos" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
ROSS STORES: "Castellanos" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
SAINT-GOBAIN: Faces "Beck" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action Over Earthquake Damages
SC JOHNSON: Falsely Marketed Glade(R), "Shmidt" Action Claims

SECOND AVENUE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Rivera" Suit Says
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
SKY KING: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
STAR FARMS: Ruling Deferred on Class Action Settlement
SUE MILLS: "Avisar" Suit Moved from Superior Court to N.D. Calif.

SOULCYCLE: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
SOUTHAVEN, MS: Troy Goode's Family Files Class Action
SUNEDISON INC: Feb. 1 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SYNGENTA AG: "Orebaugh" Suit Goes to S.D. Indiana
TESCO PLC: April 21 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

THREE SEASONS LANDSCAPE: "Urrutia" Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.
UBER TECH: "Varon" Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Court
UBER TECH: Settles Class Action Over "Airport Fee Toll"
UBER TECH: "Dinofa" Suit Goes from Common Pleas Court to E.D. Pa.
UNITED POTATO GROWERS: Deal Okayed in Indirect Purchasers' Suit

UNITED STATES: New Mexico Mulls Suit v. EPA Over Massive Spill
UNITED STATES: Border Patrol Detention Class Action Can Proceed
UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Class Action Against IRS
UTZ FOODS: "Jurden" Suit Transferred from S.D. Ohio to M.D. Pa.
VANCE & HUFFMAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Solomons" Suit Claims

VIMPELCOM LTD: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: More People Join Class Action in Europe
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Arabian" Suit Moved to C.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Autoport Suit Goes to W.D. Missouri
VTECH ELECTRONICS: Faces "Tittle" Suit Over Data Security Breach

XO HEALTH CO: "Kincaid" Suit Goes from Circuit Court to E.D. Mo.
YAHOO INC: Settles E-mail Scanning Class Action

* Class Actions Require Immediate In-House Counsel Decisions
* Contract Attorneys' OT Suits Prompt Hiring Practice Changes
* Employment-Related Class Action Settlement Hit Record High
* Judge Says Tobacco Case Recusal May Encourage "Judge-Shopping"
* Tobacco Companies Can't Challenge FDA Menthol Cigarettes Report

* Weil Gotshal Secures Major Class Action Triumphs
* Workplace Legal Actions Rise to Record High, Seyfarth Shaw Says



                            *********


AMERICAN FURNITURE: "Abusiam" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thaer Abusiam v. Atef Salem, American Furniture Design Co. Inc.,
and American Furniture WSR, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06518-LDD (E.D.
Penn., December 9, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a furniture company in
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jared A. Jacobson, Esq.
      THE LAW FIRM OF JACOBSON & ROOKS, LLC
      450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 102
      Narberth, PA 19072
      Telephone: (215) 874-8808
      Facsimile: (609) 543-2600
      E-mail: jjacobson@jacobsonrooks.com


AMERICAN HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Late Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
California-based residential property management company believed
to collect rent on at least 200 homes in Illinois has been served
with a class action alleging it has wrongly charged excessive fees
to tenants late on rent.

On Dec. 30, named plaintiff Clarence Davis Jr., represented by
attorneys with the firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner and Goodwin,
of Chicago, filed the complaint in Cook County Circuit Court
against the parent company of American Homes 4 Rent.

The complaint named as defendants the corporate entities known as
AH4R 1 LLC and AH4R Management - IL LLC.  According to court
documents, the defendants are based in Agoura Hills, Calif.

According to the complaint, AH4R owns and leases at least 200
homes in Illinois, including in Cook County, and collects rent at
an office in Schaumburg.

In the complaint, Mr. Davis said AH4R charges tenants several fees
if they are late on paying the rent.  The fees can include a late
fee of $75; an additional fee of $50 if the rent is at least seven
days late, ostensibly for the creation of a five-day late notice;
and, if the rent is eight days late, an additional $95 fee for
service of the five-day notice.

However, the complaint alleged the fees violate both the terms of
the contract and of Illinois consumer fraud law.  The complaint
specifically alleged the fees for the service of the five-day
notice are marked up from $10-$30 above what the companies that
serve the notices actually charge.  And the complaint said the
defendants typically apply any payments toward the late fees
first, which can result "in a shortage of rent and assessment of
further fees."

Mr. Davis, who rented a home from AH4R in Joliet, said he was
slapped with all those fees in June 2015, and his payments were
wrongly applied first to the fees.

The complaint asked the court to issue an injunction barring AH4R
from imposing the fees, and an award of unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages for Mr. Davis and two classes of additional
plaintiffs who would include all others who now rent homes in
Illinois from AH4R, and anyone who rented from them in the
preceding three to 10 years and were charged the same fees as
Mr. Davis.  The complaint does not estimate how many people might
be included in the proposed classes.


AMSHER COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Aharonov" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yaron Aharonov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Amsher Collection Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-06128 (E.D.N.Y., October 26, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Amsher Collection Services, Inc. operates a debt collection firm
in New York.

Yaron Aharonov is a pro se plaintiff.


ANIMAL BEHAVIOR: Faces "Barahona" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Barahona, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Animal Behavior College, Inc. and Debbie Kendrick,
Case No. 2:15-cv-09584-R-AFM (C.D. Cal., December 11, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a private vocational school that offers
various animal training programs so that people can become dog
trainers, groomers, etc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-9171
      Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
      E-mail: MTRACY@MICHAELTRACYLAW.COM


ANTHEM INC: "Mertlich" Suit Goes from W.D. Wash. to N.D Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jennifer Mertlich v. Anthem
Insurance Companies, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01783, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California District (San Jose). The Northern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-05468-LHK to the proceeding.

Anthem Insurance Companies doing business as Anthem Blue Cross and
Blue Shield, provides health insurance plans and Medicare
solutions to individuals, families, and employers in the United
States. It offers wellness, dental, vision, life disability, small
business, and group health insurance coverage plans. The company
is based in Indianapolis, Indiana with additional offices and
locations in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Albert H. Kirby, Esq.
          SOUND JUSTICE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 489 3210
          Facsimile: (866) 845 6302
          E-mail: ahkirby@soundjustice.com

               - and -

          Bradley Jerome Moore, Esq.
          Catherine Jura Fleming, Esq.
          STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN (SEA)
          200 2nd Ave. W, 2nd Floor
          Seattle, WA 98119-4204
          Telephone: (206) 448 1777
          Facsimile: (206) 728 2131
          E-mail: brad@stritmatter.com
                  Catherine@Stritmatter.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy James Parker, Esq.
          CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN
          701 Fifth Avenue, Ste 3600
          Seattle, WA 98104-7010
          Telephone: (206) 622 8020
          E-mail: parker@carneylaw.com


ASAADA CORP: "Herrera" Labor Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Herrera v. Asaada Corp. et al.,
Case No. 15-022226-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-24281-FAM to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges a federal cause of action for failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Asaada is domestic for profit corporation in the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  Jremer@rgpattorney.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gary A. Costales, Esq.
          GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
          1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1440
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375 9510
          Facsimile: (305) 375 9511
          E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com


AUTO CLUB SOUTH: "Rothstein" Goes from S.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rothstein et al. v. Auto Club
South et al., Case No. 9:15-cv-81249, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-09391-LAK-RLE to the proceeding.

American Automobile Association operates as an association of
clubs that provides travel planning solutions in the United
States, Canada, and internationally. The company provides
assistance in booking air, hotels, and car rentals; finding
cruises and discounting travel; getting travel directions;
searching online maps; and facilitating access to trip advisors.
It also offers access to insurance or car loans. The company is
based in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Noah I. Axler, Esq.
          DONOVAN AXLER, LLC
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 155
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 647 6067
          E-mail: naxler@donovanaxler.com

               - and -

          Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Ave, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          George Calvin Hayes, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY
          501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1700
          Tampa, FL 33602-3644
          Telephone: (813) 228 7411
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8313
          E-mail: calvin.hayes@bipc.com

               - and -

          Harvey W. Gurland Jr., Esq.
          Paul Evans Chronis, Esq.
          Elinor Hart Murarova, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS, LLP
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 960 2214
          Facsimile: (305) 960 2201
          E-mail: hwgurland@duanemorris.com
                  pechronis@duanemorris.com
                  ehart@duanemorris.com


BANK OF AMERICA: April 15 CDS Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan, LLP and Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP regarding the In
re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation.

"CDS" means any and all types of credit default swap(s) and CDS-
based products, including, without limitation, single-name CDS,
CDS on corporate, sovereign and municipal reference entities,
tranche CDS, basket CDS, index CDS, and CDS futures.  A "CDS
Transaction" means (i) any purchase, sale, trade, assignment,
novation, unwind, termination, or other exercise of rights or
options with respect to any CDS, whether executed over-the counter
or via inter-dealer brokers, a centralized clearinghouse, a
central limit order book, an exchange, a swap execution facility,
or any other platform or trading facility; or (ii) any decision to
withhold a bid or offer on, or to decline to purchase, sell,
trade, assign, novate, unwind, terminate or otherwise exercise any
rights or options with respect to any CDS.

This notice is to alert you to settlements reached with defendants
Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.; Barclays
Bank PLC; BNP Paribas; Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Credit Suisse AG; Deutsche Bank AG;
Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC Bank PLC and HSBC Bank USA, N.A.;
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Morgan Stanley
& Co. LLC; Royal Bank of Scotland PLC and Royal Bank of Scotland
N.V.; UBS AG and UBS Securities LLC (collectively, "Dealer
Defendants"); International Swaps and Derivatives Association;
Markit Group Holdings Ltd. and Markit Group Ltd. (along with the
Dealer Defendants, collectively "Defendants") in a class action.
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants engaged in anticompetitive
acts that affected the price of CDS in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, principally by conspiring to
prevent the creation of exchange trading platforms for CDS which,
if established, would have reduced the spreads paid on each CDS
transaction.  The lawsuit further alleges that Defendants were
unjustly enriched under common law by their anticompetitive acts.
The lawsuit was brought by, and on behalf of, purchasers and
sellers of CDS.  The Defendants deny they did anything wrong.

Settlements have been reached with all Defendants. Defendants have
collectively agreed to pay $1,864,650,000 ("Settlement Fund").
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York ("Court") authorized this notice. Before any money is paid,
the Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the
settlements.  Approval of these settlements by the Court will
resolve this lawsuit in its entirety.

WHO IS A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER?

Subject to certain exceptions, the Settlement Class includes all
persons or entities (together, "Persons") who, during the period
of January 1, 2008 through September 25, 2015, purchased CDS from
or sold CDS to the Dealer Defendants, their respective affiliates,
or any purported co-conspirator, in any Covered Transaction.  A
purchase or sale of CDS shall be deemed to be a "Covered
Transaction" in each of the following circumstances: (i) if the
purchase or sale was by or on behalf of a Person either domiciled
or located (e.g., had a principal place of business) in the United
States or its territories at the time of such purchase or sale;
(ii) if the Person was domiciled and located outside the United
States and its territories at the time of any such purchase or
sale, where such purchase or sale was in United States commerce;
or (iii) where such purchase or sale otherwise falls within the
scope of the U.S. antitrust laws.

If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, including a detailed notice, at
www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.com or by calling toll free 1-888-744-
0531.

WILL I GET A PAYMENT?

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out of the
Settlement Class, you will be eligible to file a proof of claim
form.  The amount of your payment will be determined by a Plan of
Distribution.  Details about the Plan of Distribution are
available at www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.com
A date for distribution of the Settlement Fund has not been set.
Proof of claim forms must be postmarked by May 27, 2016 or
electronically, through www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.com on or
before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, May 27, 2016.

WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS AS A CLASS MEMBER?

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will
release certain legal rights against the Defendants and the
Released Parties, as explained in the detailed notice and
settlement agreements, which are available at
www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.com

If you do not want to take part in the proposed settlements, you
must opt out by February 29, 2016.

You may, but do not have to, comment on or object to the proposed
settlements, the Plan of Distribution, or class counsel's
application to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees,
expenses, and incentive awards to the plaintiffs for representing
the Settlement Class.  To do so, you must submit your comments or
objections by February 29, 2016.

Information on how to opt out or submit comments or objections is
contained in the detailed notice and at
www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.com

WHEN IS THE FAIRNESS HEARING?

The Court will hold a hearing on April 15, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 to consider whether to
approve the proposed settlements, the Plan of Distribution, and
class counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees,
expenses, and incentive awards to the plaintiffs.  You or your
lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own
expense, but you do not have to.  If you wish to appear, you must
file a notice of intention to appear by February 29, 2016.

For more information, call 1-888-744-0531 or visit
www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.com


BANK OF AMERICA: "Belevich" Suit from Superior Court to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anton Belevich v. Bank of America
National Association et al. Case No. BC595333, was removed from
Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District OF California (Western Division - Los Angeles).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09171-PSG-JPR
to the proceeding.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants do not comply with the
requirements of Labor Code Section 226, and asserts that failing
to provide meal periods by from taking meal periods and by failing
to ever compensate them the extra hour of pay at the regular rate
under any circumstances. The Defendants violated the requirement
that all wages earned be included in the wage statement.

Bank of America is an American multinational banking and financial
services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
It is the second largest bank holding company in the United States
by assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael D. Mandel, Esq.
          Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
          Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
          Telephone: (310) 315 8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315 8210
          Email: mmandel@mcguirewoods.com
                 bepelliconi@mcguirewoods.com
                 bfahy@mcguirewoods.com


BECERRA ENTERPRISES: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Carmen Gallegos Gallegos, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Becerra Enterprises, Inc. and Luis
Alfonso Becerra, Case No. 4:15-cv-00196-D (E.D.N.C., December 11,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay wages
as promised in the workers' contracts and as required by
applicable federal regulations.

The Defendants operate as farm labor contractors in that, for a
fee, it recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or employed migrant
agricultural workers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clermont F. Ripley, Esq.
      Carol L. Brooke, Esq.
      NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
      P.O. Box 28068
      Raleigh, NC 27611
      Telephone: (919) 856-2154
      Facsimile: (919) 856-2175
      E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org
              carol@ncjustice.org


BIG TOP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Pizano" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Pizano, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals v. Big Top & Party Rentals, LLC d/b/a Big Top Tent &
Party Rentals, LLC, and Marlene Leonard, Case No. 1:15-cv-11190
(N.D. Ill., December 11, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for all time worked in excess of
40 hours in a work week.

The Defendants own and operate a party rental equipment company
located at 3236 West Monroe in Waukegan, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil Kelley, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      Alvar Ayala,Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121


BONSAI 2013: Faces "Sun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zuo Ren Sun, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Bonsai 2013 Inc. d/b/a Bonsai Japanese
Restaurant, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06144 (E.D.N.Y., October 26,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bonsai 2013 Inc. owns and operates a Japanese restaurant in New
York.

Zuo Ren Sun is a pro se plaintiff.


BP PLC: February 8 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

In re BP plc Securities Litigation
No. 4:10-md-02185
Honorable Keith P. Ellison

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
BP plc's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between April 26,
2010 and May 28, 2010.

A federal court has authorized this notice. This is not a
solicitation from a lawyer.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a class action
lawsuit now pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (the "Court") under the above caption
(the "Action") against BP plc ("BP"), Anthony Hayward, and Douglas
Suttles (collectively, "Defendants").  This Notice is intended
only to advise you of the pendency of the Action and your rights
with respect to the Action.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, of the pendency of
the Action as a class action.

You received this Notice because you were identified as a
potential Class member.  If you are member of the Class as defined
in Paragraph 1 below, your rights may be affected by this Action.
If you are a Class member, you do not need to do anything at this
time.  If you do not meet the Class definition, this Notice does
not apply to you.  If you are uncertain as to whether you are a
member of the Class, contact A.B. Data, Ltd., Class Counsel listed
in paragraph 14 below, or consult your own attorney.

This Notice is not an admission by Defendants or an expression of
any opinion of the Court concerning the merits of the Action, or a
finding by the Court that the claims asserted in the Action by
Thomas P. DiNapoli, Comptroller of the State of New York, as
Administrative Head of the New York State and Local Retirement
Systems and sole Trustee of the New York State Common Retirement
Fund ("NYSCRF"), and by the Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System ("OPERS") (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs") are valid.
Defendants have denied Lead Plaintiffs' claims and maintain that
they are not liable for the injuries alleged by Lead Plaintiffs.
The Class definition may be subject to change by the Court
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

I. THE CLASS
1. The Court has entered an order certifying the Action as a class
action on behalf of a Class of: All persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired BP's ADSs between April 26, 2010
and May 28, 2010 (the "Class Period") and were injured thereby.
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, directors and officers of
BP, their families and affiliates, as well as the retirement
accounts of Defendants and BP's directors and officers.

2. The Class includes only purchasers or those who acquired BP
ADSs during the Class Period. BP's ADSs are listed and traded on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "BP."  The Class does
not include purchasers of BP Ordinary Shares, which primarily
traded on the London Stock Exchange.  If you purchased only BP
Ordinary Shares, you are not a member of the Class.

3. The Court declined to certify a separate class of investors who
purchased BP ADSs in the period from November 8, 2007 through
April 20, 2010 (the "pre-spill class"), and the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that decision.
The lead plaintiffs for the pre-spill class may seek a writ of
certiorari from the United States Supreme Court to review the
decision declining to certify the pre-spill class.  Purchases of
BP ADSs before April 26, 2010 are not included in the Class, even
if you still held those shares during the Class Period.  You are a
member of the Class only if you purchased or otherwise acquired BP
ADSs between April 26, 2010 and May 28, 2010 and were injured
thereby.

II. DESCRIPTION AND STATUS OF THIS ACTION
4. NYSCRF and OPERS are the Court-appointed class representatives.
Defendant BP is a UK Corporation.  Defendant Anthony Hayward was
the Chief Executive Officer of BP during the Class Period.
Defendant Douglas Suttles was the Chief Operating Officer for BP's
Exploration and Production business during the Class Period.

5. Lead Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint alleges that
Defendants intentionally, or in reckless disregard of the truth,
made materially false or misleading statements to investors
concerning the severity of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
following the explosion and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater
Horizon drilling rig on April 20, 2010.  Lead Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants publicly offered spill rate estimates of 1,000 to
5,000 barrels per day, despite BP's having internally modeled the
potential spill at rates as high as 96,000 barrels per day.  Lead
Plaintiffs allege that these misrepresentations denied investors
the opportunity to fairly assess the financial and reputational
impact of the oil spill on BP, thereby causing Lead Plaintiffs and
members of the Class to purchase BP ADSs at artificially inflated
prices.  The specific misrepresentations alleged that are the
basis for Lead Plaintiffs' claims -- the first of which took place
on April 24, 2010 -- are detailed in Lead Plaintiffs' Third
Amended Complaint.  You can obtain a copy of the complaint at
www.bpsecuritieslitigation.com

6. Defendants have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing in
this Action and believe that Lead Plaintiffs' claims are without
merit.  Among other things, Defendants contend that the statements
detailed in the Third Amended Complaint were not materially false
or misleading, but rather reflected a good-faith estimate of the
flow rate at the time.  Defendants also contend that they did not
make the statements with the requisite intent to deceive
investors.  Defendants further dispute the extent to which Class
Members suffered recoverable losses.

7. The Court has not yet ruled on the merits of Lead Plaintiffs'
claims or Defendants' defenses.  Following the Court's ruling on
Defendants' motions to dismiss, after discovery, briefing and
argument, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification on May 20, 2014, determined that this Action may be
maintained as a class action and appointed NYSCRF and OPERS as
representatives of the Class.  Thereafter, BP appealed the class
certification decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the District Court's decision was
made in error.  On September 8, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed
the decision of the District Court, finding that this Action can
be properly maintained as a class action.

8. No judgment has been entered or settlement reached at this
time.  The parties have briefed cross-motions for summary judgment
and are preparing for trial.  If a settlement of the lawsuit is
reached, it will be subject to approval by the Court.  Class
members will be sent additional notice of any such proposed
settlement as may be approved by the Court, and members of the
Class who have not previously excluded themselves will have an
opportunity to object to the terms of the proposed settlement, and
may be required to submit a claim form to demonstrate their
entitlement to any payment.  Similarly, the Court may also direct
further notice to the Class following any judgment that may be
entered after the trial of this case, or for any other reason that
the Court may determine.

III. YOUR RIGHTS AS A CLASS MEMBER
9. If you purchased and/or otherwise acquired BP ADSs during the
Class Period, you may be a member of the Class.  If you choose to
remain a member of the Class, you do not need to do anything at
this time.  You will automatically be included in the Class unless
you request exclusion in accordance with the procedure set forth
in paragraphs 12 and 13, below.  Your decision is important for
the following reasons:

a. As a member of the Class, you will be bound by all orders and
judgments in this Action, whether favorable or unfavorable.  If
any money is awarded to the Class, either through a settlement
with Defendants or a judgment of the Court, you may be eligible to
receive a share of that award.  If Defendants prevail, you may not
pursue a lawsuit on your own behalf with regard to any of the
issues decided in this Action.  Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is within the Court's
discretion as to whether a second opportunity to request exclusion
from the Class will be allowed if there is a settlement or
judgment in this Action.  Your interests are being represented by
the representatives of the Class and Class Counsel.  You will not
be personally responsible for attorneys' fees or costs unless you
hire your own individual attorney.  Class Counsel has agreed to
represent the Class on a contingent fee basis, which means that it
will be awarded fees and costs only if it succeeds in obtaining a
recovery from one or more Defendants.  Attorneys' fees will be
awarded by this Court from the settlement or judgment, if any,
obtained on behalf of the Class.  You may exclude yourself from
the Class by following the procedures set forth in paragraphs 12
and 13 below.  You may remain a member of the Class and elect to
be represented by counsel of your own choosing.

b. If you retain separate counsel, you will be responsible for
that counsel's fees and expenses, and such counsel must enter an
appearance on your behalf by filing a Notice of Appearance with
the Court and mailing it to Class Counsel at the addresses set
forth below on or before February 8, 2016.

c. If you choose to be excluded from the Class, you will not be
bound by any judgment in this Action, nor will you be eligible to
share in any recovery that might be obtained in this Action.
However, you may individually pursue any legal rights that you may
have against any of the Defendants with respect to the claims
asserted in the Action.  Please refer to paragraphs 12 and 13
below if you would like to exclude yourself from the Class.

10. Class Members may be eligible to recover damages if a recovery
is obtained in this Action, though this Notice is not intended to
suggest that Lead Plaintiffs or Class Members will recover any
such damages.

11. If there is a recovery, you will be required to prove your
membership in the Class with documentation of any Class Period
purchases, acquisitions and/or sales of BP ADSs and the resulting
damages.  Please be sure to keep all records of your transactions
in BP ADSs.

IV. HOW TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS
12. If you purchased ADSs during the Class Period, you will
automatically be considered a member of the Class unless you
request exclusion.  You need not do anything to remain a member of
the Class.  However, any member of the Class may request to
exclude themselves from the Class.  To exclude yourself from the
Class, you must send a signed letter by mail expressly stating
that you "request exclusion from the Class in In re BP plc
Securities Litigation, No. 4:10-md-02185."  Your request must
include: (i) your name, address and telephone number, (ii) the
number of BP ADSs purchased, otherwise acquired and/or sold during
the Class Period, as well as the dates and prices of each such
purchase, acquisition and/or sale during the Class Period; and
(iii) the signature of the person or entity requesting exclusion,
or an authorized representative.  Your request for exclusion will
not be effective unless it contains all of this information and is
sent within the time limit set forth in Paragraph 13.

13. You must then mail your exclusion request, postmarked no later
than February 8, 2016, to:

BP ADS Securities Litigation
Notice Administrator
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
PO Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI  53217
866-778-9624

Please note that you cannot exclude yourself from the Class by
telephone or email.  If your request for exclusion is timely
mailed and follows the above requirements, then you will not be
bound by any judgment in this Action, and you may pursue any
individual legal rights you may have against any of the
Defendants.  However, if you validly request exclusion, then you
will not be eligible to share in any recovery in this Action,
should any recovery be obtained. Do not request exclusion if you
wish to participate in this Action as a Class Member.

V. CLASS COUNSEL
14. As a Class Member, you will be represented by Class Counsel:

Steven J. Toll
Julie Goldsmith Reiser
Joshua S. Devore
COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue N.W.
East Tower, Suite 500
Washington D.C. 20005-3694
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699

Glen DeValerio
Steven J. Buttacavoli
Mark A. Delaney
BERMAN DEVALERIO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 542-8300
Facsimile: (617) 542-1194

And

Jeffrey C. Block
Jason M. Leviton
Erica Langsen
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
155 Federal Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA  02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020

Counsel to OPERS

15. Although the Court has appointed attorneys to represent the
Class as described above, you have the right to retain your own
personal counsel at your own expense.  However, you are not
required to retain separate counsel.  If you do not retain
separate counsel and remain a member of the Class, your interests
will be represented by Class Counsel and by the representatives of
the Class.

VI. PLEASE KEEP YOUR ADDRESS CURRENT
16. To assist the Court and the parties in maintaining an accurate
list of Class Members, please update your name and contact
information in the event of any changes.  You may update this
information online at www.bpsecuritieslitigation.com or by mailing
this information to: BP ADS Securities Litigation, Notice
Administrator, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI
53217.  You may call the Notice Administrator at 866-778-9624.

17. If this Notice was forwarded to you by the postal service, or
if it was otherwise sent to you at an address that is no longer
current, you should immediately contact the Notice Administrator
and provide them with your correct address.  If the Notice
Administrator does not have your correct address, you may not
receive notice of important developments in this Action, or
information about any settlements obtained for the benefit of the
Class.

VII. WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
18. This Notice provides only a summary of the lawsuit and the
claims asserted by Lead Plaintiffs.  You may review a copy of the
Third Amended Complaint, the Court's Orders on the Motion to
Dismiss, and other documents in the case by visiting the following
website: www.bpsecuritieslitigation.com

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

19. All brokerage firms, banks, and/or other persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired BP ADSs during the Class
Period as a nominee for a beneficial owner are requested to send
this Notice to all such beneficial owners no later than [10
business] days after receipt of this Notice.  In the alternative,
all nominees are requested to send an unduplicated list of names
and addresses of said beneficial owners to the Notice
Administrator at:

BP ADS Securities Litigation
Attn: Fulfillment Department
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
3410 West Hopkins Street
PO Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI  53217
866-561-6065
fulfillment@abdata.com

The Notice Administrator will thereafter mail copies of this
Notice directly to all such beneficial owners.  Counsel for the
Class will prepay the reasonable cost of preparing an unduplicated
list of names and addresses of such beneficial owners or of
forwarding this Notice to beneficial owners in those cases where a
nominee elects to forward this Notice rather than provide a list
of names and addresses to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.

QUESTIONS?  VISIT WWW.BPSECURITIESLITIGATION.COM OR CALL TOLL-FREE
1-866-778-9624.




CANADA: B.C. Faces Class Action Over Sawmill Explosions
-------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that ten people connected to a pair of
deadly sawmill explosions in British Columbia are asking a judge
to certify a class-action lawsuit seeking damages for physical and
mental injuries.

The separate blasts in 2012 killed four workers and injured 42
people at Babine Forest Products in Burns Lake and Lakeland Mills
in Prince George.

A notice of civil claim named the Workers Compensation Board of
B.C. and the provincial government.

In a statement on Jan. 12, Scott McCloy with WorkSafeBC said the
agency had no immediate comment on the allegations.

Patrick Michell was inside the Babine mill when it blew up in
January 2012. He and nine others are seeking general, special and
punitive damages, as well as declarations that WorkSafe's
inspections and investigations were negligent.

"The class members trusted WorkSafe to take all reasonable steps
to ensure the safety of the mills and to competently investigate
the explosions," the statement of claim said.

"By failing in both respects, WorkSafe betrayed the class members'
trust, denied them justice for their suffering and for the
suffering and deaths of their loved ones, undermined their faith
in government and robbed them of the sense of security and safety
that a trustworthy and competent system of prevention and
deterrence provides."

Mr. Michell represents one of six classes of plaintiffs, including
workers who were in the two mills when fire tore through them.
Workers who were off-shift, and family members of on- and off-
shift workers at both locations are also represented.

They allege WorkSafeBC ignored its legal duty to represent
workers' interests.

The allegations have yet to be tested in court.

Many workers were out of work for months following the explosions,
which the claim said were caused by combustible wood dust in
levels that WorkSafe had identified as unsafe months or years
earlier.

"At no time prior to the Babine explosion did WorkSafe issue
Babine Forest Products any orders or administrative penalties in
respect of combustible wood dust."

It also referenced at least 24 separate inspections of the Prince
George mill in the years leading up to the April 2012 explosion,
with each inspection uncovering unacceptable levels of wood dust,
yet producing no WorkSafe orders to clean up.

"WorkSafe's conduct was reckless and departed to a very marked
degree from the standard of conduct expected of a responsible and
competent inspector," the claim said.

Mr. Michell suffered permanent paralysis and burns to 37 per cent
of his body in the Babine blast, while Lakeland worker
Bruce Germyn endured a brain injury and burns to 35 per cent of
his body.

Workers who were not on the job on the night of the tragedies
report mental distress and anxiety, while family members such as
Sidney, B.C., resident John Little, whose son died in the Lakeland
explosion, still deal with anxiety, distress and loss of enjoyment
of life, the claim said.

Under the Workers Compensation Act, the claim said, employees
cannot sue an employer and must rely on WorkSafe to protect their
interests.

WorkSafeBC and the province have three weeks to respond to the
allegations.


CANADA: Nova Scotia AG Faces Class Action Over Deaf School Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chronicle Herald reports that a Halifax law firm filed a
statement of claim on Jan. 13 against the attorney general of Nova
Scotia on behalf of former students who attended or lived at
schools for the deaf.

The proposed class action, filed by the Wagners law firm, alleges
systemic sexual, physical and mental abuse was inflicted on
children who attended or resided at the School for the Deaf in
Halifax and at another facility in Amherst.

That school was initially called the Interprovincial School for
the Education of the Deaf, but the name was changed to the
Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority-Resource Centre for
the Hearing Handicapped, and then changed again to the Atlantic
Provinces Special Education Authority-Resource Centre for the
Hearing Impaired.

The suit alleges that many students who attended the schools,
which were operated and overseen by the province, were "subjected
to systemic physical, sexual and emotional abuse by unqualified
and abusive staff (teachers and 'houseparents'), friends or family
of staff, and by other students."

The suit, which was filed at Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Halifax,
also says the Crown "failed to adequately detect or respond to the
prolonged systemic abuse and mistreatment of these students."

It also says the province didn't properly screen teachers and
staff, and promoted an atmosphere of tolerance and indifference to
the abuse.

The Halifax school operated from 1913 to 1961, while the Amherst
school was open from 1961 to 1995.

One of the representative claimants, Richard Martell of Halifax,
attended the Amherst school from 1973 to1979.

The claim alleges he and other students were struck with sticks,
sometimes in the genitals, by teachers and houseparents.

The claim also says Martell went to a houseparent and the school
doctor after seeing male students groping two female students, but
he was spanked as punishment for doing so.

He and other students were also punished for using sign language
to communicate, the suit claims.

Michael Perrier of Dartmouth, the second representative claimant,
was at the Amherst school from 1961 to 1972.

The claim alleges he was repeatedly physically abused by
houseparents, often by being slapped.

One slap to the stomach was so hard he had blood in his urine, but
when he went to the school nurse for treatment he was told to say
nothing, the claim says.

Both men have had difficulties adapting to adulthood, particularly
in terms of employment and personal relationships, the claim
alleges.

Raymond Wagner is representing the former students and residents.

He said 150 former students have contacted his firm, and 145 of
those have submitted information to help with the assessment of
their cases.

Mr. Wagner said he expects there will eventually be hundreds
signed on for the class action.

"We know there are a lot of other people who were waiting for the
filing of the claim, and we know people have been waiting for us
to travel," he said.

That means going to the other Atlantic provinces to talk to former
students.

The students' hearing difficulties made them easy targets,
Mr. Wagner said.

"The fact that they were deaf or hard of hearing made them more
vulnerable to those people who would wish to mistreat them," he
said.

"In terms of the mantra of the school at the time, trying to teach
students to lip-read and discouraging, under the promise of
punishment, from (using sign language), it really had a major
impact on their ability, when discharged from school, to look
after themselves in the real world."

Mr. Wagner said it's up the province to determine how it will
respond to the claim, but he hopes "that we don't do the same
thing that we did with the Home for Colored Children and spend 16-
1/2 years or more litigating the matter."

He said it's important for the students to be able to move on.

In an email, Justice Department spokeswoman Chrissy Matheson said
the province takes any allegation of abuse "very seriously."

"As you can understand, this is a very serious and complex matter
that stretches over 80 years, with more than one organization
running the facility," she wrote.

"We cannot comment on this matter further as it is before the
courts."

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The proposed class action must be certified by a judge before it
can go to trial.


CAPITAL FINANCE: "Read" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Joseph M. Ellis of the Court of Appeals of
Missouri, Western District, dismissed and remanded the case
CAPITAL FINANCE LOANS, LLC, Appellant, v. ANDREW READ, Respondent,
No. WD78621 (Mo. Ct. App.)

Andrew Read entered into a retail installment contract and
security agreement at a car dealership to fund the purchase of a
2004 Dodge Ram pickup truck. The contract was assigned to Capital
Finance Loans, LLC pursuant to the terms of the contract. Read
defaulted on his payments and on February 13, 2014, Capital
Finance filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Jackson County
asserting causes of action for replevin in the first count and
breach of contract and deficiency in the second.

Capital Finance took possession of the truck and subsequently sold
it in a private sale. On July 28, 2014, Read filed his answer to
the petition and asserted counter-claims for violations of the
Motor Vehicle Time Sales Act and the Uniform Commercial Code. On
October 31, 2014, Capital Finance filed an amended petition
reflecting the repossession and sale of the vehicle. Among the
exhibits attached thereto was the notice of sale it had sent to
Read.

Read filed a motion to dismiss Capital Finance's amended petition,
which the trial court ultimately entered a partial judgment and
order granting Read's motion. The trial court subsequently
certified its partial judgment and order as final for purposes of
appeal.

Capital Finance appealed and contends that the trial court
improperly dismissed its amended petition based upon an erroneous
determination that its notice of sale failed to comply with the
relevant statutory requirements. It argues that its notice of sale
exceeded what was required because it actually provided Read with
an adequate accounting and sufficiently informed Read of the date
after which the truck would be sold.

Presiding Judge Ellis dismissed the appeal and remanded the suit
to the Circuit Court of Jackson County for further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Ellis's decision dated December 15, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/PIINLrfrom Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District panel consists
of Presiding Judge Joseph M. Ellis and Judges Karen King Mitchell
and Gary D. Witt.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Roth, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Central Credit Services LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-06208
(E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Central Credit Services LLC operates a credit reporting agency in
New York.

Steven Roth is a pro se plaintiff.


CFHS HOLDINGS: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cristina P. Martinez, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general v. CFHS Holdings, Inc.
and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. BC603390 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 8, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statement in compliance with the
California Labor Code.

CFHS Holdings, Inc. operates a psychiatric hospital located at
4650 Lincoln Blvd., Marina Del Ray, CA 90292.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Bl., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 990-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
              dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Product Misbranding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claudy Joseph, Jr., as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 0:15-
cv-62604-WJZ (S.D. Fla., December 11, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's false and misleading "Non-GMO" product label, when in
fact the products contain genetically modified ingredients.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. operates a chain of restaurants
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph M. Pustizzi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH PUSTIZZI, P.A.
      3440 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. 415
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 241-4244
      E-mail: joseph@pustizzilaw.com

         - and -

      Michael T. Fraser, Esq.
      THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C
      4120 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 306-262
      Granite Bay, CA 95746
      Telephone: (888) 557-5115
      Facsimile: (866) 212-8434
      E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net


CLASSIC ARCHITECTURAL: "Womac" Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Womac et al. v. Classic
Architectural, Inc., Case No. 15-006747-CI, was removed/
transferred/reprimanded from 6th Judicial Circuit for Pinellas
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:15-cv-02744-SCB-EAJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs requested all legal and equitable relief allowed by
law against the Defendant, for overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and prejudgment interest.

Classic Architectural Products manufactures and installs
architectural elements for the construction industry in the United
States. The company offers metal-composite panel systems, glass
and glazing, louvers, sunscreens/sun shades, architectural profile
elements, copings and cornices, and column wraps. The company is
based in Forney, Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          Lindsey C Kofoed, Esq.
          Robin Mary Orosz, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, PA
          777 Alderman Rd
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683-2604
          Telephone: (727) 786 5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772 9833
          E-mail: cdg@FlorinRoebig.com
                  lck@florinroebig.com
                  rorosz@florinroebig.com
                  fgo@florinroebig.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David W. Adams, Esq.
          Zachary J. Glaser, Esq.
          BENNETT, JACOBS & ADAMS, PA
          1925 E 2nd Ave (33605)
          PO Box 3300
          Tampa, FL 33601-3300
          Telephone: (813) 272 1400
          Facsimile: (866) 844 4703
          E-mail: dadams@bja-law.com
                  zglaser@bja-law.com


COGGINS PRODUCE: "Owen" Suit Transferred from N.D to M.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Owen et al. v. Coggins Produce
Georgia, LLC, Case No., 1:15-cv-02836, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (Valdosta).
The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:15-cv-00209-HL
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act for
violations of overtime and wage and hour laws allegedly committed
by the Defendant.

Coggins Produce Georgia is a foreign limited company in the State
of Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          K. Prabhaker Reddy, Esq.
          THE REDDY LAW FIRM, PC
          1325 Satellite Blvd., Ste. 1506
          Suwanee, GA 30024
          Telephone: (678) 629 3246
          E-mail: kpr@reddylaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth K. Dorminey, Esq.
          James Larry Stine, Esq.
          3400 Peachtree Rd NE, Ste. 400
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 365 0900
          E-mail: bdorminy@bellsouth.net
                  jls@wimlaw.com


CR BARD: Faces "Caldwell" Suit Over Defective IVC Filter Device
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alec Caldwell v. C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00208-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss., December 9, 2015)
is an action for damages as a direct and proximate result of being
implanted with a defective and unreasonably dangerous Inferior
Vena Cava ("IVC") filter medical device manufactured by Bard.

The Defendants develop, manufacture, sell, and distribute medical
devices and surgical products throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sheila M. Bossier, Esq.
      FREESE & GOSS, PLLC
      1520 N. State Street
      Jackson, MS 39202
      Telephone: (601) 961-4050
      Facsimile: (601) 352-5452
      E-mail: sbossier@freeseandgoss.com

         - and -

      Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
      David C. DeGreeff, Esq.
      WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
      4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 701-1100
      Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
      E-mail: ddegreeff@wcllp.com
              tcartmell@wcllp.com


CREDICO USA: "Vasto" Suit Transferred from N.D. Ill. to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vasto et al. v. Credico (USA) LLC
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06503, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-09298-PAE to the proceeding.

The Defendants have misclassified the Plaintiffs as independent
contractors and, in so doing, have violated the federal Fair Labor
Standard Act, New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York
State Department of Labor Regulations, as well as the Arizona Wage
Act, and Arizona Minimum Wage Act, and the supporting Industrial
Commission of Arizona Regulations by failing to pay them minimum
wage for all hours worked, and overtime.

Credico provides outsourced face-to-face sales and marketing. The
Company offers sales campaigns, planning, and strategy and
training programs, and is based in Chicago, Illinois. Cromex
manufactures color master batches and plastic additives, as well
as distributes thermoplastic resins. It offers white, black,
color, and additive concentrates; dispermix and specialty
products; and other raw materials. The company is based in San
Paulo, Brazil.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Jill Kahn, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  jkahn@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathryn Montgomery Moran, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C. (CHICAGO)
          150 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 787 4949
          Facsimile: (312) 787 4995
          E-mail: kathryn.moran@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Jason A Zoldessy, Esq.
          Jeffrey L Rudd, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C. (NY)
          666 Third Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 545 4021
          Facsimile: (212) 972 3213
          E-mail: zoldessj@jacksonlewis.com
                  jeffrey.rudd@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          David M. Holmes, Esq.
          Lisa Handler Ackerman, Esq.
          John J. Murphy, Esq.
          Joseph J Stafford, Esq.
          WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 704 0550
          E-mail: Dave.Holmes@wilsonelser.com
                  lisa.ackerman@wilsonelser.com
                  jack.murphy@wilsonelser.com
                  Joseph.Stafford@wilsonelser.com


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Spira" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Spira, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credence Resource Management, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-06145 (E.D.N.Y., October 27, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Credence Resource Management, LLC operates a financial service
company in New York.

Nathan Spira is a pro se plaintiff.


CRYPTSY: Bitcoin Account Owners File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Avi Mizrahi, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that as if Big
Vern needed any more trouble with the cyberattack he's
investigating, Cryptsy now faces a challenge to defend its
behavior in front of a court.  On Jan. 13, American law firms
Silver Law Group and Wites & Kapetan, P.A. filed a nationwide
class action lawsuit in a U.S federal court against the Florida-
based cryptocurrency exchange and its head, Paul Vernon, according
to court documents seen by Finance Magnates.

The lawsuit details that over the past several months, numerous
Cryptsy account holders have been denied access to their accounts
and were unable to withdraw any and all forms of currency from
them.  Further it says that despite repeated inquiries to Cryptsy,
users are being left without any meaningful response or
information from Cryptsy and have had their withdrawal demands
either denied or tabbed as "pending" for days, weeks, or even
months.

Although the exact amount has yet to be calculated, the law firms
say they believe, that the value of the digital funds being held
captive at Cryptsy exceeds five million dollars.

The plaintiff in the case is Jinyao Liu, an individual from
Fairfax County, Virginia and the class of victims on whose behalf
he is pursuing justice includes: "All Cryptsy account owners who
deposited Bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other
form of monies or currency at Cryptsy and have been denied access
to their accounts and funds between November 1, 2015 and the
present date."  The lawsuit asserts claims for negligence, unjust
enrichment, conversion of funds and property, and violations of
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

                          Scam Refund

With all the criticism about him not responding to the withdrawal
issues claims, Big Vern at least issued an update on the details
of the phishing attempt that Cryptsy is investigating.  A system
notice on the site now explains there is a phishing attempt going
around prompting users to go to a Cryptsy-refund website.

There were two avenues for the phishing attempt, one via SMS:
"using our provider Twilio and gained entry into our logs and
sending ability via a weak password on that account.  The
passwords on this account have been secured." The other avenue was
via email using the exchange's mailing service (Mailgun), but was
not sent using its account.  "It is uncertain where the email list
for this Phishing attempt was attained from, as we do not show any
unauthorized access to our Mailgun account nor our internal
systems."

"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.  Until we are able to
determine the extent of the phishing attempt, all withdrawals are
paused and will be cancelled before they are brought back live
. . . . BigVern"


CRYSTAL QUEEN: McCall Law Firm Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled McCall Law Firm PLLC v. Crystal
Queen Inc. et al., Case No. CV-15-00018, was removed from Pope
County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00737-KGB to the proceeding.

Crystal Queen is doing business as Crystal Training.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex G. Streett, Esq.
          James A. Streett, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 West Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Telephone: (479) 968 2030
          E-mail: james@streettlaw.com

               - and -

          Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
          227 Second Avenue North, Suite 400
          Nashville, TN 37201-1631
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          E-mail: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Veach, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 West Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Telephone: (479) 968 2030
          Facsimile: (479) 968 6253
          E-mail: robert@streettlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Caroline B. Paillou, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
          Equitable Building
          10 South Broadway, Suite 2000
          St. Louis, MO 63102-1774
          Telephone: (314) 241 9090
          Facsimile: (314) 345 5488

               - and -

          Martin A. Kasten
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          Regions Center
          400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
          Telephone: (501) 376 2011
          E-mail: mkasten@fridayfirm.com

               - and -

          Mary Ann Wymore, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
          Equitable Building
          10 South Broadway, Suite 2000
          St. Louis, MO 63102-1774
          Telephone: (314) 241 9090
          Facsimile: (314) 345 5488


DELTA AIRLINES: "McEnerney" Suit Goes from E.D. Pa. to Wash. D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled McEnerney et al. v. Delta
Airlines, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03767, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02002-CKK to the proceeding.

Plaintiffs brought the civil antitrust action for treble damages
under the antitrust laws of the United States. The Defendants
conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline
tickets.

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:

          A. Luke Smith, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM, PC
          143 W Walnut LN Suite 102-R
          Philadelphia, PA 19144
          Telephone: (267) 570 3000
          Facsimile: (609) 385 0745
          Email: lsmith@radicelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carolyn M. Hazard, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 994 4000
          Facsimile: (215) 994 2222
          Email: carolyn.hazard@dechert.com

               - and -

          Craig D. Margolis, Esq.
          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639 6540
          Facsimile: (202) 639 6604
          E-mail: cmargolis@velaw.com
                  aatkins@velaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Wilson M. Brown, III, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE AND REATH L.L.P.
          One Logan Square
          18th And Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-988-2700
          Email: wilson.brown@dbr.com


DIAMOND RESORTS: "Smith" Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Autumn Smith et al. v. Diamond
Resorts Management, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC1510389,
was removed from Riverside County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern
Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:15-cv-02477-VAP-SP to the proceeding.

Diamond Resorts Management was formerly known as Sunterra Resort
Management, Inc and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Diamond Resorts Corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Jill Jessica Parker, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE PC
          410 West Arden Avenue Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021
          E-mail edwin@lfjpc.com
                 jill@lfjpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian James Mills, Esq.
          Anne E Dwyer, Esq.
          Snell and Wilmer LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626 7689
          Telephone: (714) 427 7000
          Facsimile: (714) 427 7799
          E-mail: bmills@swlaw.com
                  adwyer@swlaw.com


DIRECTV LLC: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cordoba" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Cordoba, individually and in behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DirecTV, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03755-MHC (N.D. Ga., October 27, 2015) seeks to put an end to the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to consumers'
wireless telephone.

DirecTV, LLC is a direct broadcast satellite service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Taylor Wilson, Esq.
      Matthew Michael Wilkins, Esq.
      Stephen Andrew Yaklin, Esq.
      KING & YAKLIN, LLP
      Suite 125, 192 Anderson Street
      Marietta, GA 30060
      Telephone: (770) 424-9235
      Facsimile: (770) 424-9239
      E-mail: twilson@kingyaklin.com
              mwilkins@kingyaklin.com
              syaklin@kingyaklin.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Walls" Suit Moved to W.D. Tenn.
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Walls et al. v. DraftKings, Inc.,
Case No. CT-004631-15, was removed from Circuit Court of
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-02758-SHM-cgc to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert that Defendant is liable for unlawful
gambling or wagering promotion, management and operation and
unlawful promotion and operation of a lottery.

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
defendant offers leagues for fantasy football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college
basketball.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank L. Watson, III, Esq.
          William F. Burns, Esq.
          WATSON BURNS, PLLC
          253 Adams Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38103
          E-mail: fwatson@watsonburns.com
          bburns@watsonburns.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kathryn K. Van Namen, Esq.
          Matthew Mahoney Lubozynski, Esq.
          Robert E. Craddock , Jr. , Esq.
          WYATT TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
          1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Ste. 800
          Memphis, TN 38120
          Telephone: (901) 537 1000
          E-mail: kvannamen@wyattfirm.com
                   mlubozynski@wyattfirm.com
                   rcraddock@wyattfirm.com


DRAKE CONSTRUCTION: "Cortez" Suit Moved to W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cortez v. Brad Drake Construction
LLC, Case No. 2015DCV3426, was removed from the 327th District
Court in El Paso County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas (El Paso). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00346-KC to the proceeding.

The Defendants allegedly engaged in racial discrimination and
retaliation.

Brad Drake Construction is single-family house construction
company, located in Rockwall, Texas.  Wal-Mart Stores Texas
operates as a subsidiary of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Enrique Chavez, Jr., Esq.
          Miguel Hernandez, Esq.
          CHAVEZ LAW FIRM
          2101 Stanton Street
          El Paso, TX 79902
          Telephone: (915) 351 7772
          Facsimile: (915) 351 7773
          E-mail: enriquechavezjr@chavezlawpc.com
                   miguelhernandez@chavezlawpc.com

               - and -

          Rachel Ziolkowski Ullrich, Esq.
          Allyn Jaqua Lowell, Esq.
          FORD HARRISON, LLP
          1601 Elm Street, Suite 4450
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 256 4700
          Facsimile: (214) 256 4701
          E-mail: rullrich@fordharrison.com
                  alowell@fordharrison.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elisa B. Reinsmith, Esq.
          Dykema Cox Smith, Esq.
          112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1800
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 554 5278
          Facsimile: (210) 226 8395
          E-mail: ereinsmith@dykema.com

               - and -

          Ramon Daniel Bissmeyer, Esq.
          DYKEMA COX SMITH
          112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1800
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 554-5500
          Facsimile: (210) 226 8395
          E-mail: rbissmeyer@dykema.com


DUNCAN: "Verser" Suit Transferred from C.D. to S.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Verser v. Duncan et al., Case No.,
3:15-cv-03221, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis). The Southern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01263-JPG to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn Verser
          10930 Lawrence Road
          Sumner, IL 62466
          N-72074
          PRO SE


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: March 14 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors of class
action against Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased shares
from August 18, 2015 through September 28, 2015, all dates
inclusive.  Such investors are advised to contact Peretz Bronstein
or his investor relations analyst, Yael Hurwitz at info@bgandg.com
or 212-697-6484.

This lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
released materially false and misleading statements regarding
Esperion's business and prospects to shareholders, including that
there was no clear path to approval for ETC-1002, and that the FDA
had encouraged Esperion to initiate a cardiovascular outcomes
trial ("CVOT") and the completion of a CVOT could be necessary
prior to approval of ETC-1002.  Following this news, Esperion
stock traded at artificially inflated prices reaching as high as
$82 per share in intra-day trading, causing investors to suffer
losses.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to join this litigation you can visit the firm's website at:
http://www.bgandg.com/#!espr/jfi4h

You may also contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor
Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman,
LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in
Natural Health Trends you have until March 14, 2016 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  In addition to representing institutions and other
investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the
firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial
litigation, as well as securities arbitration.


EXCELLUS HEALTH PLAN: "Baldwin" Suit Moved from N.D to W.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Baldwin et al. v. Excellus Health
Plan, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01324, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York (Rochester).
The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-06710-
EAW to the proceeding.

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Finkelstein
          Daniel S. Robinson
          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson
          Todd S. Garber
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          1311 Mamoroneck Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298 3283
          Facsimile: (914) 824 1561
          E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  tgarber@fbfglaw.com

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


EXPERIAN INFO: "Ali" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to S.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ali et al. v. Experian Services
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-10232, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02017-DOC-DFM to the proceeding.

Experian Information Solutions is an information services company
that provides data and analytical tools to clients around the
world. It offers credit report, credit score, credit monitoring,
and identity theft protection services to individuals; and
customer acquisition, customer management, risk management, fraud
management, debt recovery, regulatory compliance, business
resources, and consulting services to businesses. The company is
based in Costa Mesa, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stacy Michelle Bardo, Esq.
          BARDO LAW, P.C.
          1 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 219 6980

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam W Wiers, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          77 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60643
          Telephone: (312) 782 3939
          Facsimile: (312) 782 8585
          E-mail: awwiers@jonesday.com


EXPERIAN INFO: "Barbashov" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sergey Barbashov et al. v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08943,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California(Western Division - Los Angeles). The
California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-08883-
DDP-JC to the proceeding.

Experian Information Solutions is an information services company
that provides data and analytical tools to clients around the
world. It offers credit report, credit score, credit monitoring,
and identity theft protection services to individuals; and
customer acquisition, customer management, risk management, fraud
management, debt recovery, regulatory compliance, business
resources, and consulting services to businesses. The company is
based in Costa Mesa, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James M Pietz, Esq.
          PIETZ LAW OFFICE LLC
          429 Forbes Avenue Suite 1710
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 288 4333
          Facsimile: (412) 288 4333
          E-mail: jpietz@jpietzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ellenna V Berger, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          77 West Wacker
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 269 1573
          E-mail: evberger@jonesday.com


EXPERIAN INFO: "Patton" Suit Goes from Orange County to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Maudie Patton et al. v. Experian
Data Corp et al., Case No. 30-02015-00812589, was removed from
Orange County Superior Court, State of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Southern
Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:15-cv-01871-JVS-PLA to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly sold or
granted access to highly sensitive, confidential, and regulated
consumer, financial, and personal records and information,
including consumer credit information and Social Security numbers
of 200 million US citizens.

Experian Data Corp is a Delaware corporation based in Costa Mesa,
California. Experian collects information of people, businesses,
motor vehicles, insurances, and lifestyle data. Court Ventures is
a California corporation based in Orange County, California. The
company is in the business of compiling and distributing public
records data.

Inforsearch.com is an Ohio limited liability company based in
Whitehall, Ohio. The company helps manage risk and fight fraud by
providing data to companies, licensed investigators, government
agencies, and legal industry professionals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paula M. Roach, Esq.
          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST AND O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: proach@bholaw.com
                  tblood@bholaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John A Vogt, Esq.
          Richard Joseph Grabowski
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 851 3939
          Facsimile: (949) 553 7539
          E-mail: javogt@jonesday.com
                  rgrabowski@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Sandra Calin, Esq.
          KRAMER, DEBOER AND KEANE
          21860 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 370
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 657 0255
          E-mail: scalin@kdeklaw.com


EXPERIAN INFO: "Yoo" Suit Transferred to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Yoo v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09787, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-
cv-02703 to the proceeding.

Experian Information Solutions is an information services company
that provides data and analytical tools to clients around the
world. It offers credit report, credit score, credit monitoring,
and identity theft protection services to individuals; and
customer acquisition, customer management, risk management, fraud
management, debt recovery, regulatory compliance, business
resources, and consulting services to businesses. The company is
based in Costa Mesa, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          John Shannon Marrese, Esq.
          Michael Loren Silverman, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878 1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  jmarrese@siprut.com
                  msilverman@siprut.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ellenna V Berger, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          77 West Wacker
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 782 3939
          E-mail: evberger@jonesday.com


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: "Luster" Suit Goes to N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Luster v. FirstSource Advantage,
LLC, Case No. 15A57509-7, was removed from State Court of Dekalb
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-04209-LMM to the proceeding.

FirstSource Advantage is New York Limited Liability Company based
in Amherst, New York. The company offers collections and recovery
solutions. It provides debt recovery services for credit card
issuers, retail banking and mortgage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifton Dorsen, Esq.
          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 1978
          E-mail: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Eugene Hudson, Esq.
          HULL BARRETT
          P.O. Box 1564
          801 Broad Street, Suite 700
          Augusta, GA 30903-1564
          Telephone: (706) 722 4481
          E-mail: DHudson@hullbarrett.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Goodwin" Suit Goes from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Goodwin et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline
(GSK) LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01906, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Northern, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-13828-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed
just and proper arising from the injuries to their minor child as
a result of his prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent
form of prescription drug Zofran, also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable
-- - that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation
treatments in cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling
for Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its
use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald McKenna Jr., Esq.
          HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
          The Massey Bldg., Suite 800
          2025 Third Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328 5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324 2165
          E-mail: don@hwnn.com

               - and -

          T. Christopher Pinedo, Esq.
          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          HILLIARDMUNOZ GONZALES LLP
          719 S. Shoreline, Suite 500
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 882 1612
          Facsimile: (361) 882 3015
          E-mail: cpinedo@hmglawfirm.com
                  bobh@hmglawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Goodwill" Suit Goes from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Goodwill et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline
LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01907, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13827-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed
just and proper arising from the injuries to their minor child as
a result of his prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent
form of prescription drug Zofran, also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable
-- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation
treatments in cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling
for Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its
use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald McKenna Jr., Esq.
          HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
          The Massey Bldg., Suite 800
          2025 Third Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328 5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324 2165
          E-mail: don@hwnn.com

               - and -

          T. Christopher Pinedo, Esq.
          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          HILLIARDMUNOZ GONZALES LLP
          719 S. Shoreline, Suite 500
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 882 1612
          Facsimile: (361) 882 3015
          E-mail: cpinedo@hmglawfirm.com
                  bobh@hmglawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Marotz" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Marotz et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline
LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01914, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-13835-FDS to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed
just and proper arising from the injuries to their minor child as
a result of his prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent
form of prescription drug Zofran, also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable
-- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation
treatments in cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling
for Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its
use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd W. Gathings, Esq.
          Honora M. Gathings, Esq.
          William A. Lattimore, Esq.
          GATHINGS LAW
          2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 406
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 322 1201
          Facsimile: (205) 322 1202
          E-mail: LGathings@gathingslaw.com
                  WLattimore@gathingslaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Brown" Suit Goes from Idaho to Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brown v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00508, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-13822
to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed
just and proper arising from the injuries to their minor child as
a result of his prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent
form of prescription drug Zofran, also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable
-- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation
treatments in cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling
for Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its
use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kira Dale Pfisterer, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, JANIS & KLUKSDAL, CHTD.
          537 West Bannock Street, Ste. 200
          P.O. Box 2582
          Boise, ID 83701-2582
          Telephone: (208) 343 7510
          Facsimile: (208) 342 2927
          Email: kdp@hepworthlaw.com

               - and -

          Aimee H Wagstaff, ESQ.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF PC
          7171 West Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (303) 376 6360
          E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Johnson" Suit Goes from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Johnson et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline
LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-01865, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).
The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13836-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed
just and proper arising from the injuries to their minor child as
a result of his prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent
form of prescription drug Zofran, also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable
-- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation
treatments in cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling
for Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its
use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
          Kathleen R. Kerner, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 365
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653 3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653 9030

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Johnson" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Johnson et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline
LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01866, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13839-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed
just and proper arising from the injuries to their minor child as
a result of his prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent
form of prescription drug Zofran, also known as ondansetron.
Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable
-- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation
treatments in cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling
for Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its
use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
          Kathleen R. Kerner, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 365
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653 3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653 9030

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Jordan" Transferred to Massachusetts Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jordan et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline,
LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00543, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13925-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed
just and proper arising from the injuries to their minor child as
a result of her prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent
form of the prescription drug Zofran, also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable.  According to the lawsuit, the victim suffered
injuries as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald McKenna Jr., Esq.
          HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
          The Massey Bldg., Suite 800
          2025 Third Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328 5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324 2165
          E-mail: don@hwnn.com

               - and -

          T. Christopher Pinedo, Esq.
          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          HILLIARDMUNOZ GONZALES LLP
          719 S. Shoreline, Suite 500
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 882 1612
          Facsimile: (361) 882 3015
          E-mail: cpinedo@hmglawfirm.com
                  bobh@hmglawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Sims" Suit Transferred to Mass. Dist. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sims v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, Case
No. 2:15-cv-05912, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13946-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seek compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed
just and proper arising from the injuries to Destinee Sims
as a result of her prenatal exposures to the prescription drug
Zofran, also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable.  According to the lawsuit, the victim suffered
injuries as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tayjes M. Shah, Esq.
          Michael J. Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          The Sherman Building
          108 Railroad Avenue
          ORANGE, VA 22960
          Telephone: 540) 672 4224
          E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com
                  mmiller@millerfirmllc.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Dixon" Suit Moved from S.D. Ala. to Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dixon et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline,
LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00542, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13924-FDS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit for compensatory and punitive
damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed just and
proper arising from the injuries to their minor child as a result
of his prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent form of the
prescription drug Zofran, also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable.  According to the lawsuit, the victim suffered
injuries as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald McKenna Jr., Esq.
          HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
          The Massey Bldg., Suite 800
          2025 Third Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328 5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324 2165
          E-mail: don@hwnn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Hinton" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hinton et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline
LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-01908, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13845-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit
for compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, and such
other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to
C.H. as a result of his prenatal exposures to the generic
bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran, also known as
ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable.  According to the lawsuit, the victim suffered
injuries as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald McKenna Jr., Esq.
          HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
          The Massey Bldg., Suite 800
          2025 Third Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328 5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324 2165
          E-mail: don@hwnn.com

               - and -

          T. Christopher Pinedo, Esq.
          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          HILLIARDMUNOZ GONZALES, LLP
          719 S. Shoreline, Suite 500
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 882 1612
          Facsimile: (361) 882 3015
          E-mail: cpinedo@hmglawfirm.com
                  bobh@hmglawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Pilkington" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala to Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pilkington et al. v.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01904, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-13842-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit
for compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, and such
other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to
their minor child as a result of his prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran, also
known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable.  According to the lawsuit, the victim suffered
injuries as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald McKenna Jr., Esq.
          HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
          The Massey Bldg., Suite 800
          2025 Third Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328 5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324 2165
          E-mail: don@hwnn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Gibson-Smith" Suit Moved to Mass. Dist. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------

The class action lawsuit titled Gibson-Smith v. GlaxoSmithKline
LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-01921, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13846-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brought the lawsuit
for compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, and such
other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to
Malachi Jackson as a result of his prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran, also
known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable.  According to the lawsuit, the victim suffered
injuries as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel L. DiLorenzo, Esq.
          THE DILORENZO LAW FIRM, LLC
          505 20th Street North, Suite 1275
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 212 9988
          Facsimile: (205) 212 9989
          E-mail: joel@dilorenzo-law.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Norris" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Norris v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01888, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13833-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brought the lawsuit
for compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, and such
other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to
her minor child as a result of his prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran, also
known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable.  According to the lawsuit, the victim suffered
injuries as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Lenseigne" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lenseigne et al. v.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-01870, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13838-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit
for compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, and such
other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to
their minor child as a result of his prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran, also
known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable.  According to the lawsuit, the victim suffered
injuries as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
          Kathleen R. Kerner, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 365
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653 3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653 9030

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Cox" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cox et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01872, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13832-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit
for compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, and such
other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to
their minor child as a result of his prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran, also
known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable.  According to the lawsuit, the victim suffered
injuries as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
          Kathleen R. Kerner, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 365
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653 3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653 9030

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com


HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Generation Companies Suit Goes to N.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled The Generation Companies, LLC v.
Holiday Hospitality Franchising (HHFL), LLC, et al., Case No.
5:15-cv-00220, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Northern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-04052-LMM to the
proceeding.

HHFL operates as a franchisor and licensor of most Inter
Continental Hotels Group brand names and marks. The company is
based in Atlanta, Georgia, and operates as a subsidiary of
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caroline P. Mackie, Esq.
          Daniel G. Cahill, Esq.
          POYNER & SPRUILL, LLP
          P.O. Box 1801
          301 Fayetteville St., Suite 1900
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Telephone: (919) 783 1108
          Facsimile: (919) 783 1075

               - and -

          Mark S. Adams, Esq.
          JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL
          3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 623 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 623 7202

The Defendants are represented by:

          Corby C. Anderson, Esq.
          Matthew S. DeAntonio, Esq.
          NEXSEN PRUET PLLC
          Carilon Bldg.
          227 West Trade Street, Suite 1550
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 338 5331
          Facsimile: (704) 805 4738

               - and -

          Ronald Thomas Coleman , Jr., Esq.
          Tiffany Rene Johnson, Esq.
          Trishanda L. Treadwell, Esq.
          PARKER, HUDSON, RAINER & DOBBS, LLP
          1500 Marquis Two Tower
          285 Peachtree Center Avenue, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 523 5300
          Facsimile: (404) 522 8409
          E-mail: rcoleman@phrd.com
                  trj@phrd.com
                  ttreadwell@phrd.com


HONEST CO: "Rubin" Suit Transferred from N.D. to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jonathan D. Rubin v. Honest
Company, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04036, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09091-JAK-AGR to the proceeding.

Honest Company designs and manufactures bundles, baby, bath and
body, cleaning, health and wellness, collective, and gift
products. The company is based in Santa Monica, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A Carlin, Esq.
          PHILLIPS ERLEWINE GIVEN AND CARLIN LLP
          39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 398 0900
          Facsimile: (415) 398 0911
          E-mail: nac@phillaw.com

               - and -

          Conor Hughes Kennedy, Esq.
          PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN, LLP
          The Presidio, 39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 398 0900
          Facsimile: (415) 398 0911
          E-mail: chk@phillaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William P. Donovan Jr., Esq.
          Darcie Allison Tilly, Esq.
          Matthew David Caplan, Esq.
          COOLEY, LLP
          1333 Second Street, Suite 400
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-4100
          Telephone: (310) 883-6400
          Facsimile: (310) 883-6500
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: wdonovan@cooley.com
                   dtilly@cooley.com
                   mcaplan@cooley.com


HSBC SERVICES: "Medeiros" Suit Moved from S.D to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gail Medeiros et al. v. HSBC Card
& Retail Services, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01786, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09093-JVS-AFM to the
proceeding.

HSBC Card & Retail Services, also known as HSBC Card Services
Inc., offers private label credit cards and related financial
services. It was formerly known as HSBC Private Label Corporation.
The company was incorporated in 1969 and is based in Prospect
Heights, Illinois and operates as a subsidiary of HSBC Finance
Corporation.

HSBC Technology & Services offers information and data processing
services for the HSBC Bank. The company is based in Pomona,
California and operates as a subsidiary of HSBC Investments (North
America) Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua B Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Azra Z Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM PC
          One Market Spear Tower Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94115
          Telephone: (415) 293 8039
          Facsimile: (415) 293 8001
          E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J Arleo, Esq.
          ARLEO LAW FIRM PLC
          16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (858) 674 6912
          Facsimile: (760) 789 8081
          E-mail: elizabeth@arleolaw.com

               - and -

          Eve H Cervantez, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421 7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362 8064
          E-mail: ecervantez@altber.com

               - and -

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          P Casey Pitts, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421 7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362 8064
          E-mail: mrubin@altshulerberzon.com
                  cpitts@altber.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Arjun P. Rao, Esq.
          Shannon Elizabeth Dudic
          Julia B Strickland
          STROOCK AND STROOCK AND LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 5822
          Facsimile: (310) 407 6322
          E-mail: arao@stroock.com
                  sdudic@stroock.com
                  jstrickland@stroock.com


ITG BRANDS: "Whitney" Suit Transferred from N.D to C.D California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael J. Whitney v. ITG Brands
LLC et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04003, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02018-JVS-RAO to the proceeding.

The complaint seeks to remedy Defendants' deceptive and unfair
sales of Blu electronic cigarettes in California. Consumers of the
Products are exposed to significant amounts of harmful carcinogens
when using the Products as directed. Yet, Defendants allegedly
fail to warn consumers of such cancer-causing chemicals, but they
utterly fail to disclose the presence of such chemicals. Material
omissions in the face of a legal obligation to disclose constitute
unfair competition in violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law, Bus. & Prof. Code and the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act Civ. Code.

ITG Brands is based in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The company's line
of business includes the wholesale distribution of tobacco and its
products. Reynolds American is an American tobacco company and is
the second-largest tobacco company in the United States. Its
holdings include R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, American Snuff
Company (formerly Conwood Company), Santa Fe Natural Tobacco
Company and Niconovum AB. The company's subsidiaries manufacture
and market a variety of tobacco products,
including cigarettes (Newport, Camel, Pall Mall, Kent, Doral,
Misty, Capri and Natural American Spirit brands) and moist
snuff(Grizzly and Kodiak brands). In 2010, Reynolds American's
operating companies sold about 28% of all cigarettes sold in the
U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N Todzo, Esq.
          Abigail Dana Blodgett, Esq.
          Donna F Solen, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP LLP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 913 7800
          Facsimile: (415) 759 4112
          E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
                  ablodgett@lexlawgroup.com
                  dsolen@lexlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher M Burke, Esq.
          SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP
          655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (213) 985 1274
          Facsimile: (213) 985 1278
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          John Jasnoch, Esq.
          Joseph P Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT AND SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 South Main Street
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537 5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537 4432
          E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
                  jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allan Gabriel, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 457 1800
          Facsimile: (213) 457 1850
          E-mail: agabriel@dykema.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Garcia-Catalan" Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Garcia-Catalan et al. v. Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02003,
was transferred from Puerto Rico, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
09286-PA-JPR to the proceeding.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies engages in the research and
development of products in the categories of baby's skin,
bathtime, bedtime, playtime, and natural. The company also
provides products for newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers,
including cleansers, skin care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper
care, sun protection, and nursing products. It offers its products
through food, drug, and mass retail stores in the United States.
The company is based in Skillman, New Jersey, and operates as a
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose R. Franco-Rivera, Esq.
          JOSE R. FRANCO RIVERA
          B-24 Mirador de Borinquen Gardens
          San Juan, PR 00926
          Telephone: (787) 407 7041
          E-mail: jrfrancolaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dora M. Penagaricano-Suarez, Esq.
          McConnell Valdes, LLC
          P.O. Box 364225
          San Juan, PR 00936-4225
          Telephone: (787) 250 5657
          Facsimile: (787) 250 5185
          E-mail: dmp@mcvpr.com

               - and -

          Mark A Neubauer, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT LLP
          North Tower
          2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 530
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 843 6300
          Facsimile: (310) 843 6301
          E-mail: mneubauer@cfjblaw.com


JP MORGAN CHASE: NYTL Suit Moved from N.D. Calif. to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled NYTL v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02290, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-09300-LGS to the proceeding.

Defendants allegedly extracted substantial monies in price of
foreign currency exchange rate overcharges.

Royal Bank of Scotland provides various banking and financial
products and services to personal, commercial, and corporate and
institutional customers in the United Kingdom, the United States,
Europe, and internationally. The company is based in Gogarburn,
Edinburgh, UK.

J.P. Morgan is a commercial and investment banking institution
based in the United States founded by J. Pierpont Morgan and
commonly known as the "House of Morgan" or simply "Morgan". The
firm is a predecessor of two of the largest banking institutions
in the United States and globally, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan
Stanley.

Bank of America is an American multinational banking and financial
services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
It is the second largest bank holding company in the United States
by assets.

HSBC North American Holdings is one of the ten largest bank
holding companies in the United States with assets of US $346
billion at 30 September 2011 (US GAAP). The company's businesses
serve customers in the following key areas: retail banking and
wealth management, credit cards, specialty insurance products,
commercial banking, private banking, asset management, and global
banking and markets.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association provides a range of
banking and other financial services to the corporate,
institutional, and governmental clients in the United States and
internationally.

Barclays PLC (Barclays) is a global financial services holding
company. The Company operates in five business segments: Personal
and Corporate Banking (PCB), Barclaycard, Africa Banking,
Investment Bank and Head Office.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lingel Hart Winters, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LINGEL H. WINTERS
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398 2941
          E-mail: sawmill2@aol.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Esq.
          Theresa Driscoll Moore
          ALIOTO LAW FIRM
          One Sansome Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434 8900
          Facsimile: (415) 434 9200
          E-mail: jmalioto@aliotolaw.com
                  TMoore@aliotolaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center-Suite 3800
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (415) 616 1174
          Facsimile: (415) 616 1199
          E-mail: stephen.hibbard@shearman.com

               - and -

          Roger Brian Cowie, Esq.
          Regina Jill McClendon, Esq.
          James M. Goodin, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, LLP
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 443-0700
          Facsimile: (312) 443-0336
          E-mail: rcowie@lockelord.com
                  rmcclendon@lockelord.com
                  jmgoodin@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Joel Murray Cohen, Esq.
          Melissa C. King, Esq.
          Jennifer Kan, Esq.
          Joel M. Cohen, Esq.
          Micah Galvin Block, Esq.
          Neal Alan Potischman
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450 4592
          Facsimile: (212) 450 3592
          E-mail: joel.cohen@dpw.com
                  melissa.king@davispolk.com
                  jennifer.kan@davispolk.com
                  joel.cohen@davispolk.com
                  micah.block@davispolk.com
                  neal.potischman@dpw.com

               - and -

          Boris Bershteyn, Esq.
          Douglas Allen Smith, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (NYC)
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735 2000
          E-mail: boris.bershteyn@skadden.com
          Douglas.Smith@Skadden.com

               - and -

          Tammy Albarran, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591 6000
          Facsimile: (415) 955 6566
          E-mail: talbarran@cov.com

               - and -

          Indraneel Sur, Esq.
          Joel Steven Sanders, Esq.
          Melanie L. Katsur
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          144 W. Houston Street, Apt. 3
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (202) 955 8253
          Facsimile: (202) 530 9695
          E-mail: isur@gibsondunn.com
                  jsanders@gibsondunn.com
                  mkatsur@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Adam Seth Paris, Esq.
          David Harold Braff, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq.
          John Darrow Echeverria, Esq.
          Kathleen Suzanne McArthur, Esq.
          Matthew Alexander Schwartz, Esq.
          Yvonne Susan Quinn, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712 6600
          Facsimile: (310) 712 8800
          E-mail: parisa@sullcrom.com
                  braffd@sullcrom.com
                  scottj@sullcrom.com
                  echeverriaj@sullcrom.com
                  mcarthurk@sullcrom.com
                  schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com
                  quinny@sullcrom.com


KENNETH COLE: "Cabrera" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Peggy Cabrera v. Kenneth Cole
Productions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05107, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09197-CAS-JC to the proceeding.

Kenneth Cole Productions designs, sources, and markets a range of
fashion footwear, handbags, and apparel in the United States and
internationally. The company, through license agreements, also
designs and markets apparel and accessories under its Kenneth Cole
New York, Kenneth Cole Reaction, Unlisted, and Le Tigre brand
names; and footwear under the proprietary Gentle Souls trademark.
The company is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Henry Alperstein, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750 3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750 3364
          E-mail: jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973 0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973 0950
          E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Wayne S Kreger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE KREGER PA
          100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 940
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 917 1083
          Facsimile: (310) 917 1001
          E-mail: wayne@kregerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephanie A Sheridan, Esq.
          SEDGWICK, LLP
          333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2834
          Telephone: (415) 781 7900
          Facsimile: (415) 781 2635
          E-mail: stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com


KEURIG GREEN: "Rainwater" Suit Moved from E.D. Ark. to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rainwater v. Keurig Green Mountain
Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00590, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S.
District Court for Southern District of New York (Foley Square).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-08985-VSB to
the proceeding.

Keurig Green Mountain, formerly Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, is
a publicly traded specialty coffee and coffeemaker company founded
in 1981 and headquartered in the U.S.  It sources, produces, and
sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, and other beverages under various
brands in portion packs for its Keurig brewing systems; and sells
coffee beans and ground coffee in bags and fractional packs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
          LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          Post Office Box 6205
          Destin, FL 32550-6205
          Telephone: (850) 837 6020
          E-mail: courtdocs@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374 1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com
                  tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Frank Stewart Headlee, Esq.
          Gregory M. Hopkins, Esq.
          HOPKINS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1000 West Second Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 375 1517
          Facsimile: (501) 375 0231
          E-mail: sheadlee@hopkinslawfirm.com
                  ghopkins@hopkinslawfirm.com


LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Settles Class Action for $3.4 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that a
debt-collection law firm in Texas will pay $3.4 million to settle
accusations it practiced law in California without having any
lawyers there, according to a settlement approved by a federal
judge on Jan. 8.

The Austin-based law firm Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson agreed
to pay $2 million to class members and $1.4 million for attorney
fees, expenses and a possible cy pres award, Texas Lawyer reports.
The law firm collects debts on behalf of governmental entities.

The class action was filed by a company that paid $90 to the city
of San Francisco after receiving two demand letters from the law
firm.  According to the amended complaint, Linebarger Goggan had
no lawyers in California until September 2013, and that lawyer
wasn't properly supervised.


LOCAL MEDIA GROUP: "Miguel" Suit Moved to Mass. Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Miguel et al. v. Local Media
Group, Inc., Case No. 1573CV01007, was removed from
Bristol Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-14013-FDS to the proceeding.

Local Media Group operates community media franchises in
California, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon,
and Pennsylvania. It operates a mix of print and online community
media franchises, including daily newspapers, Sunday and weekly
newspapers, Internet sites, magazines, and other news and
advertising publications. The company is headquartered in
Middletown, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          James W. Simpson Jr., Esq.
          100 Concord Street, Suite 3B
          Framingham, MA 01702
          Telephone: (508) 872 0002
          Facsimile: (508) 464 0464
          E-mail: Jwsimpson11@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark W. Batten, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP
          One International Place, 22nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 526 9850
          E-mail: mbatten@proskauer.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: "Luna" Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Luna et al. v. Marvell Technology
Group, Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07214, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-05447-JST to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly made false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Marvell is a fabless semiconductor company, and ships over one
billion chips a year. The Company has design centers located in
China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Malaysia,
Singapore, Taiwan and the U.S. Marvell's purported expertise in
microprocessor architecture and digital signal processing drives
multiple platforms including high volume storage solutions, mobile
and wireless, networking, consumer and green products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lesley Frank Portnoy, Esq.
          Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq.
          Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884 0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                  csadler@glancylaw.com
                  lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Harry Arthur Olivar Jr., Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Telephone: (213) 443 3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443 3100
          E-mail: harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court to Decide on Xbox 360 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court will decide
whether Microsoft Corp. must face a class action lawsuit by
disgruntled owners of the Xbox 360 video-game system who say the
console has a design defect that scratches game disks.

The justices agreed on Jan. 15 to hear an appeal from Microsoft
arguing that individual claims by the plaintiffs had previously
been thrown out.

Microsoft has sold more than 80 million Xbox 360 consoles and says
only 0.4 percent of owners report disk scratching.  The company
says any damage is the result of consumer misuse and not a product
defect.

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2012, ruling there were
not enough complaints to justify a class action.  But a federal
appeals court reversed, saying it could go forward.


NATURAL HEALTH: March 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC on Jan. 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Natural Health Trends Corp.  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares between March 6, 2015 and
January 12, 2016 are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of
the March 14, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you.  You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor by email at info@goldberglawpc.com

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, the Company issued false and
misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the operations of Natural Healths' Chinese entity is not in
compliance with applicable Chinese laws; and (2) as a result,
Natural Healths' statements about business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.


NCL BAHAMAS: "Schimidt" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Schimidt v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. et
al., Case No. 15-025468-CA-01, was removed from 11th Judicial
Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-24372-KMW to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, for allegedly unpaid overtime and or minimum wages
and retaliatory discharge.

NCL (Bahamas) doing business as Norwegian Cruise Line offers
cruise services. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in
Miami, Florida. NCL operates as a subsidiary of Norwegian Cruise
Line Holdings Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Larry S Perlman, Esq.
          Mark J. Neuberger
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          One Biscayne Tower
          2 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 482 8400
          Facsimile: (305) 482 8600
          E-mail: lperlman@foley.com
                  MNeuberger@foley.com


NEW SOURCE ENERGY: "Vaccaro" Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vaccaro v. New Source Energy
Partners L.P. et al., Case No. 653497/2015, was removed from New
York County Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-08954 to the proceeding.

The civil action arose under the Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 22 of the Securities Act.

New Source Energy Partners owns and acquires land to produce oil
and natural gas, and is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter C. Harrar, Esq.
          Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
          WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave., 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686 0114
          E-mail: harrar@whafh.com
                  kamin@whafh.com

               - and -

          Linda P Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, PC
          570 Lexington Ave., 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 702 7054
          E-mail: Inussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, PA
          7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
          Telephone: (305) 357 9018
          Facsimile: (305) 357 9050
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ari M. Berman, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
          666 Fifth Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10103
          Telephone: (212) 237 0228
          Facsimile: (917) 849 5368
          E-mail: aberman@velaw.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Fumerton, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
          E-mial: robert.fumerton@skadden.com

               - and -

          Peter B. Morrison, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Ave., Ste.
          3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone.: (213) 687 5000
          Facsimile: (213) 687 5600
          E-mail: peter.morrison@skadden.com


NOBLE RECOVERY: "Stallworth" FLSA Suit Goes to N.D. Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Stallworth v. Noble Recovery
Services, LLC et al., Case No. 2015-CV-04047-8, was removed from
Superior Court of Clayton County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03978-ELR to the proceeding.

Plaintiff asserted under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for
overtime compensation violations, illegal retaliation, and illegal
race-based discrimination.

Noble Recovery Services is located in Conyers, Georgia and serves
the repossession needs of customers throughout all the metro
Atlanta area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex R. Roberson, Esq.
          J. Stephen Mixon, Esq.
          MILLAR & MIXON, LLC
          1691 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 150
          Atlanta, GA 30349
          Telephone: (770) 955 0100
          Facsimile: (678) 669 2037
          E-mail: alex@mixon-law.com
                  steve@mixon-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Job J. Milfort, Esq.
          PRIOLEAU & MILFORT, LLC
          271 17th Street, NW, Suite 520
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 681 4886
          Facsimile: (404) 920 3330
          E-mail: job@pmlawteam.com


NYK: Faces Class Action Over Price-Fixing Deals
-----------------------------------------------
Joseph Bonney, writing for JOC.com, reports that a class-action
complaint filed with the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission seeks
damages for alleged shipping act violations by 10 roll-on, roll-
off carriers already entangled in criminal and civil price-fixing
investigations.

Cargo Agents Inc., International Transport Management Corp. and
RCL Agencies filed the FMC case in the wake of guilty pleas by
three carriers and four former carrier managers, and indictments
of three other persons.

The complaint alleges that the carriers violated the shipping act
by cutting capacity-restricting and price-fixing deals that
weren't part of FMC-filed agreements.

The shippers are seeking double damages for themselves and
similarly situated parties that paid "artificially high prices. .
. for vehicle carrier services on shipments to and from the United
States."

The complaint was filed against NYK, Mitsui O.S.K., World
Logistics Service (U.S.A.), "K" Line, Eukor Car Carriers,
Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics, CSAV, Hoegh Autoliners, Autotrans,
and Nissan Motor Car Carrier Corp.

According to the complaint, these carriers transport at least two-
thirds of U.S. vehicle imports.

A separate Justice Department antitrust investigation centered in
Baltimore has produced guilty pleas and fines by "K" Line Japan,
which paid $67.7 million; NYK Line Japan, $59.4 million, and CSAV,
$8.9 million.

Four former "K" Line and NYK officials have pleaded guilty to
antitrust violations and been fined $20,000 each and sentenced to
prison terms ranging from 14 to 18 months.  Three other former
executives of the companies were indicted last October.

Several civil damage suits also have been filed against ro-ro
carriers for alleged antitrust violations.  Those cases have been
consolidated into a single case in U.S. District Court in New
Jersey.

In addition to the U.S. cases, the Japan Fair Trade Commission in
2014 fined Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics and Japanese carriers
NYK, "K" Line and Nissan Motor Car Carrier a total of $224 million
for price fixing on routes from Japan to North America, Europe,
the Middle East, south Asia and Australasia between 2008 and
September 2012.  Mitsui O.S.K Lines avoided a fine by seeking
leniency before the JFTC launched its investigation in September
2012.


OHIO: Suit Over Juvenile Correctional Facilities Terminated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in S.H. v. Reed, No. 2:04-cv-1206, filed on December
20, 2004, a complaint challenging conditions at the Department
Youth Service (DYS) juvenile correctional facilities in Ohio. The
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio later
entered an order certifying the S.H. case as a class action.

On May 16, 2008, the United States filed a similar complaint in
the companion case United States v. Ohio, No. 2:08-cv-475.

On May 18, 2007, the court approved a case management plan under
which the parties agreed to a joint fact finding team. On May 21,
2008, the parties agreed to a stipulation of injunctive relief
which incorporated the report and established that the conditions
of confinement for youth in DYS facilities violated the
constitutional and statutory rights of the youth. The Stipulation
provided for a period of oversight by a court-appointed monitor
for five years. The court appointed Will Harrell and Kelly Dedel
as monitors.

On February 18, 2014, the S.H. plaintiffs filed a motion for
specific performance and alleged a failure to provide adequate
treatment to youth who are or have been on the mental health
caseload. The United States also filed a supplemental complaint
renewing its motion for a temporary restraining order.

Through settlement negotiations, the parties reached an agreement
on the resolution of plaintiffs' claims, which the court approved.
The parties agreed that defendants' compliance with the Grid would
be monitored by Mr. Harrell and Dr. Dedel until DYS maintained
substantial compliance with all provisions and performance
measures for six months.

The Monitors have submitted final reports on the DYS facilities
for boys and DYS-contracted facilities for girls, finding DYS in
substantial compliance with the remaining quality assurance
measures under monitoring. The Monitors have also submitted a
final report entitled "The Ohio Model: A Report on the
Transformation of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, 2007-
2015," which details the remarkable improvement in conditions of
confinement in DYS juvenile facilities over the last seven years.

All parties now agree that the case should be terminated and filed
a joint motion to terminate the consent decree.

District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the joint motion and terminated
the consent decree.  A copy of Judge Marbley's order dated
December 9, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/0pkevVfrom
Leagle.com.

The case is, S.H., a minor child and all others similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HARVEY J. REED, Defendant. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 2:04-CV-1206, 2:08-CV-00475 (S.D. Ohio)

United States Department of Justice, Interested Party, represented
by Alexandra L. Shandell, U.S. Department of Justice, Cynthia Coe,
Silvia Dominguez, Benjamin O Tayloe, Jr., United States Department
of Justice, Jacqueline K Cuncannan, Department of Justice, Rashida
Jamila Ogletree, US Department of Justice & Vincent Herman

William Harrell, Interested Party, Pro Se

S.W. a minor child, by and through her next friend Brenda Woods,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA,
Jennifer Lynn Branch, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA, Angelina N
Jackson, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, David A Singleton, Ohio Justice &
Policy Center, Jennifer M Kinsley, The Law Office of Jennifer
Kinsley, Kimberly Brooks Tandy, Children's Law Center & Maria
Ramiu, Youth Law Center

D.J., a minor child, by and through her next friend Vera Johnson,
and all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff, represented by
Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA,
Jennifer Lynn Branch, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA, Angelina N
Jackson, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, David A Singleton, Ohio Justice &
Policy Center, Jennifer M Kinsley, The Law Office of Jennifer
Kinsley, Kimberly Brooks Tandy, Children's Law Center & Maria
Ramiu, Youth Law Center

B. F., a minor child, by and through his next friend Rod Fuller,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA,
Jennifer Lynn Branch, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA, Angelina N
Jackson, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, David A Singleton, Ohio Justice &
Policy Center, Jennifer M Kinsley, The Law Office of Jennifer
Kinsley, Kimberly Brooks Tandy, Children's Law Center & Maria
Ramiu, Youth Law Center

Harvey J Reed, Defendant, represented by Thomas Nathaniel Anger,
Ohio Attorney General Criminal Justice, Dustin J Calhoun, Ohio
Department of Youth Services & Judith B Goldstein, Ohio Attorney
General


OREGON: Linn County Mulls Class Action Over Mismanagement of Lands
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reports that in a
legal action that could have major implications for Oregon Forest
Trust Lands, Linn County officials said on Jan. 13 they intend to
file a $1.4 billion class-action suit against the state, charging
that mismanagement of the lands has cost counties $35 million a
year since 1998.

Linn County plans to file the lawsuit in 30 days in Linn County
Circuit Court, alleging breach of contract, on behalf of it and 14
other counties that receive money based on annual timber harvests
on the Oregon Forest Trust Lands.

Linn County Commissioners Roger Nyquist, John Lindsey and Will
Tucker announced the legal action on Jan. 13 at the state Capitol.

"This breach of contract has had devastating effects on local
communities that have seen both poverty and unemployment rates
skyrocket in the last two decades as a result of current
practices," Mr. Nyquist said.  "While there has been much talk
about the plight of rural Oregon by statewide policymakers, there
has been no action to address the fundamental problem.  This
litigation serves as an action step to improve the local economies
of small towns located near county Forest Trust Lands all over the
state."

The litigation names Gov. Kate Brown and State Forester Doug
Decker. A spokesperson said Brown had no comment.

At issue in the legal action are 654,000 acres of Forest Trust
Lands in Oregon, including 21,000 acres in Linn County, mostly in
the Mill City area, with a small segment east of Lebanon.

There are about 8,000 acres in the northwest corner of Benton
County.

Other counties with the lands are Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia,
Coos, Douglas, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln, Marion, Polk,
Tillamook and Washington.

In Linn County, taxing districts affected are the County School
Fund, Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESD, School District 129 J (Santiam
Canyon/Mill City), Mill City, Chemeketa Community College, Linn-
Benton Community College and the 4-H Extension Service District.

They are all potential plaintiffs in the lawsuit, as are more than
100 beneficiaries of the harvest revenue, including law
enforcement agencies, school districts and other special districts
throughout the counties.

Counties and districts can choose to opt out of the legal action,
but if they take no action to do so, they will be included as
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs are represented by attorney
John DiLorenzo -- johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP of Portland.

Private industries that have approved a Common Interest Agreement
and will provide some funding for the lawsuit are the Oregon
Forest & Industries Council, Stimson Lumber Co., Hampton Tree
Farms and the Sustainable Forests Fund.

Mr. Nyquist said the issue of less-than-expected state payments
"has been an issue since I first came on the board.  The
opportunity (to pursue the lawsuit) has presented itself and we
believe this is a clear breach of contract.  We have talked with
the Oregon Department of Forestry about this for 17 years and have
gotten nowhere."

Mr. Nyquist said the lawsuit will "hold the state and the Oregon
Department of Forestry accountable for their actions."

Mr. Nyquist estimates the change in management of the forest lands
has cost Linn County "tens of millions of dollars" and has
resulted in double-digit unemployment rates and increased poverty"
in rural communities.

"I regret it has come to this," Mr. Nyquist said.  "In a perfect
world, people sit down, resolve their differences and then go
their separate ways."

The following is the estimated annual loss in potential income
experienced by each of the affected counties based on 2001-2014
figures:

Benton County, $731,479; Clackamas, $377,796; Clatsop,
$12,024,122; Columbia, $598,043; Coos, $189,871; Douglas,
$239,063; Josephine, $11,636; Klamath, $1,040,034; Lane,
$1,451,433; Lincoln, $728,770; Linn, $2,385,188; Marion,
$1,236,719; Polk, $163,297; Tillamook, $8,913,715; Washington,
5,147,916. Total: $35,239,089.

The issues leading to the legal action date back to the 1930s,
when the state of Oregon established a "legal framework for the
conveyance of forest lands from the county to the state," the
litigants noted in a press statement.

In exchange, the lands were to be managed and portions of revenues
generated by timber sales distributed to the counties.

The commissioners noted that Oregon courts consistently have ruled
that the state is contractually bound to manage Forest Trust Lands
for the benefit of the 15 counties.

But in the press release, the commissioners said that "Beginning
in 1998 the state breached the contract when it adopted a new rule
that de-emphasized revenue generation for the counties in exchange
for other objectives.  The state then implemented a management
plan without the informed consent of the counties that resulted in
roughly half the revenues the counties should have received if the
lands were managed in accordance with best management practices
required of private landowners."

The state of Oregon began acquiring the lands from the counties in
the 1930s, in part due to abandonment by families during the Great
Depression and in the aftermath of massive fires in the 1930s and
1940s.

Transferring property ownership to the state also removed those
lands from county tax rolls.

The state and the Forest Trust Land Counties developed an
agreement that the Oregon Department of Forestry would manage the
lands for the benefit of the counties and keep a fee for its
services.

Remaining income would be distributed to the counties.

The state agreed to manage the lands for grazing and forestry and
later amended the agreement to include "the greatest permanent
value" of the lands.

The litigants believe the counties understood the "greatest
permanent value" clause to mean generation of revenues for the
Forest Trust Land Counties, while working within accepted best
management practices.

But that hasn't worked out that way, the litigants say, as land
that was being used for timber harvests has been diverted to other
uses such as recreation, habitat and aesthetics.

Mr. DiLorenzo, whose company has taken on the lawsuit on a
contingency basis, called the action, " . . . a straightforward
breach of contract case. The state's breach has strained citizens'
needs."

He said he spoke with Gov. Brown's legal counsel shortly before
the press conference.

Mr. DiLorenzo said there have been two previous lawsuits
concerning changes to the contract between the counties and the
state over the years and both were won by the counties.

He said that although there are several possible outcomes
associated with a lawsuit, Mr. DiLorenzo said there are two key
questions a Linn County Circuit Court jury would have to answer:
Was there a breach of contract? And what is monetary value of the
breach?

The Oregon Forest & Industries Council is one of the private
organizations supporting the litigation.

Spokesperson Sara Duncan said the council -- composed of companies
such as Weyerhaeuser, Avery Interests and Miami Corporation -- was
glad to support Linn County's efforts.

"We're very supportive," Ms. Duncan said.  "We think Linn County
has a really good case.  Our members have had long-term
partnerships within these counties and a direct connection with
the people who live and work in these communities who benefit
economically and ecologically from the forest lands."

Ms. Duncan said it appears the counties "have a very strong
breach-of-contract case."


PAYPAL INC: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

If you are a current or former user of PayPal in the
United States who had an active PayPal account between April 19,
2006 and November 5, 2015, this Notice describes your rights and
potential benefits from a class action settlement.

THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS - PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY

A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a
lawyer.

NOTE: Some of the dates referred to in this notice have not yet
been set by the Court.  These dates will be published on the
Settlement Website, located at www.accountholdsettlement.com once
the dates are set, so please remember to check the Settlement
Website periodically.

* This Notice summarizes a proposed class-action settlement of
claims brought against PayPal, Inc. ("PayPal") and eBay Inc.
("eBay") (together, "Defendants").  The Settlement resolves a
lawsuit in which plaintiffs allege that PayPal improperly handled
disputed transactions on PayPal accounts and improperly placed
holds and reserves on accounts or closed or suspended accounts.
Plaintiffs also allege that PayPal failed to provide annual error-
resolution notices and monthly account statements under the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

* You are part of the Settlement if you had an active PayPal
account between April 19, 2006 and
November 5, 2015.

* You are part of the Settlement and also may be eligible to
submit a claim for a cash payment if you had a hold or reserve
placed on your account and/or your account was closed or suspended
by PayPal between April 19, 2006 and November 5, 2015.

* The Settlement will require PayPal to implement or maintain
certain business practices and to pay between $3,200,000 and
$4,000,000.  At least $2,240,000, less notice and administration
costs, is expected to be paid to settlement class members who had
holds or reserves placed on their accounts and submit a claim for
payment, and up to an additional $800,000 will be used to make
payments to settlement class members who had holds or reserves
placed on their accounts or whose accounts were closed or
suspended who claim damages.

* Settlement Class Counsel will ask the Court for up to $960,000
to be paid as fees and expenses for investigating the facts,
litigating the case and negotiating the settlement and for service
awards of up to $2,500 for each named class representative.

* The two sides disagree on whether Plaintiffs would have won at
trial.

* Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act.
Read this notice carefully.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM

If you had an active PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and
November 5, 2015 and had a hold or reserve placed on your
account and/or the account was closed or suspended by PayPal, you
are a Claims Class Member.  In order to receive a settlement
payment, you must timely submit a Claim.

If you had an active PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and
November 5, 2015 but you did not have a hold or reserve placed on
your account and your account was not closed or suspended by
PayPal, then you are only an Injunctive Relief Class Member and
you may not submit a claim for payment.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF

If you are a Claims Class Member, you may exclude yourself from
the Claims Class and receive no payment, but will you will remain
in the Settlement.  If you are an Injunctive Relief Class Member,
you may not exclude yourself from the Settlement.

OBJECT

You can write to the Court about why you don't like the
Settlement.

GO TO A HEARING

You can ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the
Settlement.

DO NOTHING

If you do nothing, you will not receive any payment and will no
longer be able to sue Defendants and the other released parties
for the conduct alleged in the lawsuit.

* These rights and options-and the deadlines to exercise them-are
explained in this notice.

* The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to
approve the Settlement.  Payments will only be made if the Court
approves the Settlement and after appeals are resolved.  Please be
patient.

* This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement.  For the precise
terms and conditions of the Settlement, please see the Settlement
Agreement available at www.accountholdsettlement.com
by accessing the Court docket in this case through the Court's
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cm-ecf or by visiting the office of
the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA
94612, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Court holidays.

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO
INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.

BASIC INFORMATION

1. Why did I get notice?

You were sent an e-mail or postcard notice because PayPal's
records show that you had a PayPal account between April 19, 2006
and November 5, 2015.

The Court sent you the notice because you have a right to know
about the proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit, and about
all of your options, before the Court decides whether to approve
the Settlement.

If the Court approves the Settlement, and after objections and
appeals are resolved, PayPal will be obligated to implement or
maintain certain business practices.  The Settlement Class
includes an "Injunctive Relief Class" and a "Claims Class." (See
Question 5 for a description of each.) If you are a member of the
Claims Class, you will be eligible to submit a Claim for payment.
This notice explains the lawsuit, the Settlement, your legal
rights, what benefits are available, who is eligible for them and
how to get them.

The Court in charge of the case is the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the case is
known as Zepeda, et al. v. PayPal, Inc., Case No. 10-CV-02500 SBA
("Zepeda" or the "Action").  The people who sued are called
Plaintiffs, and the companies they sued are called the Defendants.

A related case, Fernando, et al. v. PayPal, Inc., Case No. 10-CV-
01668 SBA ("Fernando"), has been stayed until the Settlement
becomes effective.  If you do not opt out of this Settlement, you
will release any claims asserted in the Action that are also
asserted on your behalf in Fernando.

2. What is this lawsuit about?

Plaintiffs in this case allege, among other things, that PayPal
improperly handled disputed transactions on PayPal accounts and
improperly placed holds, reserves or limitations on accounts or
closed or suspended accounts.  Plaintiffs also allege that PayPal
failed to provide them with annual error-resolution notices and
monthly account statements allegedly required under the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act.

Defendants have denied all allegations of wrongdoing and
liability.  Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' claims have no
merit and that Defendants would prevail in the Action.  The Court
has not finally ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or
Defendants' defenses.  There has been no finding that Defendants
violated any law in their conduct toward the Plaintiffs or other
members of the Settlement Class.

Plaintiffs and Defendants have entered into a Settlement
Agreement, which, if approved by the Court, will fully and finally
resolve the claims asserted by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves
and everyone else in the Settlement Class.

3. Why is this a class action?

In a class action, one or more people, called class
representatives, sue on behalf of people who have similar claims.
All these people are a class or class members.  One court resolves
the issues for all class members, except for those who exclude
themselves.  U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong is in
charge of this class action.

4. Why is there a settlement?

The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendants.
Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement.  That way, they avoid
the costs and uncertainty of a trial. The class representatives
and their attorneys think the Settlement is best for all
Settlement Class Members.

WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT?

5. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?

You are a member of the Injunctive Relief Class if you are a
current or former user of PayPal in the United States who had an
active PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and November 5, 2015.
You are a member of the Claims Class if you are a current or
former user of PayPal in the United States who: (1) had an active
PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and November 5, 2015; and
(2) had a hold or reserve placed on the account and/or the account
was closed or suspended by PayPal.  Excluded from the Claims Class
are judicial officers presiding over this action and the members
of their immediate families and judicial staff.

All Claims Class Members also are Injunctive Relief Class Members.
The Injunctive Relief Class and the Claims Class are referred to
together as the Settlement Class.

6. Are there exceptions to being included?

Excluded from the Claims Class are judicial officers presiding
over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and
judicial staff.

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS - WHAT YOU GET

7. What does the Settlement provide?

PayPal has agreed to implement or maintain the following business
practices for the benefit of the Injunctive Relief Class:

a. PayPal will disclose its use of fraud and risk modeling in the
PayPal User Agreement, which governs the types of accounts and
conduct at issue in the Action, and which is available on the
PayPal website.

b. PayPal will not respond to requests for information with an
email advising users that they must seek a subpoena to obtain
information and will revise its email response to advise users to
communicate with PayPal to seek additional information.  This
advice is not intended to imply that PayPal is obligated to
provide, or that users are entitled to or will receive, any
additional information.

c. PayPal will revise the PayPal User Agreement to more clearly
distinguish among "holds," "reserves" and "limitations," as those
terms are used by PayPal, including in the PayPal User Agreement.

d. PayPal will enhance the disclosures on its website by including
a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) providing users with
greater detail on holds, reserves and limitations.

e. In response to calls to customer service, PayPal will disclose
the reason for a hold, reserve or limitation to the extent not
inconsistent with PayPal's security requirements, which will be
determined at PayPal's sole discretion.  If PayPal is unable to
inform a user of the reason for a hold, reserve or limitation due
to security requirements, it will inform the user that it cannot
tell the user the reason due to security requirements.

Additionally, PayPal has agreed to pay $3,200,000 into a
Settlement Fund, with an additional $800,000 potentially available
for the benefit of certain Claims Class Members.  The Settlement
Fund will be used to pay: (1) class notice and settlement
administration costs; (2) attorneys' fees and costs to Class
Counsel; (3) service awards to plaintiffs; (4) attorneys' fees and
costs to Fernando Counsel; and (5) timely and valid Basic Claims
submitted by Claims Class Members, as described below.  If
$200,000 or more remains in the Settlement Fund after all of the
forgoing are paid, then up to $200,000 may be used to pay valid
and timely Alternate Claims.  Any amounts remaining in the
Settlement Fund after all of the forgoing are paid will be donated
to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

8. How much will my payment be?

If you are a Claims Class Member and elect to make a Basic Claim,
payment will be determined based on the dollar amount of the
longest hold or reserve on your account and how many Claims Class
Members send in valid claims.  Basic Claim amounts are estimated
to range between $3.00 and $440.00, depending on the length and
amount of the hold or reserve, based on the following grid:

Length of Hold/Reserve
1-30 days
31-90 days
91-150 days
Over 150 days

Hold/Reserve under $1,000

$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$14.00

Hold/Reserve $1,000 to $10,000

$3.00
$5.00
$10.00
$25.00

Hold/Reserve over $10,000

$36.00
$150.00
$100.00
$440.00

If you are a Claims Class Member and instead elect to make an
Alternate Claim, you may seek a payment based on your actual
damages, which will be determined by a neutral third party
selected by the Court based upon documentation submitted by you
and PayPal.  No payment or Alternate Claims will exceed
$2,000. If an Alternate Claim is denied by the neutral third
party, it will be treated as a Basic Claim.

HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT - SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM

9. How can I get a payment?

To qualify for payment, you must be a member of the Claims Class.
To receive a payment, you must submit a Claim Form through the
Settlement Website, www.accountholdsettlement.com
Read the instructions carefully and fill out the Claim Form
completely.

The last day to submit Claim Forms has not yet been set by the
Court.  The date will be published on the Settlement Website,
located at www.accountholdsettlement.com once the date is set, so
please remember to check the Settlement Website periodically.

10. When would I get my payment?

The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the
Settlement.  If the Court approves the Settlement, there may be
appeals after that.  It's always uncertain whether these appeals
can be resolved, and resolving them can take time, perhaps more
than a year.  If there is an appeal, this information will be
posted on the Settlement Website, www.accountholdsettlement.com
The date of the hearing has not yet been set by the Court.  The
date will be published on the Settlement Website, located at
www.accountholdsettlement.com once the date is set, so please
remember to check the Settlement Website periodically.

11. What am I giving up to get a payment or stay in the Class?

If you are a Claims Class Member, unless you exclude yourself, you
are staying in the Claims Class, and that means that you can't
sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit about the
legal issues released in the Settlement Agreement.  It also means
that all of the Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind
you.

The Settlement provides for a release of Released Claims, defined
as follows:

"Released Claims" means and refers to any and all rights, duties,
obligations, claims, actions, causes of action or liabilities,
whether arising under local, state or federal law (including,
without limitation, California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq., California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1750 et seq., the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1693 et seq. (the "EFTA"),
and 12 C.F.R. pt. 1005 ("Regulation E"), whether by constitution,
statute, contract, common law or equity, whether known or unknown,
suspected or unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, foreseen or
unforeseen, actual or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated and
which has been or could be asserted in an individual, class,
private attorney-general, representative, parens patriae or any
other capacity: (a) that relate to the placing of holds or
reserves or any other limitations on PayPal transactions or
accounts, or the closing, suspending or limiting of PayPal
accounts, including without limitation any disclosure or
non-disclosure with respect thereto; (b) that relate to the
payment or failure to pay interest on funds subject to a hold,
reserve or limitation, including without limitation any disclosure
or non-disclosure with respect thereto; or (c) that relate to
Defendants' obligations under the EFTA and/or Regulation E.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, "Released Claims" shall not include
any claim for monetary relief, other than a claim for statutory
damages under the EFTA and/or Regulation E, by an Injunctive
Relief Class Member who is not also a Claims Class Member or who
timely opts out of the Claims Class.

"Released Parties" means and refers to Defendants and each and all
of their respective present, former and future direct and indirect
parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, successors and
predecessors-in-interest, and all of the aforementioneds' prior,
current and future respective officers, directors, employees,
attorneys, shareholders, agents, independent contractors, vendors
and assigns.

Plaintiffs and each Settlement Class Member, and each of their
respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives,
agents, attorneys, partners, successors, predecessors-in-interest
and assigns, and all persons acting for or on their behalf, will
be deemed to have fully released and forever discharged the
Released Parties from the Released Claims.  Without limiting the
foregoing, the Released Claims specifically extend to claims that
Settlement Class Members do not know or suspect to exist in their
favor at the time that the Settlement, and the releases contained
herein, becomes Effective.  This paragraph constitutes a waiver of
any laws that would limit this release, including, without
limitation, section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which
provides:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE
CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR
AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR
HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH
THE DEBTOR.

Plaintiffs understand and acknowledge, and each Settlement Class
Member who is not excluded from the Settlement shall be deemed to
understand and acknowledge, the significance of these waivers of
California Civil Code section 1542 and/or of any other applicable
law relating to limitations on releases.  In connection with such
waivers and relinquishment, Plaintiffs acknowledge, and all
Settlement Class Members who are not excluded from the Settlement
shall be deemed to acknowledge, that they are aware that they may
hereafter discover facts in addition to, or different from, those
facts which they now know or believe to be true with respect to
the subject matter of the Settlement, but that it is their
intention to release fully, finally and forever all Released
Claims, and in furtherance of such intention, the release of the
Released Claims will be and remain in effect notwithstanding the
discovery or existence of any such additional or different facts.

12. What if all of the Settlement Fund is not spent?

The Settlement Agreement provides for proration of settlement
payments depending on the number of Claims submitted. If money
remains in the Settlement Fund after all amounts are paid,
including all timely and valid claims, that remaining amount will
be donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT

Only Claims Class Members may exclude themselves, and they may
only exclude themselves from the Claims Class.  If you are a
Claims Class Member and you don't want a payment from this
Settlement, but you want to keep the right to sue or continue to
sue Defendants for monetary relief, you must exclude
Yourself -- which is sometimes referred to as "opting out."

Injunctive Relief Class Members may not exclude themselves from
the Settlement.

13. How do I get out of the Settlement?

If you are a Claims Class Member, to exclude yourself from the
Claims Class, you must send a personally signed letter containing
the following information: (i) your name, address and telephone
number; (ii) the primary e-mail address associated with your
PayPal account(s); and (iii) the following statement: "I request
to be excluded from the Claims Class in Zepeda v. PayPal, Northern
District of California Case No. 10-cv-02500 SBA."  You must mail
your exclusion request to:

Zepeda v. PayPal Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 4259
Portland, OR 97208-4259

If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any settlement
payment, but you will still be bound by the releases provided to
Defendants by the Injunctive Relief Class.  However, you may be
able to sue (or continue to sue) PayPal in the future for monetary
relief.

If you have a pending lawsuit, speak to your lawyer in that case
immediately. You must exclude yourself to continue your own
lawsuit for monetary relief.

The last day to mail an exclusion request has not yet been set by
the Court.  The date will be published on the Settlement Website,
located at www.accountholdsettlement.com once the date is
set, so please remember to check the Settlement Website
periodically.

14. If I exclude myself, can I get money from this Settlement?
No.  If you exclude yourself, do not submit a Claim Form to ask
for any money.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

15. Do I have a lawyer in this case?

The Court has approved the following attorneys to represent you
and other Settlement Class Members in this action: Quantum Legal
LLC; Lexington Law Group; Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos
& Lehrman, P.L.; and Seeger Weiss LLP.  These lawyers are called
Class Counsel. You will not be charged for these lawyers.  If you
want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at
your own expense.

16. How will the lawyers be paid?

Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve payment of up to
$940,000 for attorneys' fees and expenses and payment of up to
$2,500 to each of the named class representatives for their
services, for a total of up to $960,000.  The fees would pay Class
Counsel and other attorneys for investigating the facts,
litigating the case and negotiating the Settlement.  The Court may
award less than these amounts.  Any payments will come from the
Settlement Fund of $3,200,000.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

You can tell the Court that you don't agree with the Settlement or
some part of it.

17. How do I tell the Court that I don't like the Settlement?
If you're either an Injunctive Relief Class Member or a Claims
Class Member, you can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an
objection.  You can't ask the Court to order a larger settlement;
the Court can only approve or deny the Settlement agreed to by the
parties.  If the Court denies approval, no settlement payments
will be sent out and PayPal will be under no obligation to
implement or maintain the specified business practices and the
lawsuit will continue.  If that is what you want to happen, you
must object.

You may object to the proposed Settlement in writing.  You may
also appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either in person or
through your own attorney.  If you appear through your own
attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney.  All
objections must be in writing and must: (i) clearly identify the
case name and number (Zepeda v. PayPal, Case Number 10-cv-02500-
SBA); (ii) be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the
Class Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, or by
filing them in person at any location of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California; (iii) be
filed and/or postmarked on or before the date set by the Court;
(iv) include your name, address and telephone number; (v) include
an e-mail address associated with your PayPal account(s); (vi)
include a sentence confirming, under penalty of perjury, that you
are a Settlement Class Member; (vii) identify the factual basis
and legal grounds for the objection to the Settlement; (viii)
identify any witnesses whom you may call to testify at the Final
Approval Hearing; and (ix) include copies of any exhibits you
intend to offer into evidence at the Final Approval Hearing.  By
submitting an objection, you agree to sit for a deposition in your
county or other agreed location.

The last day to mail an objection has not yet been set by the
Court.  The date will be published on the Settlement Website,
located at www.accountholdsettlement.com once the date is set, so
please remember to check the Settlement Website periodically.

18. What's the difference between objecting and excluding?
Objecting is simply telling the Court that you don't like
something about the Settlement.  Excluding yourself is telling the
Court that you don't want to be part of the Settlement. Both
Injunctive Relief and Claims Class Members may object.  Only
Claims Class Members may exclude themselves from the Claims Class
and, if they do, may not object to that portion of the Settlement.

THE COURT'S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the
Settlement.  You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you
don't have to.

19. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
Settlement?

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at the United States
District Court for Northern District of California, 1301 Clay
Street, Oakland, CA 94612, courtroom 1.  At this hearing the Court
will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.  If there are timely and complete objections, the
Court will consider them.  The Court may also decide how much to
pay to Class Counsel.  After the hearing, the Court will decide
whether to approve the Settlement.  We do not know how long these
decisions will take.

The date of the Final Approval Hearing has not yet been set by the
Court.  The date will be published on the Settlement Website,
located at www.accountholdsettlement.com once the date is
set, so please remember to check the Settlement Website
periodically.

20. Do I have to come to the hearing?

No. Class Counsel will answer questions the Court may have. But,
you may come at your own expense.

If you send an objection, you don't have to come to Court to talk
about it.  As long as you mailed your written objection on time
and included all required information, the Court will consider it.
You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it's not
necessary.

21. May I speak at the hearing?

You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Final
Approval Hearing. To do so, you must send a letter with your
objection stating that it is your intention to appear at the
hearing.  Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number
and signature.  Your notice of intention to appear must be sent to
the Clerk of the Court at the address in question 17. You cannot
speak at the hearing if you excluded yourself.

The last day to mail a notice of intention to appear at the Final
Approval Hearing has not yet been set by the Court.  The date will
be published on the Settlement Website, located at
www.accountholdsettlement.com once the date is set, so please
remember to check the Settlement Website periodically.

IF YOU DO NOTHING

22. What happens if I do nothing at all?

If you do nothing, you'll get no money from this Settlement but
will still receive the benefit of the business practices listed in
the answer to Question 7.  But, unless you exclude yourself from
the Claims Class, you won't be able to start a lawsuit, continue
with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against
Defendants about the monetary claims released in this Settlement,
ever again.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

23. Are there more details about the settlement?

This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement.  For the precise
terms and conditions of the Settlement, please see the Settlement
Agreement available at www.accountholdsettlement.com.com by
accessing the Court docket in this case through the Court's Public
Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cm-ecf or by visiting the office of
the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA
94612, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Court holidays.

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO
INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.


PRESSLER AND PRESSLER: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Donohue, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pressler and Pressler, LLP, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
08430-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., December 2, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Pressler and Pressler, LLP operates a law firm located at 7 Entin
Rd, Parsippany, NJ 07054.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 695-3282
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
              yzelman@marcuszelman.com


QUALCOMM INC: Jan. 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Jan. 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Qualcomm, Inc. securities between November 6, 2014 and July 22,
2015, inclusive.  Investors who have suffered losses on their
investment in Qualcomm securities are encouraged to contact the
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in
this class action.

Qualcomm is a global semiconductor company that designs,
manufactures and markets worldwide digital communications products
and services. The Company generates revenues from the sale of its
microchips to mobile-phone manufacturers and from its patent
portfolio via perpetual license agreements with third-party
manufacturers, primarily in China.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements regarding its business practices and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the financial risks
facing the Company; and (2) that, as such, the Company's positive
statements about its business, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Qualcomm during the Class Period you
may move the Court no later than January 29, 2016 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish
to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


RADIANCY INC: "Olivo" Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Olivo et al v. Radiancy Inc. et
al., Case No. 7:15-cv-06281, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01926-CKK
to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly made material
misrepresentations regarding the no!no! Hair such as that it was
akin to laser hair removal or professional hair removal
treatments, superior to shaving, and capable of permanent or long
term hair removal by suppressing hair growth.

Radiancy was founded in 1998. In 2011, PhotoMedex, Inc., announced
a merger agreement with Radiancy, whereby Radiancy became a wholly
owned subsidiary of PhotoMedex. Radiancy's consumer distribution
segment in North America had sales of approximately $33.8 million
for fiscal year 2010, and $71.8 million for the nine months ending
September 30, 2011. The vast majority of which were from the
no!no! device. Radiancy uses a mix of direct-to-consumer
advertising that includes infomercials, commercials, catalog and
Internet-based marketing campaigns.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Irving Scher, Esq.
          Scott A. Martin, Esq.
          James Pizzirusso
          Stephanie Berger
          HAUSFELD LLP
          165 Broadway, Suite 2301
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 357 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 202 4322
          Email: ischer@hausfeld.com
                 smartin@hausfeld.com
                 jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                 sberger@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Aaron M. Levine, Esq.
          Brandon J. Levine, Esq.
          AARON LEVINE & ASSOCIATES
          1111 16th Street N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 833 8040
          Facsimile: (202) 833 8046
          E-mail: aaronlevinelaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Patrick A. Malone, Esq.
          PATRICK MALONE & ASSOCIATES
          1111 16th Street N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 742 1500

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles Samuel Fax, Esq.
          RIFKIN, WEINER, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN & SILVER, LLC
          7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (301) 951 0150
          Facsimile: (301) 951 0172
          E-mail: cfax@rwlls.com


REMINGTON ARMS: Class Action Settlement Talks Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Terrill, writing for Guns.com, reports that as negotiations
continue over the settlement agreement in a class action suit
against Remington Arms, the father of a victim killed because of a
defective rifle released a trove of internal company documents
he's collected over the years that undermine official statements
made by the company in court.

Richard Barber, of Manhattan, Montana, submitted the documents on
Dec. 21 for the case Pollard v Remington along with a letter
describing his intentions. He says he wants to "educate the court"
and correct the record that he says has been intentionally muddied
by the gun maker.

"I have come to believe grossly misleading and deceptive
statements were made to you during the February 4, 2015 hearing,"
the letter states.  "I have and continue to believe these false
statements were possibly made with the intent to deceive the
court, with the ultimate goal to minimize the financial impact to
'old' Remington surrounding one of the products not covered by the
retrofit of the X Mark Pro covered by the class settlement."

The documents contain the official transcript of a statement
regarding Remington's efforts to ensure its products are "safe"
during the February hearing, and past company communications,
which date back as far as 1975, that prove the company has
historically chose to work around possibly deadly problems rather
than fix them, Barber's letter suggests.

Mr. Barber's letter says that the company's statements "were not
entirely truthful, not even close!" and were offered to ease the
judge's expressed concerns about leaving owners at risk.

Exposing Remington's infamy has been Mr. Barber's crusade since
his 9-year-old son was killed in 2000 when a Remington rifle
discharged when the safety was released. Without a pull of the
trigger, the round traveled through a horse trailer and then
struck the boy in the hand and stomach.

Mr. Barber was awarded a settlement of an unspecified sum in 2002
for his wrongful-death lawsuit.  Since the case ended, he says
he's collected millions of pages of content on the Remington
trigger defect and because of his vast knowledge is considered a
national authority of matters involving Remington bolt-action
rifles.

Mr. Barber served as an expert on the class action suit, but ended
his official involvement after the February hearing.  He says he
entered the letter "in an unofficial capacity as a courtesy to the
court."

When the court ordered the settlement in the class action suit in
December 2014, the judge denied Remington an order that would
prohibit the public access to documents in the case.

Negotiations for the settlement agreement, which would detail
compensation, court fees and a recall or fix of possibly millions
of Remington rifles, has been ongoing for the better part of a
year.  A judge recently approved a motion to again extend the
deadline to Feb. 29.


RESTAURANT COLLECTION: "Roque" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Roque v. Restaurant Collection,
Inc. et al., Case No. 15-25368-CA-01, was removed from 11th
Judicial Circuit Court In Miami Dade, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-24456-JAL
to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay
overtime salary under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own Denny's full service restaurants. The company
offers hamburgers, steaks, salads, and desserts in breakfast,
lunch, and dinner. The company also engages in franchising its
operations and is based in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 347 7337
          Facsimile: (305) 347 7837
          E-mail: crgl@shutts.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Aidman, Esq.
          FORD HARRISON
          101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Telephone: 813-261-7840
          E-mail: taidman@fordharrison.com

                           *     *     *

On Dec. 29, 2015, Judge Joan A. Lenard issued an order dismissing
the case, without prejudice.  According to the case docket, "THIS
CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Notice of Settlement
filed on December 28, 2015. Pursuant to the law of the Eleventh
Circuit, this Court must review all proposed FLSA Settlement
Agreements for a determination of whether it represents "a fair
and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA
provisions." Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d
1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982). However, the parties have not filed a
proposed Settlement Agreement.  Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED that (1) this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
(2) within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order, the
parties shall file a fully-executed Settlement Agreement for the
Court's approval pursuant to Lynn's Food , 679 F.2d at 1355, after
which the Court may amend this Order to dismiss the above-
captioned action with prejudice; (3) all pending motions are
DENIED AS MOOT; and (4) this case is now CLOSED. This entry
constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety."

On Jan. 6, 2016, Judge Lenard issued an order denying a Joint
Motion for Approval of Parties' Settlement Agreement.  Paragraph 5
of the Settlement Agreement provides that "Defendants agree to pay
Three Thousand Dollars ($8,000.00) in full satisfaction of any and
all Plaintiff's claims...." Obviously, three thousand dollars is
not the same as $8,000.00. Although the breakdown of the
distribution of the proceeds adds up to $8,000.00, to avoid any
possible ambiguity regarding the Settlement Sum, the Court
required the Parties to submit a Revised Settlement Agreement to
correct the error and specify whether the Settlement Sum is
$3,000.00 or $8,000.00.  The Parties were given until and
including January 13, 2015 to file a Revised Settlement Agreement
to rectify the issues identified by the Order.


RIGHTSCORP: Settles Robocall Class Action
-----------------------------------------
In late 2014, Techdirt wrote about a class action lawsuit filed
against copyright trolling operation Rightscorp, which argued two
things: (1) that the company's robocalling people's mobile phones
accusing them of copyright infringement violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), because you're not allowed to
robocall mobile numbers, and that (2) the use of questionable DMCA
512(h) subpoenas to discover accounts associated with IP addresses
was "abuse of process."  Rightscorp and co-defendant Warner Bros.
got that second claim tossed for violating California's anti-SLAPP
law.

However, the robocalling/TCPA claim remained, and after bringing
in a third party to help the two sides negotiate, it appears that
they've reached a settlement agreement that has been presented to
the judge for approval.  According to the proposed settlement, the
defendants will have to cough up $450,000, and members of the
class (i.e., those who received Rightscorp robocalls to their
mobile phones) can claim up to $100 each from the pool of money.
Perhaps more interesting is that, so long as those class members
sign an "Affidavit of Non-Infringement," then Righscorp promises
not to pursue them for any copyright infringement claims.
Apparently, this actually applies to members of the class who
don't even make a claim for any money.

Defendants will contribute $450,000 to the Settlement Fund.  Each
Qualified Class member who timely submits a claim may receive a
payment of up to $100.00 subject to the following condition.  The
Settlement Agreement provides that Defendants will release any and
all alleged claims or counterclaims for copyright infringement
against Settlement Class Members who timely execute an Affidavit
of Non-Infringement.  The value of the total infringement releases
is estimated to fall between $94.8 million and $19 billion in
total statutory damages.

That last number is a bunch of hogwash.  It's just using the
ridiculous statutory damages numbers to put a value on the
promises to drop any copyright claims, but since Rightscorp never
actually sues anyone, the statutory damages are meaningless.  The
idea behind it, though, is to show why the amount is lower than
what the TCPA prescribes for violations of robocalling rules.
Either way, this at least gets a bunch of folks out of
Rightscorp's crosshairs. Rightscorp also promises to prevent
future such robocalling, which may somewhat limit its ability to
keep up its trolling operation.

It's not clear who exactly is paying the $450,000.  Even though
Righscorp is the real culprit, the much bigger pocketed Warner
Bros.  Entertainment and BMG are both defendants as well, so it
wouldn't surprise me to discover that the actual money comes from
them. However, maybe it will make them think twice about
associating with trolling lowlifes like Rightscorp.  This isn't
final yet, as the court still needs to approve it -- but courts
generally approve these kinds of settlements just to get the cases
off the docket.  So unless someone raises serious issues with it,
it's likely to come to pass.


ROSS STORES: "Castellanos" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Castellanos v. Ross Dress For
Less, Inc. et al, Case No. 15-024908-CA-01, was removed from 11th
Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-24463-MGC to the
proceeding.

Ross Dress For Less is doing business as DD's Discounts. The
company retails apparel and accessories, and is based in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven Adam Siegel, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS
          450 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525 4800
          Facsimile: (954) 525 8739
          E-mail: ssiegel@laborlawyers.com


ROSS STORES: "Castellanos" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Castellanos v. Ross Dress For
Less, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-024908-CA-01, was removed from
11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-24463-MGC to
the proceeding.

Ross Dress For Less is doing business as DD's Discounts. The
company retails apparel and accessories, and is based in the
United States

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven Adam Siegel, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS
          450 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525 4800
          Facsimile: (954) 525 8739
          E-mail: ssiegel@laborlawyers.com


SAINT-GOBAIN: Faces "Beck" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Beck, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC603229 (Cal. Super.
Ct., December 4, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. operates a container glass
production facility in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action Over Earthquake Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordann Lucero, writing for FOX25, reports that a law firm filed a
class action lawsuit in Logan County against four Oklahoma oil
companies, saying these companies need to take responsibility for
damaging earthquakes caused by waste water injection.

Weitz & Luxenberg named SandRidge Exploration and Production,
New Dominion, Chesapeake Operating and Devon Energy Production
Company.

In a statement on Jan. 13, Robin Greenwald with Weitz & Luxenberg
said "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.  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."

While it is looking for compensation for plaintiffs, Weitz &
Luxenberg said it is also seeking for the companies to strengthen
buildings that could be damaged by earthquakes and for the
companies to create an earthquake monitoring program and
prediction center.


SC JOHNSON: Falsely Marketed Glade(R), "Shmidt" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ulyana Shmidt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Case No. CV156898 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 4, 2015) arises out of the Defendants alleged false,
deceptive and misleading statements in promoting the odor
eliminating capabilities of Glade(R) aerosol sprays, claiming that
each can "eliminates odors" and provides "up to 7 hours of
freshness."

S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. is a global manufacturer of household
cleaning supplies and other consumer chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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: cklee@leelitigation.com


SECOND AVENUE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Rivera" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Rivera, Pablo Lezama Morales, Jaime Flores-Tovar, Rogelio
Cornejal, and Placido Vazquez-Contreras, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Second Avenue Diner Corp. d/b/a
Plaza Diner, Konstantinos Aronis, Michael Aronis, and Sophia
Aronis, Case No. 1:15-cv-09490 (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 hours per work week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1066 Second
Avenue, New York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Pope, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Simm Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01575 -CRE
(W.D. Pa., December 2, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Simm Associates, Inc. is an accounts receivable management
specialists working with creditors to recover outstanding consumer
credit accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
      MOYNIHAN LAW
      112 Washington Pl Ste 1-N
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 889-8535
      Facsimile: (800) 997-8192
      E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net


SKY KING: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Joseph Cooper, Jr., on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees v. Sky King Satellite, Inc., Case No.
6:15-cv-02792 (W.D. La., December 4, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Sky King Satellite, Inc. is a supplier of technical and
installation services to DirecTV, which is a direct broadcast
satellite television service provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
      KENNETH D. ST. PE, LLC
      311 West University Avenue, Suite A
      Lafayette, LA 70506
      Telephone: (337) 534-4043


STAR FARMS: Ruling Deferred on Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the District of Colorado
defers ruling on the joint motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed class action settlement in the case JUANA ARMIJO, and
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STAR FARMS, INC.; and
ANGELO PALOMBO, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-cv-01785-MSK-MJW
(D. Colo.)

Juana Armijo and Mr. Apolinar Valenzuela Ramos are migrant farm
workers who were employed by Star Farms, Inc. and Angelo Palombo.
Plaintiffs brought a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) and a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees of Star
Farms. Plaintiffs allege that Star Farms violated provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Agricultural Worker's
Protection Act (AWPA).

After a settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge, the
plaintiffs and Star Farms reached an agreement whereby Star Farms
would make a series of payments into a fund to be distributed
incrementally to class members who file a claim.

There are two classes, thea Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class and the
collective action class under the FLSA. Both classes include all
employees of Star Farms from June 27, 2011 through November 13,
2015.

The parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of
proposed 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) collective and Fed. R. Civ.P. 23
class action settlement.

Judge Krieger wants clarification and modification of the notice,
claim and objection procedures.  The parties were directed to
jointly contact chambers at 303-335-2289 to set a hearing date to
address notice and other issues.

A copy of Judge Krieger's order dated December 14, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/OmV55rfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Edward Frank Siegel, Esq.
     Alexander Neville Hood, Esq.
     TOWARDS JUSTICE
     1535 High Street, Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80218
     Telephone: 720-441-2236
     Facsimile: 303-957-2289

Defendants, represented by:

     Larry M. Snyder, Esq.
     LARRY M. SNYDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     3300 E 1st Ave #690
     Denver, CO 80206
     Telephone: 303-321-0800


SUE MILLS: "Avisar" Suit Moved from Superior Court to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Avisar v. Sue Mills, Inc., Case
No. CGC 15-548621, was removed from San Francisco County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-05370-JCS to the proceeding.

Sue Mills is a California corporation based in San Francisco,
California. The company's line of business includes retail sale of
specialized lines of apparel and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Evan S. Gaines, Esq.
          Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Rd., Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703 8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703 8984
          E-mail: alex@gaineslawfirm.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. McGaughey, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, LLP
          445 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3177
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 426 2170
          Facsimile: (973) 597 6233
          E-mail: mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com


SOULCYCLE: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------
Ellie Shechet, writing for Jezebel, reports that on Jan. 12, a
California court ruled against SoulCycle's motion to dismiss a
class-action lawsuit that accused the fitness chain of stealing
from customers via class passes with "unreasonably short
expiration periods."

CNN reports that a judge ruled these class passes--which SoulCycle
sells in bundles ranging from one class to 50--to be gift cards,
which subjects them to the following laws:

The federal CARD Act (Credit Card Accountability Responsibility
and Disclosure Act) prohibits expiration periods of less than five
years and the California Gift Certificate Law prohibits expiration
periods on gift cards such as the ones SoulCycle offers.
A single class pass, which costs $34 (plus a $3 shoe rental fee),
expires after 30 days; 20 classes expire in 9 months, 50 classes
in a year.  SoulCycle does not offer refunds for unused classes.
This policy allows the chain to make significant profits at the
expense of consumers, according to an attorney for the plaintiffs
(via CNN): "SoulCycle's illegal expiration dates contributed to
SoulCycle earning over $25 million in profit this past year."

The suit, which was filed in August 2015, can now move forward as
a class action.  According to an August Business Insider report,
lead plaintiff Rachel Cody claimed her $30 single-class
certificate expired before she was able to use it:

The lawsuit also brings up how SoulCycle's popularity comes into
play.  With classes at peak times filling up rapidly, it can
become difficult to get into classes, thereby posing more of a
risk of wasting classes.

According to Business Insider, the lawsuit aims to refund
customers who have had class certificates expire.

This isn't the first class action lawsuit for SoulCycle, which was
founded in 2006: a former instructor sued the chain in 2013 for
violating wage laws.  The lawsuit was eventually settled out of
court, but a lawyer on that case later filed his own lawsuit
against SoulCycle, alleging he was improperly banned from working
out there after working on the 2013 case.

The cycling chain, which will host a Hillary Clinton fundraiser
headlined by Chelsea Clinton, filed for an initial public offering
in July.


SOUTHAVEN, MS: Troy Goode's Family Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bianca Phillips, writing for Memphis Flyer, reports that the
family of the Memphis man who died in Southaven police custody in
July has filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee.

The suit seeks damages in the death of Troy Goode from the city of
Southaven, the Southaven Police Department, and the emergency
workers on the scene at the time of his death.

Mr. Goode had taken LSD in the parking lot outside a Widespread
Panic show in Southaven on July 18th. According to reports, he
began acting erratically before the show, and his wife decided to
drive him home.  On the way there, she pulled into a parking lot
on Goodman Road, and Mr. Goode got out of the car.  A witness who
observed his behavior called police.

When police arrived, Mr. Goode reportedly ran around the parking
lot and even released a police dog from a van.  Southaven police
attempted to restrain Mr. Goode by hog-tying him, and Mr. Goode
passed away at Baptist DeSoto Memorial Hospital, where he was
transported by police.

The Mississippi state autopsy report blamed LSD for Mr. Goode's
death, but his attorney Tim Edwards has disputed that report.  An
independent autopsy ordered by Edwards found that the hog-tying
position led Mr. Goode to struggle with breathing and eventually
sent his heart into cardiac arrhythmia, leading to his death.

If Mr. Goode did actually die from taking LSD, he would be one of
very few people to die from direct complications with the
hallucinogen.  Experts in the fields of hallucinogens and forensic
toxicology have long disputed the possibility of an LSD overdose.
LSD deaths are more commonly related to trauma experienced from
hallucinations, such as when a person on LSD commits suicide or
wrecks a vehicle.


SUNEDISON INC: Feb. 1 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP advises
SunEdison, Inc. shareholders that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against SunEdison on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between June 16, 2015 and October 6, 2015, inclusive.

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/sunedison-inc

SunEdison finances, builds, owns and operates various solar and
wind power plants.  As part of SunEdison's business, the Company
is dependent upon the utilization of YieldCos such as TerraForm
Global Inc. and TerraForm Power Inc. for the generation of
predictable cash flows.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that SunEdison and
certain of its senior executive officers issued a series of false
and misleading statements, and omitted to disclose material
information, to investors during the Class Period.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that the defendants misled investors "by
creating the picture that the Company had the financial
wherewithal to sustain continued growth," but that "as the Company
continued its acquisition binge, it was revealed that the entire
scheme was nothing more than a house of cards."

On October 5, 2015, SunEdison filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
announcing a 15% reduction of its workforce, and reporting that it
would incur restructuring charges of $30 - $40 million.  The
following day, The Wall Street Journal reported that SunEdison had
failed to make a required $400 million upfront cash payment for a
$700 million planned acquisition of Latin American Power.

On October 6, 2015, SunEdison's stock closed at $8.69 per share -
a decline of 72% from the value of the Company's stock at the
start of the Class Period.

Shareholder Update: On January 13, 2016, Bloomberg reported that
Appaloosa Management LP, a major shareholder of TerraForm Power
Inc., sued Sun Edison in an effort to stop a "fundamentally
unfair" acquisition of Vivint Solar Inc.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com

SunEdison shareholders who purchased their securities during the
Class Period may, no later than February 1, 2016, petition the
Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the class.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  Members of the
purported class may move the Court to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check or other counsel,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  In
order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims
of other class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class in the action.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate
governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf
of institutional and individual investors from the United States
and around the world.  The firm represents investors, consumers
and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent
practices against the government and share in the recovery of
government dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed
by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check.


SYNGENTA AG: "Orebaugh" Suit Goes to S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Orebaugh et al. v. Syngenta AG et
al., Case No. 49D02-1511-CT-37302, was removed from Marion County
Superior Court 2, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana (Indianapolis). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01915-JMS-DKL to the proceeding.

Syngenta is a global Swiss agribusiness that produces
agrochemicals and seeds. As a biotechnology company, it conducts
genomic research. It was formed in 2000 by the merger of Novartis
Agribusiness and ZenecaAgrochemicals. As of 2014 Syngenta was the
world's largest crop chemical producer, strongest in Europe.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Ruskin Reese, Esq.
          Stephen M. Wagner, Esq.
          WAGNER REESE & CROSSEN, LLP
          11939 North Meridian Street
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 569 0000
          Facsimile: (317) 569 8088
          E-mail: jreese@WagnerReese.com
                  swagner@injuryattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew W. Hull, Esq.
          HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP
          111 Monument Circle, Suite 4400
          P.O. Box 44989
          Indianapolis, IN 46244-0989
          Telephone: (317) 822 4400
          Facsimile: (317) 822 0234
          E-mail: awhull@hooverhullturner.com


TESCO PLC: April 21 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
In re TESCO PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION
Southern District of New York

Case: 14 Civ. 8495 (RMB)
TO:      ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TESCO
AMERICAN DEPOSITORY RECEIPTS OR TESCO F SHARES BETWEEN APRIL 18,
2012 AND SEPTEMBER 22, 2014, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"):

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on April 21,
2016, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Richard M. Berman at the
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St.,
Courtroom 17B, New York, New York 10007, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement for the sum of
$12,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement Fund") should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether, after the
hearing, this above-captioned action (the "Action") should be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of November 19,
2015; (3) whether the plan of allocation is fair, reasonable and
adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application
of lead counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses incurred in this Action should be
approved.  Lead counsel will request attorneys' fees in the amount
of no greater than 30% of the Settlement Fund plus expenses not to
exceed $200,000.  It is estimated that the costs for notice and
administration of the settlement will not exceed $257,147.06, and
those costs are also subject to Court approval.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Tesco American Depository
Receipts or Tesco F Shares between April 18, 2012 and September
22, 2014, inclusive, (the "Class Period") your rights may be
affected by the settlement of this Action.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the proof of claim and
release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies by writing to
Tesco PLC Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., P.O. Box
4390, Portland, Oregon 97208-4390, or by visiting the website at
www.tescosecuritieslitigation.com

The Notice contains details about this Action and settlement,
including what you must do to exclude yourself from the
settlement, object to the terms of the settlement, or file a Claim
Form.  If you are a class member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked no later than May 5, 2016, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery.  You are excluded from the class if (i) you
were an officer or director of Tesco during the Class Period; (ii)
you are an entity in which any defendant has a controlling
interest; (iii) you are an immediate family member of any
defendant; or (iv) you are an entity that brought claims in the
litigation captioned Western & Southern Life Insurance Co., et al.
v. Tesco PLC, No. 15-cv-658-SSB-SKB, pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

If you desire to be excluded from the class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked by April 5, 2016, in the manner
and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.  All
members of the class who have not timely and validly requested
exclusion from the class will be bound by any judgment entered in
the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation
of Settlement.

Any objection(s) to the proposed settlement must be mailed on or
before April 5, 2016 to Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, lead counsel for
lead plaintiff and the class at the following address: Lewis S.
Kahn, KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC, 206 Covington Street, Madisonville,
Louisiana 70447.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the settlement, you
may contact lead counsel for lead plaintiff and the class c/o
Lewis S. Kahn, KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC, 206 Covington Street,
Madisonville, Louisiana 70447.  You can also call lead counsel
toll-free at 1 (866) 467-1400.

Dated:  New York, New York
December 30, 2015


THREE SEASONS LANDSCAPE: "Urrutia" Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Urrutia v. Three Seasons Landscape
Contracting Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 150601769,
was removed from Common Pleas Philadelphia, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-06416-LDD
to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly misused and
abused this visa program in their employment of Plaintiff and
other foreign workers. Rather than simply use the H-2B program to
fill a labor shortage and address a true business need, as it is
intended to be used, Defendants use the H-2B program to hire
foreign workers who are dependent on them for their immigration
status and are less educated, less familiar with their rights in
the U.S., and less able to seek legal assistance than U.S.
workers.

Three Seasons Landscape Contracting Services is a small, fairly
new landscaping company in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania. It opened
its doors in 2012 and now has an estimated $45,000 in yearly
revenue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur N. Read, Esq.
          Stephanie Dorenbosch, Esq.
          FRIENDS OF FARMWORKERS, INC.
          699 Ranstead St. Suite 4
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-2334
          Telephone: (215) 733 0878
          E-mail aread@friendsfw.org
                 sdorenbosch@friendsfw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sean Robins, Esq.
          MARKS O'NEILL O'BRIEN DOHERTY & KELLY PC
          1800 John F Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          E-mail: srobins@mooclaw.com


UBER TECH: "Varon" Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Varon v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
et al., Case No. 03-C-15-010201 OT, was removed from the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03650-MJG to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seek damages pursuant to
Maryland labor Law for violations of failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime compensation, and failure to keep required
payroll records.

Uber Technologies provides e-commerce services for car hire. The
company offers a website that allows users to request a car for
hire from any mobile device text message. Uber serves customer
worldwide and is based in San Francisco California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George G Tankard, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 2700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: GTankard@napolilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sarah E Henninger, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          1150 17th St NW Ste 900
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 842 3400
          Facsimile: (202) 842 0011
          E-mail: lhenninger@littler.com


UBER TECH: Settles Class Action Over "Airport Fee Toll"
-------------------------------------------------------
Jon Fingas, writing for Engadget, reports that if you've taken an
Uber ride to a Californian airport and got hit with a surprise
fee, you might be owed some cash.  Uber has agreed to pay a
settlemement in a class action lawsuit that accuses it of charging
an "airport fee toll" years before it was legally required (last
November), letting drivers pocket the extra funds.  The move will
dish out $1.8 million between as many as 355,000 affected
passengers.  That's not much in practice -- just over $5, if
everyone is covered -- but it's welcome if you felt burned on that
trip to LAX.

The settlement doesn't amount to an admission of guilt, and the
case is still ongoing.  Whatever happens, the lawsuit may serve as
a deterrent against these sorts of arbitrary fees in the future.
Hopefully, Uber and other ridesharing companies will be more
likely to wait until officials actually ask for money before they
start hiking your fares.


UBER TECH: "Dinofa" Suit Goes from Common Pleas Court to E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dinofa v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
et al., Case No. 150902252, was removed from Court of Common Pleas
Philadelphia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-06121 to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly committed
tortious interference with contract and business relations; breach
of contract; unjust enrichment; conversion; unfair competition;
fraud and misrepresentation; and violations of Pennsylvania Labor
Law.

Uber Technologies provides a smartphone application that connects
drivers with people who need a ride. The company's application
enables users to arrange and schedule transportation and/or
logistics services with third party providers. The company is
based in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George G. Tankard, III, Esq.
          WATERS & KRAUS
          315 North Charles St.
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 528 1153
          E-mail: gtankard@waterskraus.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew J Hank, Esq.
          Paul C. Lantis, Esq.
          Wendy Buckingham, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          Three Parkway
          1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-1321
          Telephone: (267) 402 3000
          Facsimile: (267) 402 3131
          E-mail: mhank@littler.com
                  plantis@littler.com
                  wbuckingham@littler.com


UNITED POTATO GROWERS: Deal Okayed in Indirect Purchasers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the District of Idaho
granted the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the class action settlement in the case entitled IN
RE: FRESH AND PROCESS POTATOES ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT
APPLIES TO ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS, Case No. 4:10-MD-2186-
BLW (D. Idaho)

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPP) and all defendants have
entered into a settlement agreement that would resolve the
coordinated IPP class action lawsuits.

The IPP filed a motion for final approval of class action
settlement.

The action is certified as a class action for the purposes of
settlement only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(e). The IPP Classes are defined
as follows:

     Injunction Class: All individuals and entities who
          purchased fresh potatoes from retailers in Arizona,
          California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
          Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina,
          Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin for end use and not
          for resale, between October 14, 2004 and April 10,
          2015.

     Monetary Relief Class: All individuals and entities who
          purchased fresh potatoes from retailers in Arizona,
          California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
          Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina,
          Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin for end use and not
          for resale, between October 14, 2004 and April 10,
          2015.

The court finds that IPP class representatives Jonathan Rizzo;
Trang Nguyen; Kelly Tschantz; John Brashears; Jeffrey Keel;
Crystal Tschantz; Gary Tschantz; BreAnne Krabbenhoft; Paul Langer;
Kory Pentland; Abigail Rizzo; Julie Ewald; Brendan Farrell; Robert
Finch; Benedetto DiLorenzo; Suzy Ivey McCrory; Jeff Potvin; Navtej
Bhandari; and Joyce Rizzo have fairly and adequately represented
the interests of the IPP classes and satisfy the requirements to
be IPP class representatives.

Milberg LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, previously appointed
by the court as interim class counsel for IPPs, are appointed IPP
class counsel. The firms have, and will continue to, fairly and
competently represent the interests of the IPP classes. The court
appoints Kurtzman Carson Consultants as court-appointed expert in
notice and claims administration and authorizes KCC to perform the
duties set forth in the IPP settlement agreement regarding
settlement administration.

Upon final approval of the IPP settlement agreement, the releasees
shall be completely released, acquitted, and forever discharged
from any and all released claims, as set forth in the IPP
settlement agreement. Released claims shall not include, and the
IPP Settlement Agreement shall not and does not release, acquit or
discharge, claims based solely on purchases of Fresh Potatoes
outside of the class jurisdictions.

The court retains continuing jurisdiction over the settlement
proceedings and the parties are directed to carry out their
obligations under the IPP settlement agreement.

A copy of Chief District Judge Winmill's order dated December 14,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/COv3bgfrom Leagle.com.

Brigiotta's Farmland Produce and Garden Center, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Aaron M Sheanin, Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny,
LLP, Alexandra S Bernay, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Allan
Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Arthur N
Bailey, Jr, Bobby Pouya, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bonny E
Sweeney, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Carmen A Medici,
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, D Scott Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Daniel M Cohen, Cuneo, Gilbert,
and LaDuca, David Alan Scupp, Constantine Cannon LLP, Douglas A
Millen, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Eugene A Spector,
Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., James J Pizzirusso,
HAUSFELD LLP, Jay L Himes, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jeannine M
Kenney, Hausfeld, LLP, Jeffrey L Spector, Spector Roseman Kodroff
& Willis, P.C., Kathleen Styles Rogers, The Kralowec Law
Group,Kimberly A Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group, Mark A Griffin,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Michael Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, Michael P
Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP,Michael Sanford Smith, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios LLP, Mindee J Reuben, WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF &
ASHER LLC, Philip Howard Gordon, GORDON LAW OFFICES, Robert W
Biederman, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Robert
W Finnerty, Girardi and Keese, Robert Wozniak, Freed Kanner London
& Millen LLC, Ronald J Aranoff, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Steven A
Asher, WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Steven A Kanner, Freed
Kanner London & Millen LLC & Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon,
LLP

Todd Simon, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Michael Barton, Law
Offices of Joseph M. Barton, Lionel Z Glancy, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP &
Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Brittney Vander Heiden, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E
Williams, THOMAS WILLIAMS & PARK LLP, Elizabeth McKenna, Milberg
LLP, Lauren Block, Milberg LLP, Paul Novak, Milberg LLP, Peter
G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine
Canon, LLP, Chad V. Bonanni, Esq., Bergeron, Paradis &
Fitzpatrick, Charles Slidders, Milberg LLP & Susan G Kupfer,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Trang Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E Williams, THOMAS
WILLIAMS & PARK LLP, Elizabeth McKenna, Milberg LLP, Lauren Block,
Milberg LLP, Paul Novak, Milberg LLP, Peter G.A. Safirstein,
Morgan & Morgan, Chad V. Bonanni, Esq., Bergeron, Paradis &
Fitzpatrick, Charles Slidders, Milberg LLP & Susan G Kupfer,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Kory Pentland, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E Williams, THOMAS
WILLIAMS & PARK LLP, Elizabeth McKenna, Milberg LLP, Lauren Block,
Milberg LLP, Paul Novak, Milberg LLP, Peter G.A. Safirstein,
Morgan & Morgan, Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon, LLP, Chad V.
Bonanni, Esq., Bergeron, Paradis & Fitzpatrick, Charles Slidders,
Milberg LLP & Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Abigail Rizzo, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E Williams, THOMAS
WILLIAMS & PARK LLP, Elizabeth McKenna, Milberg LLP, Lauren Block,
Milberg LLP, Paul Novak, Milberg LLP, Peter G.A. Safirstein,
Morgan & Morgan, Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon, LLP, Chad V.
Bonanni, Esq., Bergeron, Paradis & Fitzpatrick, Charles Slidders,
Milberg LLP & Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Jonathan Rizzo, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E Williams,
THOMAS WILLIAMS & PARK LLP, Elizabeth McKenna, Milberg LLP, Lauren
Block, Milberg LLP, Paul Novak, Milberg LLP, Peter G.A.
Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon,
LLP, Chad V. Bonanni, Esq., Bergeron, Paradis & Fitzpatrick,
Charles Slidders, Milberg LLP & Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP

Sergio Marvilla, Plaintiff, represented by Donald Amamgbo, Amamgbo
& Associates, Reginald Von Terrell, The Terrell Law Group, Sharron
Williams Gelobter, Yurumein Law Firm & Susan G Kupfer, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP

Joyce Rizzo, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E Williams, THOMAS
WILLIAMS & PARK LLP, Elizabeth McKenna, Milberg LLP, Lauren Block,
Milberg LLP, Paul Novak, Milberg LLP, Peter G.A. Safirstein,
Morgan & Morgan, Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon, LLP, Charles
Slidders, Milberg LLP, David J Syrios, Ademi & O'Reilly LLP &
Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.
Navtej Bhandari, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E Williams,
THOMAS WILLIAMS & PARK LLP, Elizabeth McKenna, Milberg LLP, Lauren
Block, Milberg LLP, Paul Novak, Milberg LLP, Peter G.A.
Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon,
LLP,Charles Slidders, Milberg LLP, David J Syrios, Ademi &
O'Reilly LLP & Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Taul LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E Williams, THOMAS
WILLIAMS & PARK LLP, Elizabeth McKenna, Milberg LLP, Lauren Block,
Milberg LLP, Paul Novak, Milberg LLP, Peter G.A. Safirstein,
Morgan & Morgan, Charles Slidders, Milberg LLP, David J Syrios,
Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Martha Florez, Plaintiff, represented by Julio Joaquin Ramos, Law
Offices of Julio J. Ramos & Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP

John Brashears, Plaintiff, represented by Sylvia M Sokol,
Constantine Canon, LLP, Charles Slidders, Milberg LLP, Elizabeth
McKenna, Milberg LLP, Lauren Block, Milberg LLP, Paul Novak,
Milberg LLP, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan & Susan G
Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Kelly Tschantz, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Novak, Milberg LLP,
Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon, LLP, Anthony D Phillips, Berman
DeValerio, Daniel E Williams, THOMAS WILLIAMS & PARK LLP, Joseph
Michael Barton, Law Offices of Joseph M. Barton, Lionel Z Glancy,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Todd A
Seaver, Berman DeValerio

Jeffrey Keel, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Novak, Milberg LLP,
Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon, LLP, Joseph Michael Barton, Law
Offices of Joseph M. Barton, Lionel Z Glancy, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP,Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
&Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Crystal Tschantz, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Novak, Milberg
LLP, Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon, LLP, Joseph Michael
Barton, Law Offices of Joseph M. Barton, Lionel Z Glancy, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP,Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP &Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Gary Tschantz, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Novak, Milberg LLP,
Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon, LLP,Joseph Michael Barton, Law
Offices of Joseph M. Barton, Lionel Z Glancy, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
&Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Paul Langner, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Novak, Milberg LLP,
Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon, LLP, Joseph Michael Barton, Law
Offices of Joseph M. Barton, Lionel Z Glancy, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP,Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
&Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Jessica Eliav, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Novak, Milberg LLP,
Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine Canon, LLP,Joseph Michael Barton, Law
Offices of Joseph M. Barton, Lionel Z Glancy, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
&Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

J R Mazzola, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P Hansel,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Mindee J Reuben, WEINSTEIN
KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Randall B Weill, Preti Flaherty, Arthur N
Bailey, Jr, David Alan Scupp, Constantine Cannon LLP, James J
Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP, Jeannine M Kenney, Hausfeld, LLP,
Michael Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, Michael P Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP,
Michael Sanford Smith, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP,
Philip Howard Gordon, GORDON LAW OFFICES & Robert Wozniak, Freed
Kanner London & Millen LLC

BreeAnne Krabbenhoft, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Novak,
Milberg LLP, Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Sylvia
M Sokol, Constantine Canon, LLP

Julie Ewald, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Novak, Milberg LLP,
Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Sylvia M Sokol,
Constantine Canon, LLP

Robert Finch, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Novak, Milberg LLP,
Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Sylvia M Sokol,
Constantine Canon, LLP

Raymond Elliott, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Novak, Milberg
LLP, Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Sylvia M Sokol,
Constantine Canon, LLP

Suzy Ivey McCrory, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Novak, Milberg
LLP, Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Sylvia M Sokol,
Constantine Canon, LLP

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by James J
Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP, Jeannine M Kenney, Hausfeld, LLP, Mindee
J Reuben, WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Sylvia M Sokol,
Constantine Canon, LLP, David Alan Scupp, Constantine Cannon LLP &
Philip Howard Gordon, GORDON LAW OFFICES

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Steve Six, Stueve Siegel Hanson, Sylvia M Sokol, Constantine
Canon, LLP, Andrew Funk, Stueve Siegel Hanson, David A Hickey,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Patrick J Stueve, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP


Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Susan G
Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Amanda K Brailsford, Andersen Banducci PLLC, Steven B Andersen,
Andersen Banducci PLLC, Aaron M Chandler, Andersen Banducci, PLLC
&Donald Michael Barnes, PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP

United Potato Growers of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Amanda K Brailsford, Andersen Banducci PLLC, Steven B Andersen,
Andersen Banducci PLLC, Aaron M Chandler, Andersen Banducci, PLLC
& Donald Michael Barnes, PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP

United II Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Amanda K Brailsford, Andersen Banducci PLLC, Steven B Andersen,
Andersen Banducci PLLC, Aaron M Chandler, Andersen Banducci, PLLC
&Donald Michael Barnes, PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP

Albert T Wada, Defendant, represented by Amanda K Brailsford,
Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen Banducci PLLC

Wada Farms Potatoes, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda K
Brailsford, Andersen Banducci PLLC &Steven B Andersen, Andersen
Banducci PLLC

Wada-Van Orden Potatoes, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda K
Brailsford, Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen
Banducci PLLC

Wada Farms Marketing Group, LLC., Defendant, represented by Amanda
K Brailsford, Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen
Banducci PLLC

Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., Defendant, represented byDaniel G
Swanson, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, Samuel G Liversidge, GIBSON
DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP & Stephen R Thomas, MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT
ROCK & FIELDS

Dole Food Co., Defendant, represented by Daniel G Swanson, GIBSON
DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, Samuel G Liversidge, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER,
LLP & Stephen R Thomas, MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK & FIELDS

Blaine Larsen Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented byDavid F
Smutny, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Daniel W Bower,
STEWART TAYLOR & MORRIS PLLC, Lauren James Parker, Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Monte N Stewart, Stewart Taylor &
Morris PLLC,Robert Rosenfeld, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP,Stephen Bomse, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,Steven B
Andersen & Wendy Butler Curtis, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Potandon Produce, LLC., Defendant, represented by Adrian
Fontecilla, Proskauer Rose LLP, Christopher Emrich Ondeck,
Proskauer Rose LLP, John Michael Avondet, Beard St. Clair P.A.,
Michael D Gaffney, BEARD ST CLAIR GAFFNEY PA, Steven B Andersen
&Winston V Beard, BEARD ST CLAIR GAFFNEY MCNAMARA CALDER

General Mills, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard C Boardman,
PERKINS COIE

Michael Cranney, Defendant, represented by Amanda K Brailsford,
Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen Banducci PLLC

Cornelison Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda K
Brailsford, Andersen Banducci PLLC &Steven B Andersen, Andersen
Banducci PLLC

Snake River Plains Potatoes, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Amanda K Brailsford, Andersen Banducci PLLC, Steven B Andersen,
Andersen Banducci PLLC & Gregory L Crockett, Hopkins Roden
Crockett Hansen & Hoopes

Driscoll Potatoes, Inc., Defendant, represented by David F Smutny,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Daniel W Bower, STEWART TAYLOR
& MORRIS PLLC ,Lauren James Parker, Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP, Monte N Stewart, Stewart Taylor & Morris PLLC,
Robert Rosenfeld, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,Stephen Bomse,
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,Steven B Andersen & Wendy Butler
Curtis, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Lance Funk, Defendant, represented by Amanda K Brailsford,
Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen Banducci PLLC

Rigby Produce, Inc., Defendant, represented by David F Smutny,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bart M Davis, Bart M. Davis
Law Office, Daniel W Bower, STEWART TAYLOR & MORRIS PLLC, Lauren
James Parker, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Monte N
Stewart, Stewart Taylor & Morris PLLC, Robert Rosenfeld, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Stephen Bomse, Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, Steven B Andersen & Wendy Butler Curtis, Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Pleasant Valley Potato, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda K
Brailsford, Andersen Banducci PLLC &Steven B Andersen, Andersen
Banducci PLLC

Raybould Brothers Farms, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amanda K
Brailsford, Andersen Banducci PLLC &Steven B Andersen, Andersen
Banducci PLLC

RD Offutt Co., Defendant, represented by Albert P Barker, Barker
Rosholt & Simpson LLP, Brian E McGovern,, McCarthy, Leonard &
Kaemmerer, L.C.,Robert A Miller, McCarthy, Leonard & Kaemmerer,
LC,Steven B Andersen & William L Greene, LEONARD STREET AND
DEINARD

Idahoan Foods, LLC, Defendant, represented by James A Wilson,
VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP,Kenneth J Rubin, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour and Pease, LLP, Neil D McFeeley, EBERLE BERLIN KADING
TURNBOW & MCKLVEEN, CHARTERED & Steven B Andersen

Bayer CropScience LP, Defendant, represented by Brad P Miller,
HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY, Eric P Enson, Jones Day, Jeffrey
Alan LeVee, JONES DAY REAVIS & POGUE & Phillip A Proger, JONES DAY

Wada Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda K Brailsford,
Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen Banducci PLLC

Blaine Larsen, Defendant, represented by David F Smutny, Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Daniel W Bower, STEWART TAYLOR &
MORRIS PLLC, Lauren James Parker, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe,
LLP, Monte N Stewart, Stewart Taylor & Morris PLLC, Robert
Rosenfeld, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Stephen Bomse,
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Steven B Andersen

Keith Cornelison, Defendant, represented by Amanda K Brailsford,
Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen Banducci PLLC

Cedar Farms, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amanda K Brailsford,
Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen Banducci PLLC

Wada Family, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amanda K Brailsford,
Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen Banducci PLLC

Pro Fresh, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amanda K Brailsford,
Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen Banducci PLLC

KCW Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda K Brailsford,
Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen Banducci PLLC

Kim Wahlen, Defendant, represented by Amanda K Brailsford,
Andersen Banducci PLLC & Steven B Andersen, Andersen Banducci PLLC

Ronald D. Offutt, Jr., Defendant, represented by Albert P Barker,
Barker Rosholt & Simpson LLP, Brian E McGovern, McCarthy, Leonard
& Kaemmerer, L.C., Robert A Miller, McCarthy, Leonard & Kaemmerer,
LC &Steven B Andersen

Randon W. Wilson, Miscellaneous, represented byBrent V Manning,
Manning Curtis Bradshaw & Bednar LLC & Gary G Sackett, Jones Waldo
Holbrook & McDonough

Michael Narkin, Claimant, Pro Se

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Intervenor, represented
by Christopher Emrich Ondeck, Proskauer Rose LLP & Adrian
Fontecilla, Proskauer Rose LLP

Potandon Produce, LLC., Counter Claimant, represented by Adrian
Fontecilla, Proskauer Rose LLP, Christopher Emrich Ondeck,
Proskauer Rose LLP, John Michael Avondet, Beard St. Clair P.A.,
Michael D Gaffney, BEARD ST CLAIR GAFFNEY PA & Winston V Beard,
BEARD ST CLAIR GAFFNEY MCNAMARA CALDER

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented
by Steve Six, Stueve Siegel Hanson, Andrew Funk, Stueve Siegel
Hanson & Patrick J Stueve, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP

Potandon Produce, LLC., Counter Claimant, represented by Adrian
Fontecilla, Proskauer Rose LLP,Christopher Emrich Ondeck,
Proskauer Rose LLP, John Michael Avondet, Beard St. Clair P.A.,
Michael D Gaffney, BEARD ST CLAIR GAFFNEY PA & Winston V Beard,
BEARD ST CLAIR GAFFNEY MCNAMARA CALDER

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented
by Steve Six, Stueve Siegel Hanson, Andrew Funk, Stueve Siegel
Hanson, David A Hickey, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Patrick J
Stueve, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP


UNITED STATES: New Mexico Mulls Suit v. EPA Over Massive Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Contreras and Susan Montoya Bryan, writing for The
Associated Press, report that New Mexico plans to sue the federal
government and the owners of two Colorado mines that were the
source of a massive spill in 2015 that contaminated rivers in
three Western states, officials said on Jan. 14.

The New Mexico Environment Department said it filed a notice of
its intention to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over
the spill, becoming the first to do so.  The lawsuit also would
target the state of Colorado and the owners of the Gold King and
Sunnyside Mines.

An EPA cleanup crew accidentally unleashed millions of gallons of
contaminated wastewater in August at the inactive Gold King Mine
near Silverton, Colorado.  It fouled rivers in Colorado, Utah and
New Mexico with contaminants including arsenic and lead,
temporarily shutting down drinking-water supplies and raising
concerns about long-term effects to agriculture.

The spill sent a yellow plume through the Animas Valley and into
New Mexico and the San Juan River, forcing farmers and
municipalities to shut off their taps.  Farmers and ranchers on
the Navajo Nation were left without a key water source for their
crops and livestock for weeks.

The New Mexico regulators said they will sue if the EPA does not
start to take meaningful measures to clean up the affected areas
and agree to a long-term plan that will research and monitor the
effects of the spill.

"From the very beginning, the EPA failed to hold itself
accountable in the same way that it would a private business,"
said Ryan Flynn, state Environment Department cabinet secretary.

The federal agency is reviewing New Mexico's plans to sue,
spokeswoman Christie St. Clair said.

"EPA is working closely with the states to develop a long-term
monitoring plan to evaluate potential environmental impacts from
the spill and will be meeting with representatives in early
February," St. Clair said.  "EPA is also reimbursing state and
local agencies for response-related costs associated with the
spill."

Larry Perino, a reclamation manager for Sunnyside Mine, said the
mine was not involved in the spill and has no responsibility.

"We will vigorously defend ourselves from any potential legal
action," he said.

A representative for Gold King Mine did not immediately respond to
an email requests seeking comment.

Roger Hudson, a spokesman for the Colorado attorney general, said
the office has not yet seen the notice and had no comment.
Mr. Hudson did not say if Colorado also planned to sue the EPA.

Mr. Flynn said Colorado balked when New Mexico asked for
information about the spill's effects on the Animas River
watershed that the two states share.  In fact, Colorado asked New
Mexico to pay about $20,000 for a public record's request, he
said.

The Navajo Nation has said it may consider legal action against
the EPA but nothing formal has been filed.

The spill occurred when workers for the agency and its contractor,
Environmental Restoration LLC, started excavation work intended to
allow them to safely drain the mine.

Some criticized the EPA for failing to take adequate precautions
despite warnings that a blowout could occur.  But Interior
Secretary Sally Jewell said a review by her agency showed the
spill was "clearly unintentional."

People who live near the idled and leaking Gold King Mine say
local authorities and mining companies have spent decades spurning
federal help to clean up the site.

The owners of the two mines have been disputing the source of the
wastewater buildup for years.  Colorado-based San Juan Corp.,
which owns the Gold King Mine, claims it stems from a project in
the 1990s to plug a segment of the Sunnyside Mine. They say the
plug caused the wastewater to build up and get pushed into
surrounding mines, including Gold King.

Canada's Kinross Corp., which owns Sunnyside, disputes those
claims.

In 2011, Kinross offered $6.5 million to help clean mining waste
from the upper Animas River while vowing to "vigorously contest"
any effort to make Sunnyside liable for Superfund-related cleanup
costs.

The mine has yet to spend the money but supports a "collaborative
approach" among various parties, Sunnyside reclamation director
Kevin Roach said.


UNITED STATES: Border Patrol Detention Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a lawsuit against the U.S.
Border Patrol over detention conditions is now a class action
suit.

Federal Judge David Bury issued an order on Jan. 11 allowing the
case originally filed on behalf of three immigrants to now include
others.

The suit was filed in June by a coalition of advocacy groups. It
claims the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector holds immigrants in
dirty, extremely cold and inhuman conditions.

The Border Patrol does not comment on pending litigation but has
said that safety is a top priority at detention facilities.

Bury sanctioned the agency in November over destruction of
surveillance video evidence it was required to keep at its eight
Tucson Sector facilities in accordance with the suit.  The agency
said it was updating its technology to be able to keep the video.


UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Class Action Against IRS
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times, reports that a
federal judge on Jan. 12 certified a class-action lawsuit against
the IRS for its political targeting, advancing the cause of more
than 200 tea party groups who said they were denied their First
Amendment rights by the tax agency's actions.

Judge Susan J. Dlott in the Southern District of Ohio issued an
order certifying the class, though she sealed the order for now to
protect private taxpayer information.

Edward Greim, one of the lawyers advancing the tea party groups'
case, said the certification is a major step because it means the
judge has agreed that the IRS did systematically target more than
200 groups for special scrutiny.

"It's the court recognizing that all the plaintiffs were treated
the same way," he said.  "The only remaining question at that
point is whether it was legally permissible to treat the
plaintiffs that way."

The IRS said it couldn't comment on pending litigation.

In the past the agency had argued that the targeting was not an
organized policy but rather an overzealous pursuit by individual
employees confused about how to handle nonprofit groups'
applications after the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.

But Mr. Greim said the judge's ruling punctures that explanation,
finding that the IRS singled out tea party groups' applications
based on four criteria.

The tax agency delayed those applications while it demanded
answers to extensive questionnaires -- including questions the
agency has since admitted were intrusive and shouldn't have been
asked.

The delays persisted for years in many cases, and some groups
still haven't been approved nearly three years after the IRS said
it stopped the targeting.  One of those, the Texas Patriots Tea
Party, which was one of the original plaintiffs in the class
action lawsuit, applied in 2012 and is still awaiting approval,
Mr. Greim said.

Certifying the class allows any of the more than 200 groups that
were subjected to the criteria to join the lawsuit.

Now that the class has been certified, the case moves to the
discovery stage, where the tea party groups' lawyers will ask for
all of the agency's documents related to the targeting and will
depose IRS employees about their actions.

The lawyers hope they'll be able to learn details Congress was
unable to shake free in its own investigations.

Mr. Greim said he hopes former IRS senior executive Lois G. Lerner
will be one of the employees he deposes in the case.

Ms. Lerner was at the center of the targeting, and was the one who
revealed the scandal after she planted a question at a forum.

She refused to talk to Congress, asserting her Fifth Amendment
right against self-incrimination.  The House held her in contempt
of Congress, but the Obama administration refused to pursue the
case.

The Justice Department has concluded its own criminal
investigation into the IRS and said the targeting was the result
of bad management.  But investigators said they found no criminal
behavior, and specifically cleared Ms. Lerner, saying her fellow
employees said she tried to correct the problems when she learned
of them.

Republicans dismissed the investigation as a whitewash by the
Obama administration.

The class action case is NorCal Tea Party Patriots v. Internal
Revenue Service.  The case is being funded by Citizens for Self-
Governance, and is being fought by several law firms on behalf of
tea party groups.

The case is being heard in Ohio because the office responsible for
handling nonprofit applications is based in Cincinnati.


UTZ FOODS: "Jurden" Suit Transferred from S.D. Ohio to M.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jurden v. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02833, was removed/transferred/reprimanded from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Harrisburg). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
02196-JEJ to the proceeding.

Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit for unpaid overtime under the Fair
Labor Standards Act against the Defendants.

UTZ Quality Foods based in Hanover, Pennsylvania, is the largest
independent privately held snack brand in the United States. The
company was founded in 1921 and distributes a variety of potato
chips and other snack foods throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon Marie Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          4580 Stephen Circle, Suite 201
          Canton, OH 44718
          Telephone: (330) 470 4428
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony J Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity Lynn Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696 5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696 7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erik J. Clark, Esq.
          Douglas R Cole, Esq.
          ORGAN COLE LLP
          1330 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 481 0900
          Facsimile: (614) 481 0904
          E-mail: ejclark@organcole.com
                  drcole@organcole.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Downey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          100 Market Street, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 1181
          Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181
          Telephone: (717) 255 1155
          E-mail: downeyb@pepperlaw.com


VANCE & HUFFMAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Solomons" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keren Solomons, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Vance & Huffman, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
06812-WFK-SMG (E.D.N.Y., November 30, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Vance & Huffman, LLC operates a financial services company
specializing in debt recovery and debt management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIMPELCOM LTD: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Westway Alliance Corp., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vimpelcom, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
09492-UA (S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2015) alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Vimpelcom, Ltd. offers voice and data services through a range of
traditional and broadband mobile and fixed line technologies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      E-mail: gegleston@gme-law.com
              tjmckenna@gme-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: More People Join Class Action in Europe
---------------------------------------------------------
Europe Online Magazine reports that hundreds of people a week are
joining a European class action against Volkswagen that already
includes 60,000 consumers, German newspaper Rheinische Post
reported on Jan. 14 citing the lawyer leading the effort.

"The consistent interest shows that Volkswagen customers will
continue to demand damages and are not satisfied by the
compensation offered," Julius Reiter said in relation to VW's
efforts to placate customers after it emerged some of its models
used emissions-rigging software.

Mr. Reiter is part of a Dusseldorf-based law firm that has filed
the collective lawsuit in the Netherlands because German law
doesn't allow for class actions.

He told the newspaper that Volkswagen was doing less to placate
European consumers because Germany's motor vehicles authority -
unlike US regulators - had already approved proposals to remedy
the engines affected by software that intentionally deceives
emissions tests.

A meeting on Jan. 13 between Volkswagen's chief executive
Matthias Mueller and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
yielded little agreement on a fix for the diesel engines sold to
US customers.

Mr. Mueller met with EPA chief Gina McCarthy in Washington to
discuss potential remedies after regulators on Jan. 12 rejected
the carmarker's plan to recall some of its most popular models
that used the software.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) rejected the proposals
on the basis that Volkswagen failed to submit "an approvable
recall plan to bring the vehicles into compliance and reduce
pollution," the EPA said on Jan. 12.

Some 580,000 cars with diesel engines sold in the US carried the
so-called defeat device that changed emissions readings when it
sensed the car was undergoing testing.

Volkswagen is pushing for a recall and compensation program that
will placate US lawmakers, regulators and consumers in what could
be the most expensive scandal in automotive history.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Arabian" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gary Arabian v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01930-DOC-SP, was
removed from Superior Court of the State of California County of
Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09132-DOC-SP to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a
statewide class of all owners or lessees in California of
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles allegedly containing defeat software.

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. Solazyme is a publicly held biotechnology
company in the United States. Solazyme uses proprietary technology
to transform a range of low-cost plant-based sugars into high-
value oils. Their renewable products are designed to replace or
enhance oils derived from petroleum, plants and animal fats.
Amyris is an integrated renewable products company providing
sustainable alternatives to a broad range of petroleum-sourced
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM
          3440 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 915
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (310) 601 3131
          Facsimile: (310) 388 8444
          E-mail: daniel@slfla.com

               - and -

          Heleni E Suydam, Esq.
          Kris Demirjian, Esq.
          Leonard S. Sands, Esq.
          SANDS AND ASSOCIATES PLC
          232 North Canon Drive, 1st floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 859 6644
          Facsimile: (310) 492 0397
          E-mail: lenislaw@aol.com
                   sandslaw@sandslaw.net
                   sandslaw@sandslaw.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          Neil M. Soltman, Esq.
          Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq.
          Andrew Z. Edelstein, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229 9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625 0248
          E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                  nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
                  mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com
                  aedelstein@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
          Michael B. Gallub, Esq.
          Mark A. Weissman, Esq.
          HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 471 8500
          Facsimile: (212) 344 3333
          E-mail: JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
                  MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com
                  MWeissman@herzfeld-rubin.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Autoport Suit Goes to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Autoport LLC et al. v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Case No. 15AC-CC00497, was removed from
Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri (Jefferson City). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-04260-NKL to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conduct
wrongful and fraudulent business practices, that the Plaintiff
paid materially more for their Affected Vehicle(s) than it was
actually worth and will be unable to sell them at the prices they
anticipated when they purchased the vehicle(s).

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.

Autoport is a limited liability company licensed to operate a used
car dealership in St. Louis County, Missouri.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joe D. Jacobson, Esq.
          Allen P. Press, Esq.
          Matthew B. Vianello, Esq.
          Cary Press, Esq.
          ARCH CITY LAWYERS
          168 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 150
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 899 9789
          Facsimile: (314) 899 0282
          E-mail: Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com
                  Press@ArchCityLawyers.com
                  Vianello@ArchCityLawyers.com
                  CaryPress@ArchCityLawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John W. Cowden, Esq.
          David M. Eisenberg, Esq.
          BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE, LLC
          2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2533
          Telephone: (816) 471 2121
          Facsimile: (816) 472 0288E
          E-mail: cowden@bscr-law.com
                  eisenberg@bscr-law.com


VTECH ELECTRONICS: Faces "Tittle" Suit Over Data Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Tittle, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. VTech Electronics North America, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-10889
(N.D. Ill., December 3, 2015) is an action for damages as a result
of the Defendant's disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the members
of the Class sensitive personal information caused by VTech's
failure to safeguard the information it demanded, and acquired in
order to use the subject products.

VTech Electronics North America, LLC manufactures and distributes
electronic devices aimed toward children and children's learning.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com
              chinton@rosenlegal.com

         - and -

      Matthew T. Hurst, Esq.
      HEFFNER HURST
      30 North LaSalle Street, 12th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 346-3466
      Facsimile: (312) 346-2829
      E-mail: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com


XO HEALTH CO: "Kincaid" Suit Goes from Circuit Court to E.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kincaid v. XO Health Co., Case No.
1522-CC10662, was removed from Circuit Court, City of St. Louis,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
(St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-
01788-HEA to the proceeding.

XO Health is doing business as XO Baking Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC
          8816 Manchester Road
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 258 0212
          E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy Charles Sansone, Esq.
          Casey F. Wong, Esq.
          SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C.
          600 Washington Ave., 15th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1313
          Telephone: (314) 231 3332
          Facsimile: (314) 241 7604
          E-mail: tsansone@sandbergphoenix.com
                  cwong@sandbergphoenix.com


YAHOO INC: Settles E-mail Scanning Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Arstechnica.com reports that in late 2013, Yahoo was hit with six
lawsuits over its practice of using automated scans of e-mail to
produce targeted ads.  The cases, which were consolidated in
federal court, all argued that the privacy rights of non-Yahoo
users, who "did not consent to Yahoo's interception and scanning
of their emails," were being violated by a multi-billion dollar
company.

Now, lawyers representing the plaintiffs are singing a different
tune.  They asked US District Judge Lucy Koh to accept a proposed
settlement.  Under the proposal, the massive class of non-Yahoo
users won't get any payment, but the class lawyers at Girard Gibbs
and Kaplan Fox intend to ask for up to $4 million in fees. (The
ultimate amount of fees will be up to the judge, but Yahoo has
agreed not to oppose any fee request up to $4 million.)

While users won't get any payment, Yahoo will change how it
handles user e-mails--but it isn't the change that the plaintiffs
attorneys were originally asking for.  Yahoo won't stop scanning
e-mails. Instead, the company has agreed to make a technical
change to when it scans e-mails.  In the settlement, Yahoo has
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."


* Class Actions Require Immediate In-House Counsel Decisions
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric S. Fisher, Esq. -- efisher@taylorenglish.com -- of Taylor
English, and Ryan C. Grelecki, in an article for Inside Counsel,
report that from the day a company is served with a summons and
complaint in a putative class action, the clock starts ticking for
in-house counsel on several important decisions.  As with most
lawsuits, the first thing in-house counsel should do is engage
outside counsel.  Class action defense is a breed of its own, so
in-house counsel should be leery of attorneys with little or no
class action defense experience who may try to convince them
otherwise.  If the corporation's regular outside counsel does not
have substantial experience defending against class actions, the
in-house team should look elsewhere. Moreover, engaging outside
counsel in the venue in which the lawsuit is filed, even if in a
local counsel capacity, is a necessity.  Not only do courts have
unique personalities and dispositions, but many have local rules
relating to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 that govern
class actions.

After outside counsel is secured, the next decision to make is
whether the court in which plaintiff filed the complaint is the
appropriate jurisdiction.  Often, plaintiffs' attorneys will
attempt to litigate in state court because state court judges and
juries are typically more plaintiff-friendly than their federal
counterparts.  The judge can be the difference in many cases,
including whether the class even gets certified, and the mere
threat of a plaintiff-friendly jury can provide plaintiff's
counsel with leverage in settlement negotiations.

Accordingly, when a class action is filed in state court, an
initial question to outside counsel is whether removal to federal
court is appropriate.  Haste is essential, because a defendant
must request removal to federal court within 30 days of the date
of service.  This decision is made even more time-sensitive by the
fact that the defendant cannot extend the time period, even if all
parties agree.

Although the strict time pressures remain, the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005 relaxes the standard burden for
removal in class action litigation.  Under CAFA, a corporation can
remove a class action to federal court even if the named
plaintiff's alleged individual damages do not exceed the $75,000
threshold required for removal in non-class action litigation.
More specifically, CAFA expands federal jurisdiction over proposed
class actions by allowing removal to federal court if: (1) the
number of proposed class members is at least 100; (2) any member
of the proposed class is a citizen of a state different from that
of any defendant; and (3) the aggregate amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs.

The first two elements are typically met with ease; however, the
third element is often problematic for several reasons.

First, business people often cringe the thought of "admitting"
that their corporation's exposure exceeds $5 million.
Accordingly, it is important note that a defendant corporation
will vehemently deny any liability in the removal papers, and will
continuously assert that neither the named plaintiff nor any
putative class members are entitled to recover damages.
Regardless, it is also important to note that, for purposes of a
jurisdictional analysis, the plaintiff's likelihood of success on
the merits is largely irrelevant because the pertinent question is
what is "in controversy," not how much (or how little) the
plaintiffs are likely to recover.

Second, once over that internal hurdle, a defendant will likely
have to deal with clever pleading tactics by the plaintiff's
attorneys, including direct allegations that putative class
damages are limited to less than $5 million.  Fortunately, such
pleading is non-binding and also largely irrelevant because a
named plaintiff cannot speak for those she purports to represent,
and cannot legally bind members of the proposed class, including
as to the amount of damages sought, before the class is certified.

Lastly, courts may also consider a potential award of attorneys'
fees in determining whether the $5 million threshold is met, if
such fees are provided for by statute or contract.

As noted in our prior column, corporations may be able to
circumvent the class action process altogether if they have valid
arbitration provisions in place.  Accordingly, where appropriate,
the in-house team should consider seeking to compel arbitration
first.  Although the standards for enforcing arbitration
provisions are ever-changing, especially in the class action
context, the recent trend is toward enforcing class action related
arbitration agreements.

Additionally, the in-house team and its outside counsel should
also consider filing an early motion to strike the class
allegations before the plaintiff moves for class certification or
the parties have engaged in any significant discovery.  Because
recent decisions have encouraged courts to rule on class
certification as soon as reasonably possible, corporations should
be aggressive and proactive in pointing out which class
certification requirements the plaintiff cannot satisfy.

In sum, unlike traditional litigation in which preliminary
extensions and delays are common, class action litigation requires
a corporation's in-house team to make immediate decisions that can
have a substantial impact on the course of the entire litigation.


* Contract Attorneys' OT Suits Prompt Hiring Practice Changes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
two recent lawsuits brought by contract attorneys seeking overtime
pay have gotten the attention of law firms and staffing agencies,
some of whom are changing hiring practices to avoid the issue of
overtime.

The contract attorneys had argued that the firms and agencies
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act when the attorneys were not
compensated for working more than 40 hours a week.

The law firms countered that contract attorneys are exempt from
overtime pay as licensed attorneys engaged in the practice of law.

One suit, brought by David Lola against Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, ended in a settlement, Lola v. Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, 14-cv-3845.  The other, brought by William
Henig against Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, was dismissed on
summary judgment, Henig v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
13-cv-1432. Two staffing agencies were also sued.

Paul Rooney -- prooney@egsllp.com -- an employment law partner at
Ellenoff Grossman & Schole who was not involved in either case,
said the law on compensation for contract lawyers isn't settled
because the practice of law is defined on a state-by-state basis.

In New York, Mr. Rooney said, there are factual scenarios where
plaintiffs could bring a successful claim by showing their jobs
did not involve legal judgment.

Gregory Bufithis, founder of the Posse List, a job-posting service
for contract lawyers, said he is aware of two contract attorneys
outside New York who are preparing to sue for overtime pay.

"Every case is different, so somebody in line might have a
beautiful example of where all he did is color inside the lines,"
Mr. Bufithis said.  "The law is nowhere near settled."

Mr. Bufithis said he believes the Lola and Henig suits have
already influenced law firm hiring.

Over the last two years, Mr. Bufithis said, he has seen a surge of
40-hour a week projects where overtime work is not available. And
two staffing agencies have told him their law firm clients are
hiring additional attorneys to work on projects so as to reduce or
avoid overtime.

Richard Osman, a principal at staffing firm Lexolution, which
provides contract attorneys to law firms and corporate legal
departments, said, "We certainly have always been of the opinion
that the work that contract attorneys do in document review does
constitute the practice of law."

Mr. Osman, whose company was not involved the litigation, said
some law firms and corporate departments already limit contract
attorneys to 40-hour work weeks.

Defining the Practice

Mr. Lola, in the suit against Skadden and Tower Legal Staffing,
alleged that his entire responsibility consisted of looking at
documents to see what search terms, if any, appeared, marking
those documents into predetermined categories, and at times
redacting.

Last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
interpreted the ethics rules in North Carolina, where Lola was
employed, to include independent legal judgment as part of the
practice of law (NYLJ, July 24, 2015)


* Employment-Related Class Action Settlement Hit Record High
------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing Industry Analysts reports that the monetary value of
employment-related class action settlements reached an all-time
high in 2015, according to the Workplace Class Action Litigation
Report released by employment law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP.  The top
10 settlements across the report's five core areas jumped to $2.48
billion in 2015 from $1.87 billion. Federal and state courts also
issued more favorable class certification rulings for the
plaintiffs' bar in employment related cases in 2015.

The report outlines five key trends in workplace class action
litigation for 2016:

1. The US Supreme Court continues to have a profound impact on
class action dynamics but, by often deciding cases on narrow
grounds, it has created a complex tapestry of both pro-worker and
pro-business rulings through which employers must carefully thread
the needle.

2. The monetary value of employment-related class action
settlements reached an all-time high in 2015: The top 10
settlements across the report's five core areas jumped from $1.87
billion to $2.48 billion in 2015.

3. Beyond record settlement payouts, federal and state courts
issued more favorable class certification rulings for the
plaintiffs' bar in employment related cases in 2015.
Statistically, throughout the federal courts, plaintiffs won 123
class certifications versus 44 motions denied.

4. Wage & hour class actions and collective actions are a growing
juggernaut for the plaintiffs' bar with no signs of slowing and
outpaced all other categories of lawsuits in 2015.  FLSA filings
in federal courts rose for the sixth straight year to a new record
high of 8,954 cases.  New scrutiny of independent contractor and
joint employment relationships are expected to drive this number
much higher in 2016.

5. Government enforcement lawsuits brought by the Department of
Labor and EEOC reflected aggressive programs for both agencies:
Government settlement numbers rebounded strongly, spiking from an
eight-year low of $39.45 million in 2014 to $82.8 million in 2015.

"Exposures for corporate America have never been higher, and
employers face a new wave of 'bet-the-company' risks that have
reached a multi-billion dollar watermark for the first time," said
Seyfarth's Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., co-chair of its Class Action
Defense Group and author of the report.  "This reverses a trend
that began with the US Supreme Court's Wal-Mart decision in 2011,
which had made it harder for plaintiffs to convert class action
filings into big settlements."

"On the heels of a record year of settlements, and with wage &
hour law compliance under the microscope of the DOL and White
House in 2016, plaintiffs will be further emboldened to push their
advantage and corporations should prepare for an even greater
onslaught of wage & hour lawsuits in 2016," Mr. Mattman said.


* Judge Says Tobacco Case Recusal May Encourage "Judge-Shopping"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
federal district judge in Washington won't recuse from a
regulatory fight between tobacco companies and the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.  The judge ruled on Jan. 13 that work his
former law firm did for an anti-tobacco group was "too attenuated"
from the case to disqualify him.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta warned that if he did step down, it
"would encourage inappropriate judge-shopping by future
litigants."

Judge Mehta was a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder before he became a
judge in December 2014.  One of his former law partners at
Zuckerman advised the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids on comments
that the group submitted to the FDA in support of regulatory
guidance that the tobacco companies allege is unlawful.

The tobacco companies in November asked Mehta to step aside. They
argued that his connections to Zuckerman required his recusal
under judicial ethics rules.  The judge disagreed, writing that
although the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' comments to the FDA
were broadly related to the challenged regulatory guidance, they
weren't directly related to the litigation.  The tobacco companies
claim that the FDA put out "guidance" materials that unlawfully
required pre-approval of product label changes.

The anti-tobacco group wasn't likely to become a party to the
case, the judge said, and Zuckerman's guidance about the group's
comments to the FDA -- work that Judge Mehta said he wasn't
involved in at the firm -- wouldn't play "any role in the claims,
defenses, and arguments advanced by the parties."

The D.C. federal district bench has a history of judges who worked
for some of Washington's largest law firms, Judge Mehta wrote.  He
listed firms that his colleagues worked at, including Baker Botts;
Boies, Schiller & Flexner; Crowell & Moring; Miller & Chevalier;
White & Case; Williams & Connolly; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr.  Many of those firms, by nature of their location
in the nation's capital, advise clients on government relations
and regulatory issues, he noted.

"Given these realities, it is not hard to conceive how litigants
could be emboldened to judgeshop if I were to recuse in this
case," Judge Mehta wrote.

He continued:

"If I accepted plaintiffs' position, would a judge be required to
recuse when her former law partner, unbeknownst to the judge while
she was at the firm, lobbied Congress on behalf of a client in
favor of a piece of legislation that is later challenged as
unconstitutional? Or, instead of lobbying Congress, what if the
former partner met on behalf of a client with an executive branch
official about an executive order that is later challenged as
exceeding the president's authority? Or, what if, as here, the
former partner advised a client about comments to a proposed
administrative rule, but the client's comment was just one of
hundreds, if not thousands, received by the agency? None of these
are unusual situations.  And a judge is not required to recuse
merely because a litigant has discovered an attenuated connection
between the judge's former law firm and the issues before the
court.

Seven of the 15 active judges in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia joined the bench directly from a law firm.
Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, who was originally assigned the case
before Mehta, stepped aside.  Her husband, Jeffrey Huvelle, is a
counsel to Covington & Burling, which represents one of the
tobacco companies.

Judge Mehta said other ties between the judge, Zuckerman Spaeder
and the case -- his wife is a partner there and one of his former
firm colleagues, William Schultz, is general counsel of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and is involved in the
case -- didn't rise to the level of a conflict or appearance of
impropriety.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Miguel Estrada, who signed the
recusal request on behalf of the tobacco companies, declined to
comment.  Arnold & Porter, Jones Day, King & Spalding and
Covington also represent tobacco companies in the case.

The FDA, which did not take a position on the recusal request,
declined to comment.


* Tobacco Companies Can't Challenge FDA Menthol Cigarettes Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perrone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal appeals court has ruled that tobacco companies had no
basis to challenge a Food and Drug Administration report on
menthol cigarettes, which the industry alleged was written by
experts with conflicts of interest.

The decision by a three-judge panel overturns a lower court ruling
that barred the FDA from using the report and ordered the agency
to reform its committee of tobacco advisers.

The 2011 report from the agency's Tobacco Products Scientific
Advisory Committee concluded that menthol flavoring leads to
increased smoking rates, particularly among teens, African
Americans and those with low incomes.  The report said removing
the flavoring would make it easier for some smokers to quit.

Cigarette makers Lorillard Inc. and Reynolds American Inc. sued
the agency, alleging conflicts of interest by several members who
had previously testified against tobacco companies in court.

But Judge Stephen Williams, writing for the court, states that the
companies had no legal basis to challenge the makeup of the
committee.  Judge Williams rejected company arguments that they
could be damaged by the apparent conflicts as "too remote and
uncertain."  The opinion was issued on Jan. 15 in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Despite the victory for the federal government, the ruling may
have limited impact on the FDA or its panel.  In 2015, the FDA
announced that four members of its tobacco products advisory panel
had either resigned or were removed, following the previous court
ruling against the agency.

In 2013, the FDA conducted its own review of menthol cigarettes,
concluding they pose a greater public health risk than regular
cigarettes.  But it did not make a recommendation on whether to
limit or ban them.

Reynolds American acquired Lorillard in 2015 in a deal worth $25
billion.  Reynolds, which is based in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, now sells Lorillard's top-selling menthol brand, Newport
cigarettes.

A spokesman for Reynolds declined to comment, noting "this is
pending litigation."


* Weil Gotshal Secures Major Class Action Triumphs
--------------------------------------------------
Jeannie O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reports that the unique
approach Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP takes to class actions secured
major triumphs for notable corporate powerhouses like CBS Sterling
Jewelers and Procter & Gamble over the past 12 months, sealing the
global firm's place on Law360's Class Action Groups of the Year.

A group of television stations, Michael Foods, Farmers Insurance
and Vivendi also prevailed under the expertise of the firm's
attorneys, who distinguish themselves by the sheer variety of
class action categories they tackle.

"Just in the past year, we really have been retained in
significant class actions cutting across every practice area where
you see the bulk of class actions," said David J. Lender --
david.lender@weil.com -- global co-head of the firm's litigation
department and a partner in its New York City headquarters.

Founded in 1931 and spanning 20 locations worldwide, Weil is home
to about 90 class action lawyers spanning seven of the firm's nine
offices in the United States.  Weil Gotshal's 2015 victories
highlighted its class action capabilities in the areas of privacy,
employment discrimination, product liability, antitrust and
securities.

Over the summer, CBS enjoyed landmark wins in three stages --
class certification, motion to dismiss and motion for summary
judgment -- in two separate right-of-publicity class actions
brought by college athletes in Tennessee and California federal
courts, according to the firm.

One standout legal maneuver was Weil Gotshal's strategic use of
data in one of the matters, in which a former NCAA student-athlete
alleged that CBS had used student-athletes' names, images and
likenesses without their consent.  CBS ended up defeating
certification after the firm successfully urged the court to
reject the plaintiff's attempt to apply California law to a
nationwide class, the firm said.

"We mobilized a 50-state survey to show the differences in the
right of publicity laws across all states," Mr. Lender said.
"That ultimately prevailed."

With Weil Gotshal's help, Sterling Jewelers likewise escaped
certification in what would have been the biggest class in the
nation.

The suit was a private American Arbitration Association class
action on behalf of 44,000 female store employees, the firm said.
In addition to rejecting discrimination claims, the arbitrator in
February denied certification and ruled that the claimants must
pursue monetary damages individually, and also declined to bless
an opt-out class on the plaintiffs' Equal Pay Act claims.

According to Mr. Lender, it was a rare instance of lawyers willing
to take on an employment lawsuit plagued by limited appeal rights.

"You don't see a lot of class actions in arbitration," he said.

Another case in 2015, against Procter & Gamble, may have advanced
past the certification stage, but Weil Gotshal simply dug deeper
in its strategy tool box.  In January, the firm secured its third
consecutive Daubert victory for the company in a long-running
product liability multidistrict litigation in Florida federal
court, in which plaintiffs alleged Fixodent denture cream caused
neurological injuries, according to the firm.

After Weil Gotshal employed what Mr. Lender said was a "very
different" strategy, the court granted the defendant's motion to
exclude all of the plaintiffs' general causation experts.

"We decided the best way to attack and win was to go after their
liability experts, because without causation experts they can't
prevail in their claim," Mr. Lender said.

Large corporations aren't the only parties that can depend on
Weil Gotshal's class action prowess.  Adding copyright and
antitrust to its repertoire, the firm represented a class of
television stations in a suit that accused the performing rights
organization Society of European Stage Authors and Composers of
wielding monopoly power over the numerous copyrighted works it
licensed.

In what the firm called a landmark $60 million settlement,
Weil Gotshal showed SESAC extracted supracompetitive fees and
insisted upon competition-eliminating blanket licenses.  The
February ruling marks the first time in more half a century that a
party clinched licensing conduct relief through an antitrust
action against a performing rights organization, according to the
firm.

"It was an unprecedented successful use of the antitrust law in
this context, to say the least," Mr. Lender said.

Two more antitrust successes followed in September.

Weil Gotshal helped Michael Foods duck certification of a vast
class of indirect purchases in a case alleging a conspiracy to
reduce output and inflate the prices of shell eggs and egg
products, the firm said.  In the Farmers Insurance matter, the
firm for the third time urged a judge to toss multidistrict
litigation alleging the insurer engaged in anticompetitive
behavior in Florida to control and reduce what they pay plaintiffs
for automobile damage repair, labor and material costs, the firm
said.

In yet another milestone, Weil Gotshal defeated a $57 million
claim in the post-trial phase by the largest shareholder-claimant
one of the few securities fraud class actions ever to be tried to
judgment, according to the firm.

Representing Vivendi, Weil Gotshal ushered in victory by
harnessing testimony showing the investor knew of or was
indifferent to the risks that the class plaintiffs alleged were
concealed, and further showed the investor possessed a uniquely
deep understanding of the company's assets and liabilities.  The
August decision significantly demonstrated that it was "possible
to rebut the reliance of a value investor," according to the firm.

"What you'll see is that some of our peer firms may dominate in
products or securities or consumer fraud, but we have it all
covered," Mr. Lender said.


* Workplace Legal Actions Rise to Record High, Seyfarth Shaw Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
companies can expect aggressive lawsuits from employees in 2016
after the past year saw workplace legal actions rise for the sixth
straight year to a record high, according to an annual report from
Seyfarth Shaw.

"The No. 1 pressure point will be wage-and-hour lawsuits," says
Seyfarth partner Gerald Maatman Jr., who authored the firm's 12th
annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report.  The report says
the value of wage-and-hour settlements doubled in 2015 after two
years of declines.

The total for the top 10 wage-and-hour class action settlements in
2015 was $463.6 million, compared with $215.3 million in 2014 and
$248.45 million in 2013, according to the report.

For its largest edition ever, Seyfarth lawyers analyzed 1,324
class action rulings to spot key trends in 2015.  It's chock-full
of graphics and cases.

The bottom line? "Right now plaintiffs are being very successful
in securing certification as class actions and in converting those
orders into bigger and more expensive settlements that ever
before," Mr. Maatman says.

For example, the top 10 settlements jumped from a total of $1.87
billion in 2014 to $2.48 billion in 2015.  "Exposures for
corporate America have never been higher, and employers face a new
wave of 'bet-the-company' risks that have reached a multibillion-
dollar watermark for the first time," Mr. Maatman says.

Mr. Maatman says we're seeing a reversal of the so-called Wal-Mart
effect, a decrease in the size of settlements attributed Wal-Mart
Stores v. Dukes, a 2011 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court denying
class certification in a major employment discrimination suit.
The report says the value of the top 10 employment discrimination
class action settlements in 2015 was the highest since 2010.  And
the total of $295.5 million for the top 10 settlements was the
second highest total since 2006.

But class certification was still a "coin toss" for discrimination
cases, the report says, with three being granted and four being
denied in 2015.  But not so in wage-and-hour litigation, which saw
115 conditional cert orders granted and only 38 denied; or in
Employee Retirement Income Security Act cases, where five were
granted and two denied in 2015.

Adding fuel to the class action fire in 2016, Mr. Maatman says,
are proposed new federal overtime regulations, local minimum wage
legislation, challenges to the independent contractor status and
more cases seeking to expand the interpretation of who is a joint
employer.

Mr. Maatman says if he were a general counsel, "the thing I would
look for is how can I spend my compliance dollars to try and
minimize my litigation risks.  If I can avoid being sued, I save
money for my company."

Since eight out of 10 suits are related to wage and hour,
including claims involving overtime, commissions and bonuses, and
definitions of independent contractor, "this is the area where
corporate counsel will be focusing their eyes in 2016,"
Mr. Maatman predicts.


                            *********

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  * * *