CAR_Public/160126.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 26, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 17


                            Headlines


AGL RESOURCES: Shareholder-Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint
ALBANY MOLECULAR: Moved to Dismiss "Gauquie" Securities Lawsuit
ALLERGAN USA: Louis Heart Center Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
ALP LIQUIDATING: Agreement in Principle Reached in Florida Case
AMERICAN EQUITY: Appeal of Class Action Settlement Before 9th Cir.

AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE: "Krug" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Action Appeal Pending
ARGENTINA: Bondholders Urged to File Claim for Damages
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Resolving All Claims in Illinois Action

BGC PARTNERS: GFI Entered Into MOU in Delaware Class Action
BOYD BILOXI: Alabama Court Tosses TCPA Class Action Settlement
BROOKFIELD DTLA: Md. Ct. Ordered Limited Discovery in Merger Suit
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Piggly Wiggly Suit Moved to MDL 2670
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Harvesters Enterprises Suit Moved to S.D. Cal.

BUSINESS LAW GROUP: Wilmington Savings Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
CALIFORNIA: Ramona Water Dist. Directors Hear Class Action Review
CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Compensation Offers Won't Halt Class Actions
CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Some Questions Left Unanswered Despite Ruling
CAMPUS CREST: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Consolidate Seven Actions

CANADA: Winnipeg Faces Class Action Over "Know Your Zone" Tickets
CARNIVAL AUSTRALIA: Cruise Passengers File Class Action
CHANEL INC: "Luna" Overtime Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
CHEMOURS COMPANY: 3,500 Suits Consolidated in MDL as of Sept. 30
CHEMOURS COMPANY: 27 Benzene Cases Pending Against DuPont

CHEVRON APPALACHIA: Mason Energy Suit Moved to N.D. W.Va.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Robertson & Associates Files Class Action
CNOVA NV: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
CNX GAS CO: "Kinney" Suit Moved from Circuit Court to N.D. W.Va.
CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: "Ahr" Suit Moved from S.D. to M.D. Fla.

COUCH: "Ceballos" Suit Moved from Hall County to N.D. Georgia
COVISINT CORPORATION: To Defend Class Action IPO Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CROCS INC: ILYM Group Hired to Provide Settlement Admin. Services
CRYO-CELL INT'L: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
DAIKIN INDUSTRIES: "Park-Kim" Suit Moved to C.D. California

DENVER PARENT: Anticipates 2016 Trial Date in Merger Class Action
DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Probe Following "Last Look" Class Action
DEUTSCHE BANK: Second Currency Trading Class Action Mulled
DRAFTKINGS INC: "DeGroot" Suit Moved to New Mexico District Court
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Coleman" Suit Moved to C.D. California

DUPONT: Property Cleanup Winding Down Five Years After Settlement
ENIVA USA: Appeals Court Removes Junk Fax Class Representative
ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: To Defend "Kristensen" Text Spam Class Action
EOS: Faces Lip Balm Class Action in Urbana
EOS: Long Island Woman Files Class Action Over Lip Balm

EXPERIAN INFO: "Yoo" Suit Moved from N.D. Ill. to C.D. California
FERRING CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Fertility Drug
FLINT, MI: State Ordered to Take Action on Water Crisis
FLINT, MI: Faces Two New Class Actions Over Lead-Tainted Water
FIRST NIAGARA: Faruqi Files Class Suit Over Key Bank Merger Deal

FIRST STUDENT: "Humes" Suit Moved to E.D. California
FLINT, MI: Residents File Three Suits Over Water Crisis
FLINT, MI: Attorneys to Announce New Water Crisis Class Actions
FRED MEYER: Janitors File Washington Employment Class Action
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Rousey" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Morga" Suit Transferred to Mass. Dist. Ct.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Murray" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Smiley" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
GLOBAL MARKETING: Judge Transfers Class Action to Florida
GO PRO: March 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

GREAT-WEST LIFE: Key Guaranteed Portfolio Fund Class Action Update
GROUP O: Judge Strips Overtime Suit's Class Action Status
GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
HC2 HOLDINGS: Preparing for Discovery in Shareholder Class Action
HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Dismissal Order

HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties in 2014 Suit Await Scheduling Order
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Two Class Action Suits Stalling Rentech Merger
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Actions
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Motions to Dismiss Opana ER Suits Sub Judice
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settled Securities Class Action At No Cost

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Looks for Final Approval of Aruliah Settlement
INDONESIA: Aceh Citizens File Class Action to Preserve Leuser
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Underway in Shareholder Suit
JAKKS PACIFIC: No Decision Issued on Motion to Dismiss Case
JANI-KING: 3rd Circuit Hears Arguments in Franchisee Suit

J2 GLOBAL: Settlement Reached in "Free-Vychine" Late Fee Case
J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Junk Fax Lawsuit
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Waiting for 9th Cir. to Set a Hearing Date
LAM RESEARCH: Named as Defendant in Hedgecock v. KLA-Tencor Case
LAM RESEARCH: Named as Defendant in Karr v. KLA-Tencor Case

LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Accord Reached in Del. Shareholder Case
LOS CATRACHOS: "Iriarte" Overtime Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
MAJOR LEAGUE: Settles Antitrust Class Action Prior to Trial
MAJOR LEAGUE: Revises Blackout Rules Following Settlement
MCCORMICK & CO: Faces Suit Over Under-Filled Pepper Containers

MCCORMICK & CO: "Bunting" Suit Moved to MDL 2665 in Wash. D.C.
MCCORMICK & CO: "Dupler" Suit Moved to MDL 2665 in Wash. D.C.
MDL 2371: United Messaging & j2 Global Appeal Pending in 7th Cir.
MEDBOX INC: To Defend Against Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: "Hayes" Suit Moved to Data Breach MDL 2667

MEDICAL INFORMATICS: "Schuttler" Suit Moved to MDL 2667
MEDICINES COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Sub Judice
MERCURY PAYMENT SYSTEMS: Archer's Barbeque Suit Moved to N.D. Ga.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: To Defend Against "Owens" Class Action
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Dismissed "Robainas" Consolidated Action

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Issued Show Cause Order in "Intoccia"
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Ill. Ct. Settlement Approval Order Appealed
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Voshall" Disability Insurance Suit
MICROSEMI CORP: Credit Agreement Covenant Lawsuit Settled in July
MILLER ENERGY: "Gaynor" Shareholder Suit Moved to E.D. Tenn.

MILLER ENERGY: "Goldberg" Suit Moved to E.D. Tenn.
MIR JOFFREY: Faces Class Action Over "Smart Sinus" Procedure
MISSION LINEN SUPPLY: "Densmore" Suit Moved to E.D. California
MODEL N: To Contribute $250,000 in Class Action Settlement
MORRIS & REYNOLDS: "Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida

MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 101 Recall Cases Filed as of Oct. 16
MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Faces Class Action Over Product Safety Claims
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Tavern Suit Moved to MDL 2668 in C.D. Cal.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Averts Class Action Over Ticketing Process
NOBILIS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas

NOBILIS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
NSK LTD: Accused of Conspiring to Fix Prices of Small Bearings
NUCOR CORPORATION: Defending Antitrust Action in N.D. Ill.
OGLETHORPE POWER: Plaintiffs Challenge Special Master's Orders
ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: April 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal of Class Action
PAGEDALE, MO: Accused of Employing Excessive Fines & Police Power
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Court Set March 2017 Trial Date in KB Case
PEABODY ENERGY: Defending "Lynn" ERISA & 401(k) Plan Class Action
PENNANTPARK FLOATING: Eyes Class Action Settlement Stipulation

PET VALU: Ont. Appeal Court Tosses $100MM Franchise Class Action
POLAR AIR: Settles Antitrust Class Action, Denies Any Liability
PPG INDUSTRIES: Judge Approves $5MM Class Action Settlement
PREMIERE GLOBAL: "Noble" Class Action Challenges Pangea Merger
PRICELINE GROUP: Involved in 40 Cases Related to Travel Taxes

PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Parties in Haverhill Case Reached Agreement
READING HOSPITAL: Ordered to Provide Documents in FLSA Class Suit
REMINGTON: $7.5-Mil. Rifle Class Action Settlement Delayed
REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Faces Class Action Over "Spam" Text Messages
RESONANT INC: Has Moved to Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Action

SHUFERSAL: Faces Discrimination Class Action in Israel
SINGING RIVER: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 16
SKYWEST AIRLINES: "Russell" Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
SKYWEST AIRLINES: "Tapp" FLSA Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
SPRINT CORPORATION: "Bennett" Securities Case Settled in Aug. 2015

STEINER LEISURE: Continues to Defend "Nesbitt" FLSA Class Action
STEINER LEISURE: Settlement in "Marlow" FLSA Case Not Yet Final
STEVEN POHL: Parents Mull Civil Suit Over Child Porn
SUBWAY: $5.9-Mil. Sandwich Class Action Settlement Challenged
SUNEDISON INC: Gardy & Notis Amends Securities Class Action

SUNOPTA INC: "Jesus" Case in Pre-Class Certification Discovery
SYNGENTA AG: "Logsdon" Suit Moved from McLean Court to W.D. Ky.
SYNGENTA AG: VJW Farm Suit Moved to S.D. Indiana
TEAM HEALTH: MOU Reached in Lawsuit Challenging IPC Acquisition
TICC CAPITAL: Two Stockholders File Class Action Lawsuits

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Ongoing in Blue Cross Antitrust
USAA CASUALTY: Billings Residents File Class Action Over Claims
XPO LOGISTICS: Faces 153 Calif. Labor Classification Claims
XPO LOGISTICS: "Mendoza" Class Action May Involve 600 Claimants
XPO LOGISTICS: No Decision on Class Certification in "Arevalo"

XPO LOGISTICS: Settled Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims
V/LINE: Border Rail Action Group Mulls Class Action
VBI VACCINES: Defending Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Scott Cole Files Emissions Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Vodonick" Suit Moved to E.D. California

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Criston" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Kerwood" Suit from Mass. to N.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Levin" Suit from N.J. to N.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Clinton" Suit Moved from E.D.N.Y to N.D. Cal.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Lucas" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to N.D Cal.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Naparstek" Suit Moved from Mass. to N.D. Cal.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Defiesta" Suit Moved from N.J. to N.D. Cal.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Lance" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to N.D. Cal.
WAYFAIR INC: "Jenkins" Class Action Dismissed; "Dingee" Still Open
WINDSOR & TECUMSEH: Lawyers Seek to Stop Charitable Group Opt-Outs

WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Labor-Related Suit Settled at Nominal Cost
YAKIMA COUNTY, CA: Launches Pretrial Program Amid Bail System Suit
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Jan. 15 Was Cut-Off for Expert Discovery

* House Passes Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2016
* More Labor Depreciation Class Action Filings Expected in 2016


                            *********


AGL RESOURCES: Shareholder-Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
AGL Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs in a
shareholder class action have filed a consolidated and amended
complaint on November 4, 2015.

AGL said, "The company and each member of the Board have been
named as defendants in four purported shareholder class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, which we refer to
as the "Court": Patrick Baker v. AGL Resources Inc., et al., which
we refer to as the "Baker Action", Jeff Morton v. AGL Resources
Inc., et al., which we refer to as the "Morton Action", Sarah
Halberstam and Baruch Z. Halberstam (as custodian for Benjamin
Halberstam) v. AGL Resources Inc., et al., which we refer to as
the "Halberstam Action", and Manuel Abt v. AGL Resources, Inc., et
al., which we refer to as the "Abt Action", filed on September 16,
2015, September 22, 2015, September 28, 2015 and October 9, 2015,
respectively. Southern Company and Merger Sub were also named as
defendants in the Baker Action and the Morton Action. We refer to
the Baker Action, the Morton Action, the Halberstam Action and the
Abt Action, collectively, as the "Actions"."

"The Actions allege that our preliminary proxy statement contains
false and misleading statements and omits material information in
violation of certain provisions under the Exchange Act. The
Actions also allege that the members of the Board are liable for
those alleged misstatements and omissions. The Morton Action
further alleges that the members of the Board breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of the company in
connection with the merger and that Southern Company and Merger
Sub aided and abetted such breaches. The Actions seek, among other
things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the
merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the merger
is implemented and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and
costs.

On October 23, 2015, the Court consolidated the four actions.  On
October 26, 2015, plaintiff Baker filed an Emergency Motion to
Expedite Proceedings, which the Court denied on November 4, 2015.
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint on
November 4, 2015.

The company and the Board believe that the claims in the
Consolidated Action are without merit, and intend to vigorously
defend the Consolidated Action.


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Moved to Dismiss "Gauquie" Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany Molecular Research, Inc. has submitted a motion to dismiss
the class action lawsuit filed by John Gauquie, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

On November 12, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit, John
Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-
6637, was filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.  The complaint alleges claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's
August 5, 2014 announcement of its financial results for the
second quarter of 2014, including that the OsoBio New Mexico
facility experienced a power interruption in July 2014, which
would have a material impact on the Company's results.  The
complaint alleges that the price of the Company's stock was
artificially inflated between August 5, 2014 and November 5, 2014,
and seeks certification as a class action, unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint was amended
on March 31, 2015 to request certification of a class of investors
during the period between August 5, 2014 and November 5, 2014. On
October 2, 2015, the Company submitted a motion to dismiss the
complaint, as amended.


ALLERGAN USA: Louis Heart Center Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v.
Allergan USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 15SL-CC03750,
was removed from the Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
(St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-
01826-JAR to the proceeding.

Allergan USA manufactures pharmaceutical products and medicines.
It acquires, develops, and markets pharmaceuticals for patient
wellness within the genito-urinary and women's healthcare markets.
The company was incorporated in 2004 and is based in Irvine,
California. Warner Chilcott is a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling
branded prescription pharmaceutical products primarily in the
United States. It offers its products in two therapeutic
categories, women's healthcare and dermatology. The company is
based in Rockaway, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536 7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536 6652
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric L. Samore, Esq.
          Heather A. Bub, Esq.
          SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC
          150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 894 3200
          Facsimile: (312) 894 3210
          E-mail: esamore@salawus.com
                  hbub@salawus.com


ALP LIQUIDATING: Agreement in Principle Reached in Florida Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit in Florida and their insurers are engaged in
settlement discussions, and an agreement in principle to settle
this case has been reached.

Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership"), the General Partner
and certain related parties as well as other unrelated parties
have been named defendants in an action entitled Rothal v.
Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed
in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida. In this suit that was originally filed on
or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs purport to bring a class action
allegedly arising out of construction defects occurring during the
development of Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately
150 homes.

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the
homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file
with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from
improper shutter storm protection systems. Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to expand the class to include other homes in Weston. The
motion to expand the class was withdrawn. The case went to
mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not settle.

The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint. The Arvida defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves.

The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the
class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the
class by order dated September 16, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the
Partnership filed its notice of appeal challenging the
certification order.

On June 1, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's
order certifying the class. The case has been returned to the
trial court for further proceedings including trial.

The parties and their insurers are engaged in settlement
discussions, and an agreement in principle to settle this case has
been reached. However, there are no assurances that such agreement
will in fact be consummated. The costs associated with the
agreement in principle are reflected in ALP's financial
statements. The case does not currently have a trial date.

If the matter is not settled, the defense of the case will
proceed. The Partnership intends to vigorously defend itself. This
case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's insurance
carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company (together with its
affiliates collectively, "Zurich"), for defense and indemnity.
Zurich is providing a defense of this matter under a purported
reservation of rights. The Partnership has also engaged other
counsel in connection with this lawsuit.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Appeal of Class Action Settlement Before 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by a member of the class of a court's approval of the
terms of a class action settlement is pending, American Equity
Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company said, "We were a defendant in a purported class
action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company, et al., in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Western Division and
Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central
District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and
Sales Litigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los
Angeles Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices
and similar claims."

"The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action
status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by
us. On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement and stipulated to certification of the case as a class
action for settlement purposes only. Notice of the terms of the
settlement was mailed to the members of the class on October 7,
2013 and settlement claim forms were due from members of the class
on or before December 6, 2013.

"On January 27, 2014, a hearing was held regarding the fairness of
the settlement. On January 29, 2014, the District Court signed a
final order approving the settlement and finding the settlement is
fair and represents a complete resolution of all claims asserted
on behalf of the class. On January 30, 2014, a final judgment was
entered dismissing the case on the merits and with prejudice. On
February 28, 2014, a member of the class filed an appeal of the
District Court's approval of the terms of the settlement agreement
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
We recorded an estimated litigation liability of $17.5 million
during the third quarter of 2012 related to the Los Angeles Case.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
report.

"We increased our estimated litigation liability for this matter
to $21.2 million during the fourth quarter of 2013 following the
passage of the deadline for submission of claims by class members
in the lawsuit and based upon information available at that time.
However, we decreased the liability by $2.3 million in the first
quarter of 2014 as additional information became available
concerning the nature and magnitude of the claims received.

"In addition, during the first quarter of 2014, we paid $7.8
million in legal fees to the plaintiffs' counsel. The estimated
litigation liability at September 30, 2015 is $11.1 million. While
review of the claim forms has been stayed due to the appeal and it
is difficult to predict the amount of the liabilities that will
ultimately result from the completion of the claims process, the
$11.1 million litigation liability represents our best estimate of
probable loss with respect to this litigation. In light of the
inherent uncertainties involved in the matter, there can be no
assurance that such litigation, or any other pending or future
litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, or results of operations."


AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE: "Krug" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Krug v. American Family Mutual
Insurance Company, Case No. 15L630, was removed from the Circuit
Court of St. Clair Co., Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01354-MJR-DGW to the
proceeding.

American Family Mutual Insurance together with its subsidiaries,
provides various insurance products and services in the United
States. The company offers personal lines of insurance products,
including auto, all-terrain, boat owners, campers/motor homes,
condominiums, custom-value homes, golf carts, homeowners,
mobile/manufactured homeowners, motorcycle, personal liability
umbrella, renters, and snowmobile insurance. The Company is based
in Madison, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY & DANIS, L.L.C.
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725 7700
          Facsimile: (314) 721 0905
          E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Heather Hyun Harrison, Esq.
          John A. Roberts, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS - CHICAGO
          311 South Wacker Dr., Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60606-6622
          Telephone: (312) 212 6512
          Facsimile: (312) 212 6501
          E-mail: heather.harrison@faegrebd.com
                  john.roberts@faegrebd.com


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Action Appeal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an appeal
is pending related to a class action lawsuit.

"Beginning on September 20, 2010," the Company said, "a number of
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against us and certain of our current and
former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of
our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported
stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations
that we and certain of our current and former employees and
directors violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program,
thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff
filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5,
2013, the Court dismissed the second consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E.
Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. On
November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the second consolidated amended complaint.

"On March 20, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and
dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with
prejudice. On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his
appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On October 24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to
the lead plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead
plaintiff filed his reply brief.

"Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict
or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims."


ARGENTINA: Bondholders Urged to File Claim for Damages
------------------------------------------------------
Investors who purchased Argentine bonds involved in a national
class-action lawsuit are urged to fill out a proof of claim form
to recover their losses following a court order, according to
Hagens Berman, law firm representing the class of bond holders.

The suit seeks to force the Argentine government to honor its
agreement with investors, and return the monies invested in the
bonds with the promised returns, as well as to pay damages.

To determine whether you are a member of the class in this case,
and therefore should complete a proof of claim form, you need to
meet each of the following criteria:

You purchased a beneficial interest in the Republic of Argentina
European Medium Term Note bond with a coupon rate of 9.25 percent
and a maturity date of July 20, 2004, and which bears the ISIN
XSO113833510; You purchased that interest on or before Dec. 19,
2006; You have held that interest from Dec. 19, 2006 continuously
through the present; You did not previously opt-out of the class,
or exchange your interest in the bond in one of the two exchange
offers conducted by Argentina.

If you meet each of the criteria above, please complete a proof of
claim form, which can be filled out and submitted online here.
All submissions must be received no later than Feb. 29, 2016.

In December 2006, Hagens Berman filed a lawsuit on behalf of
holders of the defaulted Republic of Argentina European Medium
Term Note bond with a coupon rate of 9.25 percent and a maturity
date of July 20, 2004, and which bears the ISIN XSO113833510 (the
Bond), following the Republic of Argentina's default on all of its
external indebtedness in December 2001.  In June 2011, the court
certified a class of all those who purchased their interests in
the bond on or before Dec. 19, 2006.

An evidentiary hearing on damages is scheduled for April 2016 to
determine the amount of damages Argentina owes to the class.

                      About Hagens Berman

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


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Chronicle Herald reports that an Antigonish woman has filed a
proposed class action against the Bank of Nova Scotia, alleging an
employee illegally accessed her personal information and then
distributed it to third parties.

Linda Matthews Mont filed the action in Nova Scotia Supreme Court
in September 2014, alleging that at some point before March 29,
2012, a bank employee accessed and disseminated her personal
information, including her name, social insurance number, home
address, date of birth, financial information, credit history and
other data.

It is alleged others in Nova Scotia may have been affected by the
same alleged breach, but it is not known how many, Halifax lawyer
Robert Pineo -- rpineo@pattersonlaw.ca -- of Patterson Law said on
Jan. 21.

Matthews Mont changed all her bank accounts and debit and credit
cards after she found out about the alleged breach in March 2014.

"As a result of the employee's wrongful and illegal actions, the
plaintiff suffered upset, worry, stress, feelings of uncertainty
and has lost confidence in the banking system," says the notice of
action.

Mr. Pineo, who is handling the case, said a Bank of Nova Scotia
call centre employee in Ontario is thought to be behind the
alleged breach.

"In these breach of privacy cases, there is a privacy problem with
the bank disclosing who was affected because those people might
not want that made known.  These class actions proceed in a
slightly different way, where actually the defendant has to
contact those who are affected to see if they want to join the
lawsuit.

"These are really strange (cases) because you don't have the
opportunity to start the action with a full knowledge of the
facts."

He said a similar alleged breach of privacy case involving a Bank
of Nova Scotia employee at the same call centre has just been
certified by the courts in Ontario.  Mr. Pineo said he will move
ahead with a class action certification application in Nova
Scotia.

"Some of the elements of that (Ontario) certification will assist
ours, so we were waiting to hear on that."

The Nova Scotia claim alleges the bank breached its duties to
adequately train, educate, monitor and supervise its employee;
properly control and restrict employee access to confidential
client information; take other appropriate steps to protect
clients' personal information from unlawful access and
dissemination to third parties; and inform affected clients about
a breach in a timely fashion.

"(We want) to put it out that this lawsuit has been started and is
going to be moving forward," Mr. Pineo said.

"We are (also) hoping that the general public will monitor their
private information a little more closely.  Lots of people are
told that you should check your credit rating . . . but very few
people actually do that."


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Resolving All Claims in Illinois Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. is in the process of favorably resolving
all claims in a class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

Baxter was a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain
of the company's current and former executive officers and its
board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of
the company and issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the
company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin
product, and other quality matters. A consolidated derivative suit
filed in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois was
settled with the plaintiffs in February 2015, and as a result the
two other derivative actions previously filed in state courts, one
in Lake County, Illinois and one in the Delaware Chancery Court,
were dismissed. The company also has agreed to settle within its
insurance limits a consolidated alleged class action pending in
the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the
company and certain of its executive officers. The court provided
preliminary approval of the settlement, and the company is in the
process of favorably resolving all claims and related,
consolidated cases.


BGC PARTNERS: GFI Entered Into MOU in Delaware Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
BGC Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that GFI Group Inc. and
other parties have entered into a memorandum of understanding with
regard to a preliminary settlement of a consolidated Delaware
class action.

On February 26, 2015, the Company successfully completed a tender
offer to acquire shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share
(the "Shares"), of GFI Group Inc. ("GFI") for $6.10 per share in
cash and accepted for purchase 54.3 million shares (the "Tendered
Shares") tendered to the Company pursuant to our offer (the
"Offer"). The Tendered Shares, together with the 17.1 million
Shares already owned by the Company, represented approximately 56%
of GFI's outstanding shares.

On April 28, 2015 a subsidiary of BGC purchased approximately 43.0
million newly issued shares of GFI's common stock (the "New
Shares") at the price of $5.81 per share for an aggregate purchase
price of $250 million, increasing our ownership in GFI to
approximately 67.0%. The purchase price was paid to GFI in the
form of a note due on June 19, 2018 that bears an interest rate of
LIBOR plus 200 basis points. GFI is a leading intermediary and
provider of trading technologies and support services to the
global OTC and listed markets. GFI serves more than 2,500
institutional clients in operating electronic and hybrid markets
for cash and derivative products across multiple asset classes.

On August 24, 2015, GFI, Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, directors and
former executive officers of GFI; Jersey Partners Inc. ("JPI"), a
stockholder of GFI; CME Group, Inc. ("CME"); the former members of
the GFI Special Committee; BGC; and certain other former officers
and affiliates of GFI entered into a memorandum of understanding
(the "MOU") with regard to a preliminary settlement (the
"Settlement") of the consolidated class action case pending
against GFI in the State of Delaware (the "Consolidated Delaware
Action"). Neither GFI nor BGC will contribute any funds to the
Settlement, which will be paid from a combination of insurance
proceeds and payments by JPI and Messrs. Gooch and Heffron. The
Settlement provides for a settlement fund of $10.75 million for
the class of GFI stockholders in the Consolidated Delaware Action
and payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel in
an amount to be established by negotiation, mediation or a fee
application to the Court. The final Settlement will also require
approval of the Court.

In connection with the Settlement, on October 6, 2015, the Company
advanced $10.75 million to JPI (the "JPI Note"). The JPI Note
bears interest at the rate of 5.375% per annum and is secured by 2
million shares of GFI common stock owned by JPI. The JPI Note is
due on the earlier of (a) the date of the Back-End Merger, (b)(i)
if no definitive agreement to effect the Back-End Merger has been
executed, January 29, 2016 or (ii) if a Back-End Merger agreement
has been executed, upon any termination of such agreement, and (c)
May 15, 2016. The JPI Note is also required to be repaid within 5
days of any potential breach by either of Messrs. Michael Gooch or
Colin Heffron of their respective non-compete and distributable
earnings bonus award agreements with BGC ("DE Agreements"), which
they entered into in connection with the Tender Offer Agreement.
In the MOU, the CME agreed to terminate the restriction
prohibiting former executive officers of GFI, JPI and certain
other stockholders and affiliates of GFI from supporting the Back-
End Mergers ("Back-End Mergers") as defined in the February 19,
2015 Tender Offer Agreement by and among BGC, GFI and BGC
Partners, L.P., or similar transactions until January 30, 2016.
Accordingly, the parties to the Settlement letter have agreed that
by December 21, 2015, BGC, GFI, JPI and certain affiliates shall
enter into the Back-End Merger agreements. BGC expects the Back-
End Mergers to be completed no later than January 29, 2016.

The JPI advance of the merger consideration will be deducted from
the merger consideration payable to it upon completion of the
Back-End Mergers. If insurance proceeds are insufficient, amounts
advanced to Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, if any, would be deducted
from any payment to which they may be entitled under the DE
Agreements so long as they are eligible for payments under their
respective DE Agreements.


BOYD BILOXI: Alabama Court Tosses TCPA Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Schubert, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an
Alabama federal court has rejected a proposed class action
settlement involving alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), saying the plaintiff didn't prove the
members of the proposed class suffered similar enough injuries.

Jason Bennett filed the suit against Boyd Biloxi, LLC, owner of IP
Casino Resort and Spa in Biloxi, Miss.  He claims the resort
violated the TCPA after he and more than 70,000 others received
more than 400,000 unlawful telemarketing calls promoting the spa.

Current TCPA regulations prohibit businesses from making
automated, prerecorded calls without written consent from those on
the receiving end.

But Judge William Steele, of the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of Alabama, refused Mr. Bennett's proposed
settlement on Dec. 7, claiming he did "not come close to bearing
the burden of persuading the Court to certify the proposed
settlement class."

Why? The court says Mr. Bennett failed to prove his experience --
he received a few phone calls on a mobile number -- was similar to
the 70,000 others who also received calls during the two-year
period.

The defendant obtained the telephone numbers, both mobile and
residential, from those who joined the spa's rewards program,
showing some form of consent.  Judge Steele took issue with that
combination of mobile and residential numbers, according to
attorney Marshall Baker -- Marshall.Baker@dbr.com -- of Drinker
Biddle & Reath in San Francisco.

"Bennett has to prove the phone calls he received, which were on
his mobile phone, were similar to all the class members in the
suit," Mr. Baker said.

"There are certain privacy concerns with TCPA.  The home is a
sacred place, and most of us don't want to answer telemarketing
calls during dinner.  A couple of calls on a cell phone lends to a
different experience."

The proposed settlement also estimated the average class member
could be awarded between $3000 and $9000 if they filed
individually.  The court disagreed that Bennett's class action
suit was a better option.

Representing Mr. Bennett is the Alaska/Alabama law firm Underwood
& Riemer, as well as John Cox of Spanish Fort, Ala.  They are
seeking up to $2 million in attorneys fees.

The decision is preliminary, Mr. Baker said.  Bennett will have
start over again, but has another opportunity to provide
additional evidence.

"It's important to note the court did not hold that the settlement
was insufficient," Mr. Baker said.  "Instead, the court simply
held that the plaintiff did not offer enough evidence that the
settlement was sufficient."

The defendant has already filed a brief in response to the
settlement, and both parties want to come to an agreement.  But
that's not enough to certify a class action suit, Mr. Baker said.

"The court still has to make sure all the requirements are met,"
Mr. Baker said.  "A class action suit represents unknown people,
so it must serve as a gatekeeper in this case."


BROOKFIELD DTLA: Md. Ct. Ordered Limited Discovery in Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that a Maryland state court has held a hearing to decide
whether to grant final approval of a class action settlement and
to rule on the parties' discovery motions. At the hearing, the
Maryland State Court has ordered limited discovery to occur prior
to ruling on the fee application.

Brookfield DTLA was formed for the purpose of consummating the
transactions contemplated in the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the "Merger Agreement"),
and the issuance of shares of 7.625% Series A Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Stock (the "Series A preferred stock") in
connection with the acquisition of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and MPG
Office, L.P. (together, "MPG"). Brookfield DTLA is a direct
subsidiary of Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC ("rookfield DTLA
Holdings"), a Delaware limited liability company, and an indirect
subsidiary of Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO").

Following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the "Merger
Agreement"), seven putative class actions were filed against
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO"), Brookfield DTLA,
Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust
Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties (collectively, the
"Brookfield Parties"), MPG Office Trust, Inc., MPG Office, L.P.,
and the members of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.
Five of these lawsuits were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s common stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"),
and Masih v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the
"Masih Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Los Angeles County (the "California State Court") on
April 29, 2013 and May 3, 2013, respectively; and (ii) three
lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-
C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc.,
et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso
Action") were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013 and May 22, 2013,
respectively (collectively, the "Common Stock Actions"). Two
lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No.
24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and Donlan v. Weinstein, et
al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan Action"), were filed on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on June 20, 2013 and
July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Preferred Stock
Actions").

In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by
failing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and
ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action further
alleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the breaches
of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors,
and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG Office Trust,
Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.

On June 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical,
amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed an
amended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County. The three amended complaints, as well as
the Dell'Osso Action complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the SEC on May 21,
2013 is false and/or misleading because it fails to include
certain details of the process leading up to the merger and fails
to provide adequate information concerning MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s financial advisors.

In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, the
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into the
Merger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breached
the Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPG
preferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreement
that violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty.

On July 15, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions
filed a joint amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s
board of directors failed to disclose material information
regarding BPO's extension of the tender offer.

The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction against
the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
merger was consummated, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties and
the other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed a
memorandum of understanding, regarding a proposed settlement of
all claims asserted therein. The parties subsequently entered into
a stipulation of settlement dated November 21, 2013 providing for
the release of all asserted claims, additional disclosures by MPG
concerning the merger made prior to the merger's approval, and the
payment, by the defendants, of an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount not to exceed $475,000. After a hearing on
June 4, 2014, the California State Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the settlement, and entered a Final
Order and Judgment, awarding the plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys'
fees and expenses in the amount of $475,000, which was paid by MPG
Office LLC on June 18, 2014. BPO is seeking reimbursement for the
settlement payment from MPG's insurers.

In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the
Maryland State Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer. The plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that added
additional arguments in support of their allegations that the new
preferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferred
shares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motion
concluded on February 28, 2014. At a hearing on June 18, 2014, the
Maryland State Court heard oral arguments on the defendants'
motion to dismiss and reserved judgment on the decision. On
October 21, 2014, the parties sent a joint letter to the Maryland
State Court stating that since the June 18 meeting, the parties
have commenced discussions towards a possible resolution of the
lawsuit, requesting that the court temporarily refrain from
deciding the pending motion to dismiss to facilitate the
discussions.

On March 30, 2015, the plaintiff in the Cohen Action and the
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding setting
forth an agreement in principle to settle the Preferred Stock
Actions on a class-wide basis and dismiss the case with prejudice
in exchange for the payment of $2.25 per share of Series A
preferred stock of accumulated and unpaid dividends (the "Dividend
Payment") to holders of record on a record date to be set after
final approval of the settlement by the Maryland State Court, plus
any attorneys' fees awarded by the Maryland State Court to the
plaintiff's counsel. The dividend will reduce the amount of
accumulated and unpaid dividends on the Series A preferred stock,
and the terms of the Series A preferred stock will otherwise
remain unchanged.

On August 18, 2015, the Maryland State Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a fairness
hearing for October 27, 2015.

On September 28, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for final
certification of the settlement class, final approval of the class
action settlement and approval of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, seeking a total fee and expense award
of $5,250,000. The Company submitted its opposition to the
plaintiff's fee application on October 13, 2015.

On October 16, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking
discovery related to the valuation of the Dividend Payment in
connection with its fee application and served related discovery
requests on the defendants. On October 23, 2015, the defendants
filed their opposition to this motion and a motion for a
protective order precluding discovery.

On October 27, 2015, the Maryland State Court held a hearing to
decide whether to grant final approval of the settlement and to
rule on the parties' discovery motions. At the hearing, the
Maryland State Court ordered limited discovery to occur prior to
ruling on the fee application. Once that discovery has been
completed, the plaintiff will file a reply brief in support of its
fee application, and the Maryland State Court will decide the
issue.

On October 28, 2015, the Maryland State Court issued an order
granting final approval of the Dividend Payment. The time to
appeal the order was scheduled to expire on November 30, 2015,
after which a record date would be set by the Company for the
Dividend Payment to be made, and payment would be made 20 days
thereafter.


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Piggly Wiggly Suit Moved to MDL 2670
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Piggly Wiggly Alabama Distributing
Co., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03906,
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 California (San Diego). The Southern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02790-JLS-MDD to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to
raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices, allocate customers, and
restrict capacity in the market for shelf-stable packaged seafood,
including tuna, clam, crab, mackerel, oyster, salmon, sardines,
and shrimp (Packaged Seafood) sold in the United States.

The defendants are the three largest producers of Packaged Seafood
in the US.

The Piggly Wiggly case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re:
Packaged Seafood products antitrust litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on December 9, 2015. This actions share
factual questions arising out of an alleged conspiracy by
defendants to fix prices of packed seafoods products. In its
December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL "share factual questions" and that "centralization
District of Columbia will be the most convenient and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in
the MDL are Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, United States District Judge;
and Hon. Janis L. Sammartino, United States District Judge. The
lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS-MDD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
          Louis A. Kessler, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777 2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777 5189
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                  tbright@cerallp.com
                  lakessler@cerallp.com


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Harvesters Enterprises Suit Moved to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Harvesters Enterprises, LLC v.
Bumble Bee Foods LLC et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00628, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego). The California Southern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02785-JLS-MDD to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices of packaged seafood
products within the US.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the US, its territories, and the District of Columbia

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          David Malcolm McMullan, Jr, Esq.
          Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW OFFICE, PA
          PO Box 987
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834 2376
          Facsimile: (662) 834 2628
          E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
                  kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com


BUSINESS LAW GROUP: Wilmington Savings Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Wilmington Savings Fund Society,
FSB v. Business Law Group, P.A. et al., Case No. 15-CA-009871,
was removed from the Hillsborough County Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02831-CEH-TGW to
the proceeding.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society is a full-service bank. The bank
accepts donations, makes loans, and provides other services for
the public. The company is based Wilmington, Delaware. LM Funding
provides funding to nonprofit community associations primarily
located in the state of Florida, as well as in the states of
Washington and Colorado. The company offers funding to
Associations by purchasing their rights under delinquent accounts
that are selected by the Associations arising from unpaid
Association assessments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad F. Barrios, Esq
          Kenneth George Turkel, Esq
          BAJO CUVA COHEN TURKEL, PA
          100 N Tampa St, Suite 1900
          Tampa, FL v33602
          Telephone: (813) 443 2199
          Facsimile: (813) 443 2193
          E-mail: brad.barrios@bajocuva.com
                  kturkel@bajocuva.com

               - and -

          James Dan Clark, Esq.
          CLARK & MARTINO, PA
          3407 W Kennedy Blvd
          Tampa, FL 33609-2905
          Telephone: (813) 879 0700
          Facsimile: (813) 879 5498
          E-mail: dclark@clarkmartino.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles M. Harris, Jr., Esq.
          John D. Goldsmith, Esq.
          William Albert McBride, Esq.
          TRENAM KEMKER
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2700
          Tampa, FL 33602-5150
          Telephone: (813) 223 7474
          Facsimile: (813) 229 6553
          E-mail: cmharris@trenam.com
                  jgoldsmith@trenam.com
                  wam@trenam.com


CALIFORNIA: Ramona Water Dist. Directors Hear Class Action Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Robertson, writing for Ramona Sentinel, reports that to
start off the new year at their Jan. 12 meeting, Ramona Municipal
Water District directors postponed election of officers, heard a
review of the class action lawsuit against the district regarding
sewer fees, and approved measures to allow the general manager to
file small claims actions for delinquent accounts.

The board plans to elect officers at its Feb. 9 meeting as only
three of the five were in attendance.  Absent from the meeting
were directors Jim Hickle, who was out of town, and George Foote,
who had jury duty.

Because water district customers have been receiving in the mail a
document from San Diego Superior Court about the class action
lawsuit judgment, ruled in the district's favor, and many have
called the district office, Attorney Gregory Moser --
greg.moser@procopio.com -- with Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves &
Savitch LLP, which represented the district, reviewed the case and
provided deadlines for further action by the plaintiffs.

Mr. Moser said the plaintiffs' deadline to file a Notice of Appeal
is Feb. 2.

"They said they will do that.  Whether they will actually do that,
we'll see," said Mr. Moser.

The attorney said the court ordered the plaintiffs to mail notices
of the ruling to the "class members," and that cost them about
$13,000.  The district, he said, is entitled to reimbursements of
trial and expert witness costs and is asking for $85,616.73, which
the plaintiffs are disputing.  A hearing on that is scheduled for
March 2, said Mr. Moser.

Filed in January 2014, the lawsuit alleged that the district's
method for charging sewer fees based on a parcel's assigned
equivalent dwelling units violates Proposition 218 because the
charges can exceed the proportional cost of the services.

The district requested the trial be split into two phases, with
the first phase to consider whether the plaintiffs --
Eugene Plantier, Orrin Day and George Newman -- had exhausted
their administrative remedies by first protesting fees at
Proposition 218 public hearings on sewer and water rates.  After
hearing testimony in phase 1, the court found on Nov. 3, 2015,
that the plaintiffs failed to submit such protests and ruled in
the district's favor, preventing the trial proceeding to phase 2.

The court said it found the testimonies of district staff to be
more persuasive than that of the plaintiffs, and Mr. Plantier had
an ax to grind over a dispute regarding grease discharge.
Mr. Plantier owns the commercial property at 109 10th St. that he
leases to Marisco Mar De Cortez restaurant.  In 2012, district
staff said the restaurant was releasing grease into the sewer line
and required him to pay $33,000 to bring the building's wastewater
service into compliance and to obtain an industrial waste permit.

Mr. Moser said the plaintiffs' history of complaints dated back to
2002, when Newman complained of a water bill.

According to Barnum, the case cost the district several hundred
thousand dollars to defend, although Beck noted that it could have
cost a lot more if it lost.  Mr. Moser said the district would
have had to pay back millions of dollars to class members --
customers who paid a sewer service charge on or after Nov. 22,
2012.

In other action, the board:

   * Authorized its general manager to file small claims actions
on delinquent accounts without first obtaining board approval.

   * Amended its Legislative Code to require a lien against a
property when the owner is paying undocumented sewer connection
fees through a promissory note. The lien would be lifted after
full payment.

   * Approved an agreement that would allow San Diego County Fire
Authority volunteers to be mentored by the Ramona Fire Department
and to volunteer at Ramona fire stations.


CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Compensation Offers Won't Halt Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wolf, writing for USA Today, reports that the Supreme
Court dealt a rare setback on Jan. 20 to companies trying to avoid
potentially expensive class-action lawsuits.

The justices ruled that offers of full compensation to the lead
plaintiff in such a case do not automatically end the legal
challenge.  The 6-3 decision was written by Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg.

"An unaccepted settlement offer, like other unaccepted contract
offers, creates no lasting right or obligation," Judge Ginsburg
said.  "Once unaccepted, the offer is off the table."

The case was among several on the court's docket this term that
could lead to more or fewer class-action lawsuits.  It involved an
unsolicited text message sent by a Navy recruiting contractor in
apparent violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which
was meant to protect cellphone users from robocalls and mass
solicitations.

Other cases argued in the fall test whether class action lawsuits
can be based on violations of law rather than actual injuries, and
whether those injuries can be based on statistical averages.

When 40-year-old Jose Gomez received the recruitment offer, he
sued the contractor, Campbell-Ewald Co., personally and as the
potential leader of a class action.  Rather than face a
potentially large group of cell phone users, the company offered
Mr. Gomez $1,503 in damages for each unauthorized text, three
times what the law requires.

That's the type of deal judges love and lawyers hate; it clears
dockets but wipes potentially lucrative lawsuits from the books.
In this case, Gomez didn't take the bait.  A federal district
judge ruled that the offer ended the case, but an appeals court
reversed the judgment, sending the company to the Supreme Court
for relief.

Five justices signed on to Judge Ginsburg's ruling.  A sixth,
Justice Clarence Thomas, concurred but on different grounds; he
said the lawsuit remains alive because the company merely offered
to pay but never made payment.  Judge Ginsburg said that issue
should be left for another day, in a case where payment has been
made.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the main dissent, arguing that
the company's offer to Gomez should end the lawsuit.  For context,
Roberts noted that as far back as 1793, the Supreme Court refused
to advise President George Washington on the nation's role in the
war between Great Britain and France, because that wasn't its job.

"The federal courts exist to resolve real disputes, not to rule on
a plaintiff's entitlement to relief already there for the taking,"
Roberts said.  "If there is no actual case or controversy, the
lawsuit is moot, and the power of the federal courts to declare
the law has come to an end."

The chief justice had taken the lead during oral arguments.  "You
won't take yes for an answer," he told Jonathan Mitchell, Gomez'
lawyer.

The court's liberal wing took the opposite tack, challenging the
assertion that the case became moot as soon as Mr. Gomez was
offered full compensation for the unwanted text messages.

"You get to say on your own, unilaterally, 'I offered you complete
relief,'" Justice Sonia Sotomayor said sarcastically.  "You,
without any judicial interpretation, intervention, get to moot the
case on your terms."

A copy of the Supreme Court's Jan. 20 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/Nlbthvfrom Leagle.com.

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
KENNEDY, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J.,
filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ROBERTS, C. J., filed
a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and ALITO, JJ., joined.
ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Attorneys for Petitioner Campbell-Ewald Company:

     Gregory G. Garre, Esq.
     Latham & Watkins, LLP
     555 11th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
     Washington, DC  20004
     Tel: (202) 637-2207
     E-mail: gregory.garre@lw.com

Attorneys for Respondent Jose Gomez:

     Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
     434 Galvez Mall
     Room 301 HHMB
     Stanford, CA  94305
     Tel: (650) 723-1397
     E-mail: jfmitche@stanford.edu

          - and -

     Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
     McMorrow Law PC
     One N. LaSalle Street, 44th Floor
     Chicago, IL  60602
     Tel: (312) 265-0708
     E-mail: mike@mjmcmorrow.com

Attorneys for National Defense Industrial Association:

     Raymond B. Biagini, Esq.
     Covington & Burling LLP
     One City Center
     850 Tenth Street, NW
     Washington, DC  20001-4956
     E-mail: rbiagini@cov.com
     Tel: (202) 662-6000

Attorneys for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
and Business Roundtable:

     Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
     Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
     1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC  20036
     E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
     Tel: (202) 955-8500

Attorneys for KBR, Inc.:

     Paul D. Clement, Esq.
     Bancroft PLLC
     500 New Jersey Ave., NW, Seventh Floor
     Washington, DC  20001
     Tel: (202) 234-0090
     E-mail: pclement@bancroftpllc.com

Attorneys for Lawyers for Civil Justice:

     Alexander R. Dahl, Esq.
     Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
     1350 I Street, NW, Suite 510
     Washington, DC  20005
     Tel: (202)-747-0508
     E-mail: Adahl@bhfs.com

Attorneys for DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar & PSC - The Voice
of the Government Services Industry:

     Lawrence S. Ebner, Esq.
     Dentons US LLP
     1900 K Street NW
     Washington, DC  20006
     Tel: (202) 496-7500
     E-mail: lawrence.ebner@dentons.com

Attorneys for American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations:

     Matthew J. Ginsburg, Esq
     815 Sixteenth Street, NW
     Washington, DC  20006
     Tel: (202)-637-5397

Attorneys for The National Black Chamber of Commerce:

     Andrew M. Grossman, Esq.
     Baker & Hostetler LLP
     Washington Sq., Suite 1100
     1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC  20036
     Tel: (202)-861-1697
     E-mail: agrossman@bakerlaw.com

Attorneys for National Employment Lawyers Association, et al.:

     Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South 8th St.
     Minneapolis, MN  55402
     Tel: (612) 256-3207
     E-mail: ahansen@nka.com

Attorneys for NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund:

     Eric A. Isaacson, Esq.
     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA  92101
     Tel: (619) 231-1058
     E-mail: erici@rgrdlaw.com

Attorneys for Public Justice, P.C. and AARP Foundation Litigation:

     Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
     250 Hudson Street 8th Floor
     New York, NY  10013
     Tel: (212)-355-9500
     E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com

Attorneys for Consumer Data Industry Association:

     Robert A. Long Jr.
     Covington & Burling LLP
     OneCity Center
     850 Tenth Street, NW
     Washington, DC  20004-2401
     Tel: (202) 662-6000
     E-mail: rlong@cov.com

Attorneys for Trans Union LLC:

     James C. Martin, Esq.
     Reed Smith LLP
     225 Fifth Avenue
     Pittsburgh, PA  15222
     Tel: (412) 288-3131
     E-mail: jcmartin@reedsmith.com

Attorneys for Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, et
al.:

     David A. Reiser, Esq.
     Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
     1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1800
     Washington, DC  20036
     Tel: (202) 778-1800
     E-mail: dresier@zuckerman.com

Attorneys for Washington Legal Foundation:

     Richard A. Samp, Esq.
     Washington Legal Foundation
     2009 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC  20036
     E-mail: rsamp@wlf.org
     Tel: (202) 588-0302

Attorneys for Constitutional Accountability Center:

     Elizabeth B. Wydra, Esq.
     Constitutional Accountability Center
     1200 18th St., N.W., Suite 501
     Washington, DC  20036
     Tel: (202) 296-6889
     E-mail: elizabeth@theusconstitution.org

Attorneys for United States:

     Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Esq.
     Solicitor General
     United States Department of Justice
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC  20530-0001
     Tel: (202) 514-2217
     E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

          - and -

     Anthony Alan Yang, Esq.
     Office of the Solicitor General
     950 Pennsylvania Ave.NW, Room 5615
     Washington, DC  20530-0001
     Tel: (202)-514-4821

Attorneys for National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation,
Inc.:

     W. James Young
     c/o National Right to Work Legal Defense Fnd.
     8001 Braddock Rd., Suite 600
     Springfield, VA  22160
     Tel: (703) 321-8510
     E-mail: wjy@nrtw.org


CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Some Questions Left Unanswered Despite Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Brecher, Esq. -- BrecherJ@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson
Lewis P.C., reports that on Jan. 20, the U.S. Supreme Court
eliminated a strategy defendants have used to stem the rising tide
of class action lawsuits--offering the named plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit full relief, mooting their individual claim
(regardless if they accept it), and along with it, rendering the
class action moot.  Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez.

These offers sometimes are made pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (the official rule relating to an "Offer
of Judgment") or as stand-alone settlement offers.  If the offer
provides the named plaintiff everything he could seek in the
lawsuit (typically limited amounts in consumer class actions or in
wage-hour cases), the defendant moves to dismiss the case as moot,
even if the plaintiff rejects the offer.  Circuit courts have been
split on whether the offer, if  it provided full relief, rendered
the case moot regardless of whether the plaintiff accepted it,
because there no longer existed a "case or controversy" under
Article III of the Constitution.

Resolving a circuit court split, the Supreme Court held (6-3) that
an "unaccepted settlement offer has no force," and cannot result
in rendering a case moot. The Court relied on "basic principles of
contract law" which, according to the Court, provide that a mere
offer, absent an acceptance, has "no continuing efficacy."  Absent
an acceptance by the plaintiff, the offers remain only a
"proposal" that was not binding, the Court held.  The Court
further noted, as support for its holding, that under the express
provisions of Rule 68, if an offer is not accepted within 14 days,
it is "withdrawn."

Background

As previously reported, the case arises under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which prohibits any person from
sending text messages using any automatic dialing system without
the recipient's consent, and subjects the offender to actual
damages or a maximum penalty of $1,500.  The Defendant, a
subcontractor for the Navy, was retained to assist with
recruiting, and through its subcontractor, sent 100,000 text
messages, some without the recipient's consent.  The plaintiff,
one of the recipients, brought a class action lawsuit seeking over
$100M in damages. The defendant made both a stand-alone offer and
a Rule 68 offer of judgment for $1,503, but the plaintiff rejected
it.  The defendant then moved to dismiss the case as moot, but the
district court denied the motion. It held an offer of judgment
that has not been accepted does not result in rendering the case
moot.  The case ultimately was dismissed  based on sovereign
immunity, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that determination,  and
agreed with the district court that the case had not been rendered
moot based on the unaccepted offer of judgment.

Majority's Decision

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the split in the
circuit courts as to whether an unaccepted offer providing full
relief renders the case moot, an issue left unresolved in Genesis
Health Care Corp. v. Symczyk, decided in 2013.  Adopting the
reasoning set forth in Justice Kagan's dissent in Genesis, the
majority held an unaccepted offer of judgment, even if it offers
full relief, does not moot a case.

Justice Thomas concurred in the decision, but not its reasoning.
Justice Thomas believed the resolution of the issue was not
dependent on modern contract principles, as relied upon by the
majority, but instead on "common-law history of tenders," which
provides that a mere offer to pay, without an actual tender of the
amount owed, is insufficient to render a case moot.  But Justice
Thomas would appear willing to conclude that once a tender is
made, the case does become moot, the question left open in Gomez.

Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which
Justices Scalia and Alito joined.  Relying on the requirement
under Article III that there must exist a "case or controversy"
(not contract principles), the dissent argued the case was
"straightforward" since the plaintiff alleged a violation of the
TCPA, he was provided all the relief to which he was entitled
under the law, and thus the case was moot because there was no
"case or controversy."  Justice Roberts, expressing frustration,
explained that "federal courts exist to resolve real disputes, not
to rule on a plaintiff's entitlement to relief already there for
the taking," and that "although [the plaintiff] nonetheless wants
to continue litigating, the issue is not what the plaintiff wants,
but what the federal courts may do."  While the dissent agreed
that majority was correct that under contract principles the
settlement was a nullity because it was not accepted, contract
principles were not applicable in determining whether jurisdiction
existed under Article III, according to Justice Roberts.  "If the
defendant is willing to give the plaintiff everything he asks for,
there is no case or controversy to adjudicate, and the lawsuit is
moot," Justice Roberts emphasized.

Justice Alito, who joined Justice Roberts' dissent, filed a
separate dissenting opinion.  Agreeing that an unaccepted offer
providing complete relief moots a claim, Justice Alito noted
"there is nothing talismanic about the plaintiff's acceptance."
He wrote separately to emphasize that where there was a dispute as
to whether the defendant would make good on the promise (an issue
not present in Gomez), the case might not be moot, despite the
offer.  Justice Alito explained further that a defendant can make
clear it will make good on the offer to pay (and thus moot the
case) by simply paying the money or depositing it with the Court.

Open Questions

Significantly, the Court left open an important question -- would
the result have been different if the defendant had tendered the
full amount to the plaintiff either by sending the check directly
to the plaintiff or depositing it with the district court, instead
of merely making an offer or offer judgment to the plaintiff for
the full relief available ($1,500)?  The majority stated "that
question is appropriately reserved for a case in which it is not
hypothetical."

It should come as no surprise that defendants seeking to moot a
putative class action may now simply deposit the funds with the
Court.  Indeed, Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion, stated
he was "heartened that the Court appears to endorse the
proposition that a plaintiff's claim is moot once he has received
full redress" and stated that the decision "does not prevent a
defendant who actually pays complete relief . . .  from seeking
dismissal on mootness grounds." And Chief Justice Roberts also
noted that the "good news" is that the case is "limited to its
facts," because the Court merely holds that an offer of complete
relief is insufficient to moot a case, but does not hold that the
payment of complete relief would not be sufficient to moot the
case -- a position he clearly would support.

The Next Battleground

Thus, while the Supreme Court's decision resolves one issue -- the
effect of an unaccepted offer of judgment -- the next round in the
battle between class action lawyers and the companies they are
targeting will be whether a case becomes moot when a defendant,
instead of merely offering full relief, actually pays it. Such a
case may be just around the corner.  For now, lower courts will
now have to wrestle with these questions until the Supreme Court
opines again.


CAMPUS CREST: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Consolidate Seven Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Campus Crest Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs
in three class action lawsuits have requested that the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City consolidate the seven separate actions.

On October 16, 2015, Campus Crest Communities, Inc., a Maryland
corporation (the "Company" and "Campus Crest"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") to be
acquired by HSRE Quad Merger Parent, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company ("Parent"), an affiliate of HSRE involving total
estimated merger consideration of $7.03 per share. The overall
transaction value is approximately $1.9 billion, including the
assumption or repayment of various indebtedness of the Company.
The Merger Agreement was unanimously approved by the Company's
Board of Directors.

On October 27, 2015, a purported class action related to the
Merger Agreement, Grossman v. CCGSR, et al., was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Case No. 24-C-15-
005422, against the Company, CCGSR, HSRE, Parent, Merger Sub and
the members of the Company's Board of Directors. Six other
lawsuits, Latuso v. the Company et al., Silverwood v. the Company,
et al., Cekot v. the Company, et al., Powis v. CCGSR, et al.,
Zhang v. CCGSR, et. al. and Bushansky v. the Company, were
subsequently filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, Case Nos. 24-C-15-005415, 24-C-15-005414, 24-C-15-
005476, 24-C-15-005501, 24-C-15-005502, 24-C-15-005542 on October
27, 2015, October 27, 2015, October 30, 2015, November 2, 2015,
November 2, 2015 and November 5, 2015, respectively.

"These seven lawsuits generally allege breaches of fiduciary
duties by our directors in connection with the Merger Agreement,"
the Company said.

More specifically, the complaints allege that the individual
defendants failed to take appropriate steps to maximize
stockholder value and improperly favored themselves in connection
with the proposed transaction. Some of the complaints further
assert that the Merger Agreement contains several deal protection
provisions that are unnecessarily preclusive.

"The complaints also allege that some or all of HSRE, Parent,
Merger Sub, and, in certain cases, David Coles, our interim chief
executive officer, Aaron Halfacre, our President and Chief
Investment Officer, and CCGSR aided and abetted the directors'
purported breaches of fiduciary duty," the Company said.

The complaints seek to permanently enjoin defendants from
consummating the proposed Merger or, to the extent already
implemented, to rescind the Merger Agreement or grant rescissory
damages, in addition to various additional remedies.

On November 9, 2015, plaintiffs in three of the cases, Brian
Silverwood, Michael Cekot and Stephen Bushansky, requested that
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City consolidate the seven
separate actions.

Shareholders of Campus Crest Communities, Inc. will vote today --
Jan. 26, 2016 -- concerning the proposed merger with Harrison
Street Real Estate Capital, LLC.  If the merger is approved and
consummated, each existing CCG Common Share will be converted into
the right to receive $6.97 net cash per share, plus a pro rata
share of distributions from certain funds held in escrow following
CCG's disposition of its interests in its former Montreal joint
venture.  The Contingent Consideration is estimated to be up to
$0.04 per share.


CANADA: Winnipeg Faces Class Action Over "Know Your Zone" Tickets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Greenslade, writing for Global News, reports that the
City of Winnipeg could soon be up against a multi-million dollar
lawsuit after thousands of illegal tickets were written to
drivers.

Local group, Wise Up Winnipeg, said it is planning to file a class
action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of Winnipeggers who were
given tickets during the "Know Your Zone" parking ban for snow
plowing.

"$3.5 million is our best estimate," said Todd Dube from Wise Up
Winnipeg.  "That being 35,000 tickets issued over the three years
the illegal bylaw was in effect with an average of about $100 per
ticket."

In December, the city admitted some tickets were handed out under
the bylaw were not legal because of a clause in the province's
Highway Traffic Act.

"We want the tickets to be properly refunded," said Mr. Dube.
"They shouldn't have been issued in the first place . . . they
city has acknowledged that."

Mr. Dube filed a Freedom of Information request and found nearly
35,000 tickets were handed out through Know Your Zone over the
past few years.

Under that bylaw, signs need to be put out to warn drivers their
street will be plowed.

Without the signs tickets can only be given from 11:00 p.m. to 6
a.m.

"Absolutely they should be pushing for a refund," said former
police officer Len Eastoe.  "It's big brother telling people
you've done something wrong so everyone just throws in the towel
and pays it.  Nobody knew the signage was incorrect.  Now it's
brought to light the city messed up.  It doesn't matter that
people paid it and admitted their guilt.  They were just doing
what they were told."

Mr. Eastoe has been working as a traffic ticket agent for Traffic
Ticket Experts for the past 25 years and helps Manitobans fight
tickets.  Mr. Eastoe said the city was in the wrong and needs to
not only admit it but refund drivers.

"They need to take the next step with admitting that you've done
something wrong and correct it," said Mr. Eastoe.  "That's giving
the money back to people that shouldn't have paid it in the first
place."

While the city has admitted the mistake, it has refused to provide
any refunds to drivers.  City lawyers have said they aren't
required to provide refunds for drivers who voluntarily pleaded
guilty and paid their fines.

The city tells Global News it is in ongoing discussions with the
province about the issue but refused to elaborate further.

Mr. Dube said the lawsuit will be ready to be filed by the first
week of February.


CARNIVAL AUSTRALIA: Cruise Passengers File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Telegraph reports that facing a class action for taking
cruise passengers to Melbourne and Hobart instead of New
Caledonia, Carnival Australia has revealed it knew prior to
departure that a tropical cyclone had turned into its ship's path.

In a case which has the potential to strengthen cruise lovers'
rights to refunds and compensation, hundreds of passengers have
joined the suit after paying thousands of dollars each for what
they thought would be an eight-day Pacific Island voyage.

They accuse Carnival of false or misleading conduct for failing to
advise of a "significant change" prior to leaving port at Sydney.

News Corp Australia can reveal that Carnival's defense document
says it received a weather update at 4.30pm on March 10, 2015 that
said Tropical Cyclone Pam had turned south.

The document, filed with the NSW Supreme Court, also discloses
that passengers were still boarding until 5pm that day.

This could prove significant, because it shows the Spirit was
still docked when Pam's change in direction became known.

The passengers' statement of claim says: "The defendant knew or
ought to have known before the ship left Sydney that the ship
would not proceed on the cruise to the region of New Caledonia."

Carnival's defense also reveals it was taking evasive action the
day before departure, modifying the order in which ports in New
Caledonia were to be visited. And it discloses that Pam had been
under watch since March 6.

The defense says that at 10.30pm on March 10, shortly after
leaving port, the captain issued a letter to the ship's 2000
passengers, which in part read: "As you know, we've been keeping a
close eye on Tropical Cyclone Pam located in the South Pacific.
Based on the latest forecast, the storm is predicted to intensify
to a category 4 cyclone with winds of over 200 kilometers (per
hour) within the next 36 hours. In order to ensure your comfort
and safety, it is now evident we must change our course and
proceed south in order to avoid the storm's path. We are working
on an alternate itinerary and will have information by tomorrow
morning.

"We apologize for this unexpected change in plans.  I know how
much you were looking forward to our scheduled itinerary and
regret Mother Nature is not co-operating with us."

The next morning passengers were told they were heading to
Melbourne and Hobart.

It's believed that up to 400 Victorian passengers left the cruise
in Melbourne.  And News Corp Australia has previously revealed a
honeymooning Tasmanian couple went to work for the day after
unexpectedly end up in Hobart.

Carnival rejects the passengers' claim, which is led by Melbourne
mother Lucretia De Jong.  It argues the terms and conditions made
clear that "changes outside of our control" did not trigger
"compensation unless consumer laws require otherwise".

The claim alleges breaches of two sections of the Compensation and
Consumer Act 2010.

A directions hearing is set for February 29.


CHANEL INC: "Luna" Overtime Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cristian Luna et al, v. Chanel,
Inc. et al., Case No. BC 588208, was removed from the Los Angeles
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09541-RGK-KK
to the proceeding.

The Defendants failed to provide overtime owed to employees,
failed to provide rest breaks, failed to provide accurate payroll
records, waiting time penalties, and engaged in unfair
competition, in violations of the California Labor code under
Business and Professions Code.

Chanel provides fashion products, watches and fine jewelry, and
fragrances and beauty products. Its fashion products include ready
to wear apparel for women, such as jackets, dresses, pants,
skirts, blouses, knitwear, outerwear, and swimwear. The company's
jewelry comprises necklaces, bracelets, earrings, rings, brooches,
jewelry belts, and hair ornaments. The company is based in New
York, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph S Farzam, Esq.
          Nazo Leon Koulloukian, Esq.
          JOSEPH FARZAM LAW FIRM APLC
          11766 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 280
          Los Angleles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 226 6890
          Facsimile: (310) 226 6891
          E-mail: farzam@lawyer.com
                  nazo.koulloukian@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nick C. Geannacopulos, Esq.
          Eric M. Steinert, Esq.
          Holger G. Besch, Esq.
          Amelia L. Sanchez-Moran, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397 2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397 8549
          E-mail: ngeannacopulos@seyfarth.com
                  esteinert@seyfarth.com
                  hbesch@seyfarth.com
                  asanchezmoran@seyfarth.com


CHEMOURS COMPANY: 3,500 Suits Consolidated in MDL as of Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2015, that as of September 30, 2015, there were approximately
3,500 lawsuits consolidated in multi-district litigation (MDL) in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under
the caption In Re: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company C-8
Personal Injury Litigation.

The first case that went to trial in the MDL involves a plaintiff
alleging damages related to kidney cancer. Ohio law applied to the
causes of action and damages. On October 7, 2015, the jury awarded
the plaintiff in this action a total of $1.6 million in damages.

"While we were disappointed in the damages awarded, we believe the
decision not to award punitive damages demonstrates that we acted
responsibly and reasonably. Defense counsel has filed a motion
with the trial court seeking a new trial. This is the first step
in the appeal process. We believe there are strong grounds for
challenging the trial verdict," the Company said.

A total of six bellwether cases have been set for trial through
2016. The cases allege damages from the following diseases: kidney
cancer, testicular cancer and ulcerative colitis.

These cases will continue to be defended vigorously. A range of
potential losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time due
to the uniqueness of each individual plaintiff's claims and the
defenses to those claims, both as to potential liability and
damages on an individual claim basis, among other factors.

The second case expected to go to trial in the MDL involves a
plaintiff alleging damages related to ulcerative colitis. West
Virginia law applies to the causes of action and damages. The case
is currently scheduled for trial on March 21, 2016.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: 27 Benzene Cases Pending Against DuPont
---------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2015, that there are 27 pending benzene cases brought against
DuPont. These cases consist of premises claims involving
contractors and former employees who assert exposure to benzene
while working at DuPont sites primarily in the 1960s through the
1980s, and product liability claims based on alleged exposure to
benzene found in trace amounts in aromatic hydrocarbon solvents
used to manufacture DuPont products, such as paints, thinners and
reducers.

Valuation of each case is highly fact-driven, including specific
disease, years of exposure, medical costs, venue, smoking history,
amount of DuPont product used, use of personal protective
equipment, working conditions and other factors.

"For the last four decades, approximately 300 benzene products
cases brought against DuPont have been managed with a combined
settlement value under $3.4 million. Although past results do not
guarantee future outcomes, based on DuPont's prior experience and
our analysis of the claims, we believe that potential losses that
may result from the pending 27 cases would not have a material
impact on Chemours' consolidated financial position, results of
operations or liquidity, and cannot be estimated at this time,"
the Company said.

A benzene case involving Acute Myelogenous Leukemia was tried to
verdict in Texas state court on October 20, 2015. The jury found
in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $6.9 million in compensatory
damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.

"We are disappointed with this verdict and a motion has been filed
with the trial court to set it aside If necessary, there will be
an appeal. There are strong appeal points, which include arguments
that there was insufficient evidence of general causation and
specific causation under Texas law, and insufficient facts to
support a punitive damages finding under Texas law," the Company
said.

Benzene matters are periodically set for trial in various
jurisdictions.

"At this time, we do not anticipate a trial in 2016," the Company
said.


CHEVRON APPALACHIA: Mason Energy Suit Moved to N.D. W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mason Energy, LLC v. Chevron
Appalachia, LLC, Case No. 15-C-187, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Marshall County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Wheeling). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00161-IMK to the
proceeding.

Chevron Appalachia explores and produces natural gas in the
Appalachian Region. The company was formerly known as Atlas
America, LLC. The company was founded in 2006 and is based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Chevron Appalachia, LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Arkhan Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James G. Bordas, Jr, Esq.
          Jeremy M McGraw, Esq.
          BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
          1358 National Rd
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 242 8410
          Facsimile: (304) 242 3936
          E-mail: jbordas@bordaslaw.com
                  jeremy@bordaslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas C. Ryan, Esq.
          Travis L. Brannon, Esq.
          K & L GATES LLP
          K&L Gates Center
          210 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2613
          Telephone: (412) 355 8335
          Facsimile: (412) 355 6501
          E-mail:thomas.ryan@klgates.com
                 travis.brannon@klgates.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Robertson & Associates Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
On January 19, 2015, Robertson & Associates, LLP filed a class
action lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. for allegedly
allowing its Kitchen Manager to work for two days while sick with
gastrointestinal symptoms, infecting potentially thousands of
customers from its Simi Valley restaurant with the highly
infectious Norovirus between August 18-19, 2015.  A joint
investigation conducted by Ventura County Environmental Health and
Public Health Divisions concluded that Norovirus was the cause of
this foodborne illness outbreak, which caused at least 234 people
to become sick with vomiting, diarrhea, headache, fever and
stomach pain.  According to county health officials, Chipotle
served a total of 3,000 entrees during this two day period, so the
total number of customers who suffered gastrointestinal illness is
likely higher than the 234 who reported their symptoms to health
officials.

The Plaintiffs in this class action are six (6) high school
students and one (1) parent who all purchased and consumed food
adulterated with Norovirus at Chipotle's Simi Valley restaurant,
located at 1263 Simi Town Center Way, Simi Valley, CA.  The
Plaintiffs seek to represent all customers who suffered
gastrointestinal illness from eating food contaminated with
Norovirus spread by sick Chipotle employees at its Simi Valley
restaurant between August 18-20, 2015.

On January 6, 2016, Chipotle filed a Form 8-K with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing, "In December 2015,
Chipotle was served with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
connection with an official criminal investigation being conducted
by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of
California, in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's Office of Criminal Investigations.  The subpoena
requires us to produce a broad range of documents related to a
Chipotle restaurant in Simi Valley, California, that experienced
an isolated norovirus incident during August 2015."


CNOVA NV: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Cnova N.V. ("Cnova") (NASDAQ:CNV) pursuant to the
Initial Public Offering on November 20, 2014.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cnova
securities pursuant to the IPO, your rights may be affected by
this action.  To get more information go to
http://zlk.9nl.com/cnovaor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either
via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that Cnova's Registration Statement failed
to disclose that the company's operations were suffering a serious
slowdown and that the company's Brazil operations lacked
sufficient controls.

On November 20, 2014, Cnova successfully raised approximately $188
million in its IPO.  The Registration Statement stressed the
company's particular strength in Brazil, and emphasized the
company's increased market share and profitability in the
Brazilian market.  Then on January 29, 2015, Cnova revealed for
the first time that its Brazilian operations were in the midst of
a marked slowdown.  Then on December 18, 2015, Cnova announced
that the company's Board of Directors engaged legal advisors and
external forensic accountants to perform a review of issues in
connection with employee misconduct related to inventory
management predominantly in Brazil.

If you suffered a loss in Cnova and would like to obtain
additional information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via
email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-
free: (877) 363-5972, or visit http://zlk.9nl.com/cnova

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


CNX GAS CO: "Kinney" Suit Moved from Circuit Court to N.D. W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kinney et al. v. CNX Gas Company,
LLC et al., Case No. 15-C-186, was removed from Circuit Court of
Marshall County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia (Wheeling). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00160 to the proceeding.

CNX Gas Company produces, markets, and sells coal bed methane and
gas. The company produces and distributes pipeline natural gas. It
also offers drilling services. The company is based in Waynesburg,
Pennsylvania and operates as a subsidiary of Consol Energy Inc.
Noble Energy formerly Noble Affiliates, Inc., is a Houston, Texas
oil and natural gas exploration and production company with almost
US$3 billion in revenue at #660 on the 2007 Fortune 1000 list of
the largest American companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James G. Bordas, Jr, Esq.
          Jeremy M McGraw, Esq.
          BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
          1358 National Rd
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 242 8410
          Facsimile: (304) 242 3936
          E-mail: jbordas@bordaslaw.com
                  jeremy@bordaslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles F. Johns, Esq.
          Thomas J. Sengewalt, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
          400 White Oaks Blvd
          Bridgeport, WV 26330
          Telephone: (304) 933 8149
          Facsimile: (304) 933 8183
          E-mail: charles.johns@steptoe-johnson.com
                  tom.sengewalt@steptoe-johnson.com

               - and -

          Albert F. Sebok, Esq.
          Rodney W. Stieger, Esq.
          JACKSON KELLY PLLC
          1600 Laidley Tower
          PO Box 553
          500 Lee Street, E.
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 340 1104
          Facsimile: (304) 340 1150
          E-mail: asebok@jacksonkelly.com
                  rstieger@jacksonkelly.com


CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: "Ahr" Suit Moved from S.D. to M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ahr v. Convergent Healthcare
Recoveries, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-61892, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Jacksonville). The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-01464-MMH-JBT to the proceeding.

CP Medical manufactures and markets surgical solutions, and
products for wound closure and oncology procedures. It offers
sutures, brachytherapy needles, fiducial markers, and medical
accessories for various medical specialties, including plastic
surgery, dermatology, oncology, and cardiology; and a portfolio of
absorbable and non-absorbable sutures, veterinary accessories, and
wound closure products for the veterinary market. The company is
based in Portland Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS
          1230 Peachtree St NE Ste 950
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 876 8100
          Facsimile: (404) 876 3477
          E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com

               - and -

          Tracy Lynne Markham, Esq.
          AVOLIO & HANLON, PC
          2800 Fifth St.
          St Augustine, FL 32084
          Telephone: (904) 794 7005
          Facsimile: (904) 794 7007
          E-mail: tlmarkhamlaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara Fernandez, Esq.
          David P. Hartnett, Esq.
          West Allan Holden, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd Ste 400
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-6044
          Telephone: (305) 358 7747
          Facsimile: (305) 577 1063
          E-mail: bfernandez@hinshawlaw.com
                  dhartnett@hinshawlaw.com
                  wholden@hinshawlaw.com

               - and -

          Dayle Marie Van Hoose, Esq.
          Rachel A. Morris, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
          3350 Buschwood Park Dr., Suite 195
          Tampa, FL 33618
          Telephone: (813) 890 2463
          Facsimile: (866) 466 3140
          E-mail: dvanhoose@sessions-law.biz
                  rmorris@sessions-law.biz


COUCH: "Ceballos" Suit Moved from Hall County to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ceballos v. Couch et al., Case No.
15CV1915B, was removed from the Superior Court of Hall County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Gainesville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
00247-RWS-JCF to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arturo Corso, Esq.
          THE CORSO LAW CENTER
          431 Green Street, NW
          Gainesville, GA 30501
          Telephone: (770) 532 9732
          Facsimile: (770) 532 9733
          E-mail: acorso@corsolawcenter.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian R. Dempsey, Esq.
          Theodore Freeman, Esq.
          Wesley Calvin Jackson, Esq.
          FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
          100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30339-5948
          Telephone: (770) 818 0000
          Facsimile: (770) 937 9960
          E-mail: bdempsey@fmglaw.com
                  tfreeman@fmglaw.com
                  wjackson@fmglaw.com

               - and -

          William H. Blalock, Esq.
          Stewart Melvin & Frost
          6th Floor Hunt Tower
          P.O. Box 3280
          200 Main Street
          Gainesville, GA 30501
          Telephone: (770) 536 0101
          E-mail: wblalock@smf-law.com


COVISINT CORPORATION: To Defend Class Action IPO Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Covisint Corporation intends to vigorously defend a consolidated
class action lawsuit in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-
Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

Beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, directors and certain officers at the time of
the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") alleging violation
of securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO and
seeking unspecified damages. On August 15, 2014, the cases were
consolidated with Charles Rankin appointed lead plaintiff. On
October 14, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint (the "Complaint") alleging violations of
Regulation S-K and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The
Complaint alleges, among other things that the IPO's registration
statement contained (1) untrue statements and omissions of
material facts related to the Company's projected revenues for
fiscal 2014, (2) materially inaccurate statements regarding the
Company's revenue recognition policy, and (3) omissions of known
trends, uncertainties and significant risk factors as required to
be disclosed by Regulation S-K. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint that the Court denied on July 1, 2015.

"We believe the Complaint is without merit, and we intend to
vigorously defend it," the Company said. "As the litigation is
early in the process, we are unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss."


CROCS INC: ILYM Group Hired to Provide Settlement Admin. Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crocs, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that a final approval hearing was
set for December 14, 2015, on the settlement of two class action
lawsuits.

ILYM Group, Inc., has established a Web site at:

    http://www.ilymgroupclassaction.com/cases/Zaydenberg.aspx

to provide claimants with information about these cases, but has
not provided claimants with any update about what happened at that
Dec. 14 hearing.

On August 8, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
California State Court against a Crocs subsidiary, Crocs Retail,
LLC (Zaydenberg v. Crocs Retail, LLC, Case No. BC554214). The
lawsuit alleged various employment law violations related to
overtime, meal and break periods, minimum wage, timely payment of
wages, wage statements, payroll records and business expenses.
Crocs filed an answer on February 6, 2015, denying the allegations
and asserting several defenses.

On June 3, 2015, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed
in California State Court against Crocs Retail, LLC (Christopher
S. Duree and Richard Morely v. Crocs, Inc., Case No. BC583875),
making substantially the same allegations as in the Zaydenberg
lawsuit.

The parties attended a mediation on June 26, 2015, and reached a
settlement for $1.5 million, which will release the claims in both
lawsuits. On September 4, 2015, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement and set the final approval hearing for
December 14, 2015.


CRYO-CELL INT'L: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Germaine, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed class
action filed on Jan. 20 in Delaware Chancery Court alleges a stem
cell bank's corporate bylaws violate Delaware law by making it
more difficult for shareholders to remove company directors.

Cryo-Cell International Inc. shareholder Jay Frechter filed the
suit, claiming that Cryo-Cell's company bylaws restrict
shareholders from removing company directors without cause in
violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law.  Mr. Frechter
said that the restriction allows Cryo-Cell directors to "entrench"
themselves in the company while collecting high pay checks.

"The removal provision in the bylaws was enacted solely or
primarily for entrenchment purposes and enables the individual
defendants to maintain their lucrative positions on the board,"
the complaint said.

Cryo-Cell is the world's first private bank for cord blood,
according to the company website.  Cord blood is collected at
birth and contains stem cells, which can later be used in treating
a number of diseases, including leukemia and metabolic disorders.

According to the complaint, Cryo-Cell amended its bylaws in
September 2014, updating its removal provision to read that "any
director may be removed, for cause, at any time by the holders of
a majority of the shares then entitled to vote."

By restricting the provision so that shareholders may only remove
directors "for cause," Cryo-Cell is violating a section of the
DGCL that requires corporations to allow stockholders to remove
directors with or without cause unless the corporation's board is
classified or the company has cumulative voting, Mr. Frechter
said. Neither of the exceptions apply to Cryo-Cell, he said.

According to the complaint, the provision harms shareholders by
deterring proxy contests, as shareholders are required to find a
cause to remove any director, and entrenching directors.
Mr. Frechter said that the provision is "especially burdensome"
because it removes an incentive for directors to push for changes
in the company.

"Management has no incentive to push for changes at the board
level, as they would not want to jeopardize their own pay
packages," the complaint said.

The complaint also names as defendants the chairman of the board
and Co-CEO David I. Portnoy, director and Co-CEO Mark L. Portnoy
and directors George Gaines, Harold D. Berger and Jonathan H.
Wheeler, saying they breached their fiduciary duties by adopting
the provision.  According to the complaint, David Portnoy received
total compensation of $645,755 in 2014 while Mark Portnoy received
$548,401, double what they received in 2013.

Mr. Frechter is seeking to represent a class of all Cryo-Cell
shareholders, which he said number in the hundreds.  Cryo-Cell
shares trade on the over-the-counter market, according to the
complaint.

Representatives for Frechter and Cryo-Cell did not respond on
Jan. 21 to requests for comment.

Mr. Frechter is represented by Jessica Zeldin --
jzeldin@rmgglaw.com -- of Rosenthal Monhait & Goddess PA and
Carl L. Stine -- cstine@wolfpopper.com -- and Fei-Lu Qian of Wolf
Popper LLP.

Counsel information for Cryo-Cell was not immediately available.

The case is Frechter v. Portnoy et al., case number 11915, in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.


DAIKIN INDUSTRIES: "Park-Kim" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joanna Park-Kim v. Daikin
Industries, Ltd. et al., Case No. BC600497, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California of Los Angeles to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Califonia (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-09523-CAS-KK to the proceeding.

Daikin Applied Americas, formerly known as McQuay International,
is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The company manufactures and
sells commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems. It offers commercial HVAC products, which include air and
water-cooled chillers, air handlers, water source heat pumps,
rooftop systems, fan coils, modular central plants, integrated BAS
for small and mid-sized buildings, packaged vertical self-
contained systems, unit ventilators, controls, condensing units
and condensers, VAV terminal units, variable refrigerant volume
indoor and outdoor units, and coils.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Graham B LippSmith, Esq.
          Jaclyn L Anderson, Esq.
          Kenneth S Kasdan, Esq.
          Frank A Perez, Esq.
          KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
          500 S Grand Avenue Suite 1310
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 254 4800
          Facsimile: (213) 254 4801
          E-mail: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com
                  janderson@klwtlaw.com
                  kkasdan@kasdancdlaw.com
                  fperez@klwtlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charlotte Wasserstein, Esq.
          Louis A Chaiten, Esq.
          Richard J Bedell, Jr, Esq.
          Sharyl Reisman, Esq.
          Theodore M Grossman, Esq.
          Frederick L McKnight, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489 3939
          Facsimile: (213) 243 2539
          E-mail: cswasserstein@jonesday.com
                  lachaiten@jonesday.com
                  rjbedell@jonesday.com
                  sareisman@jonesday.com
                  tgrossman@jonesday.com
                  fmcknight@jonesday.com


DENVER PARENT: Anticipates 2016 Trial Date in Merger Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denver Parent Corporation and Venoco, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that trial is expected to occur in 2016 in a class action
lawsuit related to a merger agreement.

In August 2011, Timothy Marquez, the then-Chairman and CEO of
Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors
of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not
beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez
Proposal").  As a result of that proposal, five lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2011 against Venoco and
each of its directors by shareholders alleging that Venoco and its
directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders
in connection with the Marquez Proposal.

On January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with
Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which
Venoco, Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going
private transaction. Following announcement of the Merger
Agreement, five additional suits were filed in Delaware and three
suits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as defendants
Venoco and each of its directors.

In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint in which they requested that  the
court  determine among  other  things that  (i) the merger
consideration is inadequate and the Merger  Agreement was entered
into in breach  of the fiduciary duties  of the defendants and is
therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger  should
be rescinded  or in the alternative, the class should  be awarded
damages  to compensate them  for the loss as a resulting from of
the breach  of fiduciary duties  by the defendants. The Colorado
actions have been administratively closed pending resolution of
the Delaware case. Venoco has reviewed the allegations contained
in the amended complaint and believes they are without merit.
Trial is expected to occur in 2016.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Probe Following "Last Look" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura de la Motte, writing for Handelsblatt, reports that Deutsche
Bank faces scrutiny in the United States over its currency trading
practices.  A class action lawsuit accuses Germany's largest bank
of cheating clients out of billions by delaying trades in a
practice known as "last look."

Exchange rates around the world are constantly in flux, and it's
an incredibly exact science. Currencies are traded to the fourth
decimal point.  No wonder investors will get angry if they believe
a bank is delaying -- even by a second -- their trades in the
market.

Deutsche Bank faces class action lawsuits in New York and London
over allegations that it did just that: Delaying currency deals to
profit from better exchange rates at the expense of its customers,
Handelsblatt has learned.  The story was first reported by
Germany's Spiegel magazine.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Second Currency Trading Class Action Mulled
----------------------------------------------------------
The Global Legal Post's Kathryn Higgins, citing The New York
Times, report that the high-speed trading practices of Deutsche
Bank are to meet legal scrutiny once again, with lawyers
indicating that a new lawsuit will be brought against the bank in
a British court later this year.

Lawyers from several firms have announced plans to file a new
class action lawsuit against Deutsche Bank on behalf of companies,
investors and central banks over its alleged misuse of high-speed
trading technologies in foreign currency markets.  The new
lawsuit, to be filed in London mid-year, echoes a similar lawsuit
filed in New York in December by many of the same firms.  The
lawsuits highlight the risks and vulnerabilities associated with
high-speed trading practices and the potential for exploitation by
powerful market players.  Deutsche Bank has denied any wrongdoing
and indicated that it will defend itself against the allegations
in court.

Customers shortchanged

The bank is accused of using trading software Autobahn to
capitalize on millisecond fluctuations in foreign exchange rates,
often at the expense of the bank's customers.  In a market where
even momentary changes in currency rates can have an enormous
ripple effect on investments, it is alleged that Autobahn would
sometimes delay trades by as long as hundreds of milliseconds in
order to secure an advantageous rate for the bank. 'Deutsche Bank
exploited its superior bargaining position and superior knowledge'
in order to generate profit by shortchanging customers, the New
York lawsuit alleges.

Unknown scale

It is as yet unclear just how large a bill Deutsche Bank's
customers may have footed for the alleged misconduct, as the
circumstances surrounding individual trades are obscured by the
intricate workings of the Autobahn software.  However,
complainants in the New York lawsuit will seek a court order for
Deutsche Bank to turn over records that would help qualify the
extent of customer losses.  According to Hausfeld lawyer
Christopher Rother, one of the lawyers involved in the New York
class action, the financial fallout for customers may have
numbered in the billions. Source: The New York Times


DRAFTKINGS INC: "DeGroot" Suit Moved to New Mexico District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DeGroot v. DraftKings, Inc., Case
No. CV-15-00466, was removed from Ninth Judicial District Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico -
Version 6.1 (Las Cruces). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:15-cv-01122-RB-CG to the proceeding.

DraftKings provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The
defendants offer leagues for fantasy football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college
basketball.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Freedman, Esq.
          David H Urias, Esq.
          Frank T Davis, Jr., Esq.
          FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A.
          20 First Plaza, Suite 700
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 842 9960
          Facsimile: (505) 842 0761
          E-mail: daf@fbdlaw.com
                  dhu@fbdlaw.com
                  ftd@fbdlaw.com

               - and -

          Floyd D. Wilson, Esq.
          MYERS, OLIVER & PRICE, P.C.
          12480 Hwy. 14 No., Suite 105
          Cedar Crest, NM 87008
          Telephone: (505) 948 0004
          E-mail: fwilson@moplaw.com

               - and -

          Kameron Barnett, Esq.
          Tye Christopher Harmon, Esq.
          HARMON BARNETT & MORRIS, PC
          119 S. Main St.
          Clovis, NM 88101
          Telephone: (575) 763 0077
          Facsimile: (575) 742 0077
          E-mailk: kbarnett@hbmlaw.org
                   tharmon@hbmlaw.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          John R. Cooney, Esq.
          Nathan T Nieman, Esq.
          MODRALL SPERLING ROEHL HARRIS & SISK PA
          PO Box 2168
          Albuquerque, NM 87103
          Telephone: (505) 848 1800
          Facsimile: (505)848 1889
          E-mail: jcooney@modrall.com
                  ntn@modrall.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Coleman" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Coleman v. DraftKings, Inc.
et al., Case No. BC600787, was removed from Los Angeles County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09556-MWF-JC to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff asserted that Defendants made misrepresentations about
providing a 100% Bonus for initial deposits up to $600. The
Plaintiff also claimed that Defendants are liable for violations
of the California Unfair Competition Law; violations of the
California False Advertising Law; violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

DraftKings provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The
defendants offer leagues for fantasy football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college
basketball.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V Parekh, Esq.
          KIRTLAND AND PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Avenue 3rd Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536 1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536 1001
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James P Fogelman, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229 7234
          Facsimile: (213) 229 7520
          E-mail: jfogelman@gibsondunn.com


DUPONT: Property Cleanup Winding Down Five Years After Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Harvey, writing for The Exponent Telegram, reports that five
years after one of West Virginia's largest class action lawsuits
was settled, property cleanup is winding down and medical
monitoring participation is dwindling.

The court action lasted almost seven years, generated more than
30,000 pages of court filings and probably more than 100,000
attorney hours before Harrison Chief Judge Thomas A. Bedell in
early January 2011 approved the settlement between DuPont and
residents of the Spelter area.

At issue was how heavy metal pollution from the manufacturing
process at the old smelter was impacting property in the area as
well as the health of those living nearby.

The budget for property cleanup in Spelter and nearby communities
was set at $34 million by Judge Bedell, with guidance from Claims
Administrator Edgar Gentle III.

Mr. Gentle, who also helped mediate the settlement, said on
Jan. 18 that just one more property still needs its soil
remediated, while there are about 70 homes that still need
cleaned.

Most of that work is at the farthest arc of properties that might
have been impacted by emissions from the smelter that helped
produce materials for U.S. military munitions during the 20th
century.

Mike Jacks is an area attorney who served as executive director of
the settlement claims office and who now works part time on the
project as Gentle's local counsel.

"I think the best part (of the settlement) is that property
cleanup really did a tremendous amount of benefit in the
community, made it a safer place to live in," Mr. Jacks said.

Medical monitoring, with DuPont agreeing to fund three decades
worth of tests and paying $4 million as seed money, has seen a
drastic falloff in participation.

Mr. Gentle, who's handled similar class action settlements
throughout the country, said that isn't surprising.

Those who agreed to have their soil cleaned up received the
benefit of having their property improved, plus a check for $5,000
to cover the inconvenience.  And those who agreed to allow
remediation of their homes received $500.

Those who agreed to participate in medical monitoring received
some cash up front for participating, but now the only benefit
they receive is testing every two years.  And there's no money to
pay for medical procedures and prescriptions needed to treat any
illnesses that are discovered, Mr. Gentle notes.

Still, he urges those eligible to participate.  Early detection
can save lives, and it has for some of those who participated in
the initial rounds of testing, Mr. Gentle said.

Mr. Gentle noted about 4,000 individuals actually agreed to the
first round of testing (another 2,000 signed up to get the cash,
but declined to take the tests).  Of the 4,000 who said they were
interested in the tests, only 2,000 actually went through with it,
Mr. Gentle added.

Then in November of 2013, during the second round of medical
monitoring, 1,000 individuals participated in the testing,
Mr. Gentle said.  There's no upward trend in the latest round of
testing, which is ongoing, according to Mr. Gentle and Mr. Jacks.

Those who want to receive testing through this round of medical
monitoring program still have time to do so, but must set up an
appointment, Mr. Jacks said.  They can call (866) 265-6139 or
(304) 622-7443.  There are five clinics that participate, and
night and weekend appointments are available, Mr. Jacks said.

Tests will be offered for about 25 more years as part of the
settlement, to try to ferret out whether the arsenic, lead,
cadmium and selenium used in making zinc could have led to certain
medical conditions.  Messrs. Jacks and Gentle added that a medical
panel will be set up this year to determine whether advances in
science should lead to additional or different testing when the
next round of medical monitoring is held in 2017.

Other issues also remain, such as when the claims office will
close.  It likely will remain open at least through the end of the
year, Mr. Gentle said.

There's a possibility that some money could be left in the
property cleanup fund once all work is done, according to
Mr. Gentle.  If that happens, those who participated in the
property cleanup would share in the surplus, Mr. Gentle said.

Settlement officials also likely will pave certain streets or
roads that may have been damaged during remediation, Mr. Gentle
said.

"We're like the Boy Scouts at a campsite: We want to leave it at
least like we found it, if not better," Mr. Gentle said.

The settlement claims office remains open weekdays from
8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. at the Spelter fire station, 55 B St.,
Spelter.  The phone numbers are (304) 622-7443 or (800) 345-0837.
Or, write to perrinedupont@gtandslaw.com


ENIVA USA: Appeals Court Removes Junk Fax Class Representative
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for CookCountyRecord.com, reports that in a
sharply worded 2-1 decision, the Illinois First District Appellate
Court in Chicago overturned a lower court decision and barred a
plaintiff from serving as representative in a class-action suit
involving allegedly unsolicited faxes, describing the plaintiff as
a "tool" of his lawyer.

"(The plaintiff) is precisely the class representative a court
wants to detect and avoid," said the author of the Jan. 19th
appellate opinion, Justice Michael B. Hyman.

However, dissenting Justice John B. Simon objected that the
majority opinion marked a "significant departure from the
precedential status quo."

In 2011, Carl F. Byer, who runs Byer Clinic & Chiropractic in
Arlington Heights, filed for a class action suit in Cook County
Circuit Court against Eniva USA, Eniva International, Eniva IC
Disc and Michael Kapraun, a chiropractor in Montrose, Mich. Eniva
eventually went bankrupt and dropped from the case, leaving
Kapraun the lone defendant.

Mr. Byer alleged Eniva and Kapraun violated the U.S. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited faxes about
Kapraun's anti-aging vitamin product to thousands of recipients in
March and September 2006.  Cook County Judge Leroy Martin Jr.
voiced reservations about certifying the case as a class action
suit, because of concern whether Mr. Byer was a bona fide
representative for members of such a class.

Judge Martin described some of Mr. Byer's answers during a
deposition as "troubling," but nonetheless said he was "unwilling
to go so far as to say that in this instance the class
representative is a pawn of class counsel."

Appellate justices Michael Hyman and P. Scott Neville had no such
reservations, however, when they addressed Mr. Kapraun's appeal.

"Byer's testimony depicts Byer as uninformed, lackadaisical and
inattentive about the facts, the litigation, and his role as the
class representative. Why even bother to appoint a class
representative who unveils himself or herself as a tool of class
counsel?" Justice Hyman said, with Neville's concurrence.

Justice Hyman pointed out Mr. Byer, in his deposition, exhibited a
lack of knowledge of the suit, in that Mr. Byer said he did not
remember how he came to be a plaintiff, understood he had no
duties to any class members and did not know what claims were made
in the suit or the amount of damages sought.  Further, Mr. Byer
said he believed he was pursuing the case individually, not as
part of a group and could not recall whether he initiated contact
with the attorney in the suit -- Brian J. Wanca, of Rolling
Meadows -- or if Mr. Wanca solicited him.

In reply to the question whether he had read the complaint before
it was filed, Mr. Byer replied, "I just glanced at it or something
of that order."

Justice Hyman zeroed in on Mr. Byer's statement he allegedly had
not signed an agreement or understanding with Mr. Wanca regarding
attorney fees.  Justice Hyman pointed out the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct require a contingent fee agreement be in
writing and signed by the client, spelling out how fees are to be
calculated.

"The deposition testimony reveals a passive figurehead," Justice
Hyman observed.

In dissent, Justice Simon contended the majority opinion "erects a
higher barrier for attaining class certification than has
previously been recognized in Illinois" and "unnecessarily muddies
the waters" as to what is demanded of a plaintiff to represent a
class action.

Justice Simon argued that when Mr. Byer's deposition is considered
in its entirety, there is no doubt he is "motivated, willing and
able to serve as class representative."  Justice Simon summed up
that Byer has a "baseline knowledge" of his responsibilities in
the suit, which satisfies the "low" threshold required to
represent a class action.

Justice Hyman countered that Justice Simon failed to "appreciate
that a superficial class representative is no class representative
at all."  In addition, Justice Hyman pointed out that Justice
Simon's position that the "need for plaintiff's testimony is
minor," constitutes a view that will "erode public confidence in
class actions and undermine the integrity of the entire framework
that governs class actions."

All the justices did agree on another issue, albeit a moot one.
They ruled even if Mr. Byer qualified as a representative,
Mr. Byer could not represent a class action for both the March and
September 2006 fax transmissions, as Mr. Byer admitted he only
received the March fax.  Besides, justices said the two
transmissions made up two separate and allegedly wrong acts, not
one continuing wrong.

The case has been remanded to circuit court, but the next hearing
date has not been scheduled.

Mr. Kapraun is defended by Gardiner, Koch and Hines, of Chicago.


ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: To Defend "Kristensen" Text Spam Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Enova International, Inc. intends to vigorously defend a class
action lawsuit filed by Flemming Kristensen, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

On March 8, 2013, Flemming Kristensen, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court of Nevada against the Company and other
unaffiliated lenders and lead providers. The lawsuit alleges that
the lead provider defendants sent unauthorized text messages to
consumers on behalf of the Company and the other lender defendants
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
complaint seeks class certification, statutory damages, an
injunction against "wireless spam activities," and attorneys' fees
and costs. The Company filed an answer to the complaint denying
all liability.

On March 26, 2014, the Court granted class certification. On
October 24, 2014, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment,
and the court has not yet ruled on this motion.

On January 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment against all of the defendants. On July 20, 2015, the
court granted Enova's motion, denied Plaintiff's motion and
entered judgment in favor of the Company.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment
and could appeal the judgment.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's claims in the complaint
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


EOS: Faces Lip Balm Class Action in Urbana
------------------------------------------
Kim Janssen, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that
downstate doctor Samatha Tipirneni was hoping for the moist lips
of a celebrity when she protected herself against the cold with a
popular lip balm endorsed by a string of stars.

But instead of delivering the photo-perfect results touted by Kim
Kardashian and Britney Spears on Instagram, the "mint green"
flavor EOS lip balm left the 40-year-old Champaign woman with a
rash and blisters right on the kisser, she says.

The allegations are included in a federal lawsuit filed on Jan. 20
in Urbana that mirrors similar class-action cases recently filed
against EOS in California, New York and Florida.

Accusing EOS of causing a "massive health crisis" by selling balm
that makes lips "crack, bleed, itch, burn, flake, and generate
severe boiling and blistering on and around the lips," the suits
contain photographs of what Tipirneni's attorneys say are multiple
women who have suffered similar symptoms.

They've resulted in a swift turn on social media against EOS,
which built consumer interest in its popular pastel-colored, egg-
shaped balm products on Facebook and Instagram by buying
endorsements from celebrities.

The New York-based company says the allegations are meritless. But
it's been fighting a steady stream of online complaints from
consumers.  One responded to a Facebook ad for EOS that urged
users to not "forget to smile" by writing: "SMILE WITH YOUR
SWOLLEN LIPS BC THATS WHAT EOS DOES TO YA."

"We can assure you our products are safe for you and your family,"
an EOS spokesman wrote in a response to the multiple complaints on
its Facebook page.  "They are made with the highest quality
ingredients and meet or exceed all safety and quality standards
for lip balms."

The spokesman added, "We also comply with all standards and
guidelines regarding ingredient use and labeling -- we want our
consumers to understand what's in our products and make informed
choices, particularly if they might have sensitivity to a
particular ingredient."

Suits filed on behalf of Tipirneni and plaintiffs in other states
by Los Angeles-based law firm Geragos and Geragos say that
ingredients including sodium hyaluronate, shea butter, ascorbyl
palmitate, tocopherols and stevia extract may be causing allergic
reactions but do not come with proper warnings.  The company has
also failed to disclose how many complaints it has received, the
suits allege.

The suits also say that EOS, which stands for "Evolution of
Smooth," is promoted to try to "mislead consumers" into believing
that "EOS lip balm is a daily necessity requiring constant use
regardless of the actual condition of your lips to improve your
health, diet and appearance," and that it is promoted as "organic"
and "gluten free" to align it with "popular dietary trends,
despite the fact that the lip balm has no consumable value."

An initial court date has yet to be set.


EOS: Long Island Woman Files Class Action Over Lip Balm
-------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Dillon and Christopher Brennan, writing for New York Daily
News, report that a Long Island woman has smacked a popular lip
balm company with a class action lawsuit alleging its product
turned her smile into a collection of sores and blisters.

Nicole Emily Caggiano says that she suffered a series of ugly two-
week reactions to the balm from EOS in 2015, before she realized
how the egg-shaped product was affecting her.

Her lawyers at Geragos & Geragos said that the company failed to
disclose that some ingredients could cause problems including
dryness, bleeding, blistering, cracking and loss of pigmentation
for some users looking to moisturize their lips.

Ms. Caggiano's legal move follows another suit from the prominent
class action firm filed in California after a plaintiff named
Rachel Cronin shared her story on Facebook and was followed by a
flurry of others' horror stories.

After that filing EOS, which stands of evolution of smooth, said
that "We wanted to be sure that you, our valued customers and
fans, know that the health and well-being of our customers is our
top priority."

"Our products are safe to use, are made with the highest quality
ingredients and they all meet or exceed all safety and quality
standards set out by our industry," it said, adding that the
lawsuit did not have merit.

However, Ms. Caggiano's filing believes that the company will end
up paying out more than $5 million to her and her fellow
plaintiffs for breach of warranty and deceptive advertising.

"Behind the smoke-and-mirrors, EOS is anything but smooth," the
complaint says.

The Holtsville resident used the Vanilla Mint and Sweet Mint
flavors, and said that the blisters they caused embarrassed her at
her sister's wedding last spring.

The Blackberry Nectar, Coconut Milk, Strawberry Sorbet, Blueberry
Acai, Pomegranate Raspberry, Summer Fruit, Honeysuckle Honeydew,
Lemon Drop, and Medicated Tangerine are also named in the suit.

Ms. Caggiano also pointed a finger at the lip balm's advertising,
arguing that the company trotting out its star-studded stable of
supporters encourages customers to use the skin product as a daily
necessity.

EOS has encouraged all those who experience problems with the balm
to contact them at info@evolutionofsmooth.com


EXPERIAN INFO: "Yoo" Suit Moved from N.D. Ill. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Charles 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 Central District
of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02053-DOC-KES 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


FERRING CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Fertility Drug
------------------------------------------------------
The Chronicle Herald reports that several women in the Atlantic
region have contacted the Halifax personal injury law firm Wagners
over concerns about having taken a possibly ineffective fertility
drug.

"We are taking information from a number of calls that we have
received, and we are assessing the viability of this as a class
action," lawyer Ray Wagner said on Jan. 21.

Ferring Canada issued a recall Oct. 23 of four lots of injectable
Bravelle (urofollitropin), a type of follicle-stimulating hormone
used for controlled ovulation in patients in assisted reproduction
programs, such as in vitro fertilization.

The recall of lots with expiry dates of October 2015 and September
2016 was due to "reduced potency" of the drug detected during
routine stability testing, says a notice posted on Health Canada's
website.

"The medical consequences for a female patient exposed could be
lack of/decreased follicle stimulation (ovulation) with decreased
or lack of clinical effect.

"This is not likely to cause adverse health consequences to female
patients exposed.  However, there is the potential for unnecessary
over-exposure of patients in establishing an effective dose."

In an email, Michael Seckler, general manager of Ferring Canada,
said the company is offering to provide a refund for out-of-pocket
costs of Bravelle purchased in Canada on and after June 29, 2014.

He was unable to say how much Bravelle costs, as the purchase
price varies among outlets.

Treatment with the drug during a single in vitro fertilization
cycle can amount to as much as $5,700, according to one source.

Since June 29, 2014, nearly 20,000 units of Bravelle have been
distributed in Canada, including 2,100 units in the Atlantic
provinces, Mr. Seckler said.

"To be clear, Ferring has no evidence that the drug has not been
effective."

Based on stability testing, it was found that certain batches of
Bravelle manufactured for the United States and Canada did not
meet their potency specification "at their registered 24-month
shelf life," Mr. Seckler said in the email.

However, the issue has become a hot topic on online fertility and
in vitro fertilization discussion forums.

Patients have concerns about the cost of other drugs and expenses
associated with an in vitro fertilization cycle that may have
failed due to Bravelle's lack of potency.

On ivf.ca, a resource network for patients, one posted that she
was prescribed another drug in conjunction with Bravelle.

"I am concerned their 'error' rendered my entire protocol
ineffective," she wrote.

Another said it has affected future treatments.

"I have based all my future IVF protocols on my results from that
protocol.  I did not respond and they cancelled my cycle," she
said.

Wagner said the law firm is gathering information and trying to
gauge the degree of harm and losses patients may have suffered.
Some may have had partial coverage under health insurance for
fertility treatments, said Maddy Carter -- mcarter@wagners.co -- a
lawyer with Wagners working on the file.

"They've eaten up that insurance money on an ineffective
treatment," Ms. Carter said.

"People are (also) concerned that they may have exposed themselves
to a health risk without any benefit."


FLINT, MI: State Ordered to Take Action on Water Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick Statt, writing for The Verge, reports that the US
Environmental Protection Agency ordered the state of Michigan to
take "immediate action to address serious and ongoing concerns"
with the city of Flint's drinking water system, which has been
contaminated for more than 18 months with elevated levels of lead.

"EPA has determined that the City of Flint's and the State of
Michigan's responses to the drinking water crisis in Flint have
been inadequate to protect the public health and that these
failures continue," the order reads.  The EPA will begin sampling
Flint's tap water and publishing analysis results on its website
and lead an independent investigation into what could have been
done to prevent the crisis.

The water contamination crisis is embroiling both Michigan
Governor Rick Snyder, who apologized to Flint residents before
releasing hundreds of pages of email records, and the EPA, which
said on Jan. 20 its response to the crisis had been too slow.
Susan Hedman, the regional EPA chief for Michigan and the
surrounding Midwest, also announced her resignation on Jan. 21,
effective February 1st, over her failure to prevent the crisis and
notify the public and EPA officials about the potential health
risks.

The crisis dates back to a decision in 2014 to switch Flint's
water supply from the water system of nearby Detroit to the Flint
River, a choice made while Flint was under the control of a state-
appointed emergency manager seeking new money-saving measures.
The city of Flint, with a population under 100,000, switched back
to Detroit's Lake Huron system in October 2015 after a study by
Flint's Hurley Medical Center determined the amount of children
with elevated levels of lead in their blood had doubled after the
water supply switch.  The corrosive water of the Flint River is
thought to have leeched lead from the city's water pipes.

Despite the switch, Flint residents had been consuming the
contaminated water for months while petitions and protests failed
to force city officials to change the water source.  Exposure to
unsafe amounts of lead can lead to anemia, kidney failure, brain
damage, and other ailments in young children and infants,
according to the World Health Organization.  A group of parents
have since filed a class-action lawsuit against Flint, the state,
and several public officials.  Mr. Snyder's email records indicate
officials at nearly every level in Michigan failed to acknowledge
the severity of the ongoing crisis and constantly squabbled over
who was to blame and whether the issue was being politicized,
according to The Washington Post.

The situation in Flint has attracted the attention of the White
House, and President Obama declared a federal emergency to direct
federal funding to help solve the crisis.  "What is inexplicable
and inexcusable is once people figured out there was a problem and
that there was lead in the water.  The notion that immediately
families were not notified, things were not shut down -- that
shouldn't happen anywhere," Pres. Obama, who met with Flint mayor
Karen Weaver, told CBS News.


FLINT, MI: Faces Two New Class Actions Over Lead-Tainted Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLG News reports that two new class-action lawsuits on behalf of
Flint citizens, who believe they were exposed to lead-tainted
water and Legionella bacteria, were announced on Jan. 19 at the
University of Michigan-Flint campus.  The lawsuits, which list
four Flint families as plaintiffs, name Gov. Rick Snyder, the
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the state
Department of Environmental Quality and several government
officials.  One complaint, filed in Genesee Circuit Court, asked
Judge Archie Hayman to seek a preliminary injunction against the
city of Flint over planned water shutoffs and to declare Flint
users to be exempted from past or future bills for water use.


FIRST NIAGARA: Faruqi Files Class Suit Over Key Bank Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Jan. 19 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, case no. 1:15-cv-01226, on behalf of
unitholders of First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. ("First
Niagara" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: FNFG) who held (and continue
to hold) First Niagara securities acquired on or before October
30, 2015.

On October 30, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement ("Merger Agreement") under which KeyCorp. will acquire
all of the outstanding units of First Niagara.  The unit-for-unit
transaction is valued at approximately $4.1 billion. The
transaction and vote are expected to occur in the third quarter of
2016.

The complaint charges First Niagara, its Board of Directors, and
affiliated corporate entities and individuals with violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/FNFGnotice

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Company's Board of Directors, First
Niagara unitholders will receive $2.30 in cash and 0.68 shares of
KeyCorp common stock for each unit of First Niagara they own.  On
October 29, 2015, this per share consideration was valued at
$11.40 per share.  The complaint alleges that the merger
consideration fails to adequately value the Company's recent
financial performance, is well below analyst estimates, and fails
to adequately compensate shareholders for the synergies that
KeyCorp. will enjoy from the transaction.

Furthermore, according to the complaint, the Merger Agreement
includes a non-solicitation provision, an information rights
provision, and a $137.5 million termination fee which essentially
ensure that a superior bidder will not emerge, as any potential
suitor will undoubtedly be deterred from expending the time, cost,
and effort of making a superior proposal.

The complaint also alleges that the preliminary proxy statement
(the "Proxy"), filed as part of its Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on
November 30, 2015, provided materially incomplete and misleading
disclosures, thereby violating Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The Proxy denies First Niagara's unitholders
material information concerning the financial and procedural
fairness of the Merger.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 19, 2016.  Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


FIRST STUDENT: "Humes" Suit Moved to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Humes, et al. v. First Student
Inc., Case No. 15CECG3352, was removed from the Fresno Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California (Fresno). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-01861-AWI-BAM to the proceeding.

First Student, a school bus operator, provides student
transportation services for schools and districts in the United
States and Canada. It offers school bus services, such as full or
partial contract transportation, management, route optimization
analysis and recommendations, preventive bus maintenance, shuttle,
fuel, fuel storage and purchasing, ridership tracking technology,
and Wi-Fi services. The Company is based in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Walker Falvey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 800
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795 0205
          Facsimile: (929) 795 3096
          E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Heather L. Shook, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443 4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443 4299
          E-mail: hshook@littler.com


FLINT, MI: Residents File Three Suits Over Water Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------
Amy Lange, writing for WJBK, reports that the story of Flint's
water crisis is getting more national attention, but this is
something that the people of Flint have been dealing with for
months.  Now, they're taking their fight to all levels of
government.

Three lawsuits were filed on Jan. 19 in Flint, targeting the
federal government, the state, and the city as residents fight
back.  Flint, which switched from Detroit's water to water from
the Flint River, has water tainted with lead.  The damage is done
as the pipes are now so contaminated, clean water can't pass
through.

That decision is the basis for more legal action from people like
Melissa Mays.

"I've been off work because I'm so sick so here I am stuck with no
paycheck and an $880 water bill," Ms. Mays said after the almost
$900 bill, she got a shut off notice.

The mom, wife, and now-activist is a plaintiff in a class action
lawsuit.  This case comes at the same time as attorneys file an
emergency injunction to do two things: (1) stop shutoffs for
failure to pay and (2) declare all water bills invalid.

"The State of Michigan should re-pay the people of Flint for the
water bills they have paid for this lousy no good water," attorney
Bill Goodman said.

Three class action lawsuits have now been filed against public
officials involved, including Governor Rick Snyder.  The people
want to know what Mr. Snyder knew and when he knew it and they
believe it was long before October 2015, as he has claimed.

"He has to answer questions once a lawsuit's been filed, we're
going to get those emails," Mr. Goodman said.

"How could he not know what was going on in Flint? He's going to
sit in that deposition and he's going to answer those questions,"
attorney Michael Pitt said.  "He is going to be held accountable
one way or another."

The corrosive water from the Flint River leached lead out of the
pipes.  The water was supposed to be treated by the Department of
Environmental Quality.  When Flint switched back to Detroit water,
the damage was done and the pipes were no good, tainting the clean
water as well. Now residents are paying the price.

"Rashes, they're talking about hair loss, they're talking about
seizures that never happened before," attorney Cary McGehee said.

People have already lost their jobs at MDEQ, but attorneys in this
class action lawsuit say the Michigan Department of Health and
Human Services knew about the spike in lead levels in the blood of
Flint's children as early as June, July, August, and September of
2014.

"They were staring at a public health emergency and they sat on it
for over ten months," Mr. Pitt said.  "These public officials were
assuring the public the water was safe at a time when they knew it
was not true.  I don't know how many kids were poisoned because of
those false assurances -- but we're going to find out."

The lawsuits also seek to represent those victims of legionnaire's
disease possibly brought on by the Flint water crisis.  Troy
Kidd's mother, Debbie, died in August at the age of 58.  The cause
of death? Legionnaire's disease.

"Fought as hard as they could to get her lungs to clear up with
antibiotics and everything else and it was to no avail," Ms. Kidd
said.

Attorneys are calling on Attorney General Bill Schuette to appoint
a special prosecutor to investigate the state since he will have
to defend Michigan in these lawsuits.

Attorneys are advising residents to contact them to be part of the
lawsuit. Call their office at (248) 398-9800 or go to
flintwaterclassaction.com

They'll also be holding another meeting on February 16 from
6:30- 8:30 p.m. at 432 N Saginaw at the UofM Flint Campus.


FLINT, MI: Attorneys to Announce New Water Crisis Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
WSAW reports that Michigan Governor Rick Snyder was set to deliver
his State of the State speech on Jan. 19, amid growing anger over
the state's response to Flint's water contamination crisis.
Demonstrators gathered outside his residence on Jan. 18, calling
for his arrest and resignation.  Attorneys planned to announce two
new class-action lawsuits on Jan. 19.


FRED MEYER: Janitors File Washington Employment Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that
King County, WAA group of janitors suing retail giant Fred Meyer
are not looking to "clean up" as it were, but rather are seeking
justice and due compensation for work performed off the clock in
Washington state.  The Washington Employment class action names as
defendants Fred Meyer, as well as a number of subcontractors in a
case due to be heard in April.

Janitors Taking on Fred Meyer in Washington Employment Class
ActionAccording to KPLU 88.5 Seattle (1/4/16), the plaintiffs were
directly employed by a subcontractor to Fred Meyer.  The
subcontractor, MH Janitorial, was accused of not paying janitors
for work performed off the clock at the end of their shifts in
accordance with Washington State Employment Laws.  Off-the-clock
work is a growing problem, with many employees called upon to
perform tasks either before their scheduled shift or after they
have clocked out for the day.

Plaintiffs assert that such tasks, sometimes for just a few
minutes and sometimes longer, constitute work performed for the
employer on the employee's own time -- work for which the employer
is not paying.  Those minutes can add up over time.

According to the KPLU radio report, MH Janitorial is no longer
operating.  Thus the plaintiffs have turned their focus toward
Fred Meyer, which had hired MH Janitorial as a subcontractor to
supply janitorial services.

Court documents reveal that Fred Meyer placed responsibility for
adherence to wage and hour laws according to Washington State
Labor Law on its subcontractor.  Now that MH Janitorial is no
longer operating, the question is whether or not Fred Meyer can be
held responsible for the failure of its subcontractor to pay
wages.

There has been increasing pressure in labor circles for the
primary contractors to share in the liabilities of subcontractors
where employees are concerned.  This comes at a time, according to
the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the Washington Labor
Law class action, when corporations are moving away from
responsibility and liability for the human resources working in
their facilities.

Fred Meyer, owned by Kroger, is expected to argue that since the
janitors were employed by MH Janitorial, responsibility for wages
and adherence to Washington State Employment Laws rests with the
subcontractor, given that the janitorial staff were not employees
of Fred Meyer directly.  The plaintiffs are expected to argue that
since the janitors performed their jobs on premises owned by
Fred Meyer, and that Fred Meyer benefitted from the off-the-clock
work, Fred Meyer should have a stake in the liability for the
unpaid wages.

Case details were not available.  A court date for King County
Superior Court is scheduled for April.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Rousey" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rousey v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01911, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-13755-FDS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that Zofran and its generic equivalent, a prescription
medication for the treatment of nausea, causes birth defects in
children when their mothers ingest the drug while pregnant.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a limited liability corporation, organized
under the laws of the state of Delaware.  GSK's sole member is
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation,
and which has identified its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK designed, manufactured and distributed
Zofran, the drug that is the subject of the lawsuit.  Zofran is a
drug developed to treat severe nausea on cancer patients resulting
from chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Matthews, Esq.
          Lizy Santiago, Esq.
          MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES
          2905 Sackett St.
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 522-5250
          Facsimile: (713) 535-7184
          E-mail: dmatthews@thematthewslawfirm.com
                  lsantiago@thematthewslawfirm.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Morga" Suit Transferred to Mass. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Dulce A. Morga et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-08871, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
14112-FDS to the proceeding.

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 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.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed
just and proper arising from Baby Sarah's personal injuries and
wrongful death as a result of her prenatal exposure to the
prescription drug Zofran (ondansetron hydrochloride), also
marketed in its generic form as ondansetron.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
          Paulina do Amaral, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415).956 1000
          Facsimile: (415).956 1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  slondon@lchb.com
                  wfleishman@lchb.com
                  pdoamaral@lchb.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Murray" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Katherine Murray, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline
LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-04474, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
13738-FDS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that Zofran and its generic equivalent, a prescription
medication for the treatment of nausea, causes birth defects in
children when their mothers ingest the drug while pregnant.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a limited liability corporation, organized
under the laws of the state of Delaware.  GSK's sole member is
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation,
and which has identified its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK designed, manufactured and distributed
Zofran, the drug that is the subject of the lawsuit.  Zofran is a
drug developed to treat severe nausea on cancer patients resulting
from chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery St., 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  slondon@lchb.com

               - and -

          Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: wfleishman@lchb.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Smiley" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Smiley v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01233, 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-13730-FDS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that Zofran and its generic equivalent, a prescription
medication for the treatment of nausea, causes birth defects in
children when their mothers ingest the drug while pregnant.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a limited liability corporation, organized
under the laws of the state of Delaware.  GSK's sole member is
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation,
and which has identified its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK designed, manufactured and distributed
Zofran, the drug that is the subject of the lawsuit.  Zofran is a
drug developed to treat severe nausea on cancer patients resulting
from chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don McKenna, 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:

          Bryan A. Coleman, Esq.
          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254-1000
          Facsimile: (205) 714-6498
          E-mail: bcoleman@maynardcooper.com
                  mporter@maynardcooper.com


GLOBAL MARKETING: Judge Transfers Class Action to Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for PennRecord.com, reports that
Citing the time of legal action being filed and consideration of
multiple interest factors, a federal judge has transferred a class
action lawsuit against a marketing research firm from Pennsylvania
to Florida.

Judge Anita B. Brody of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania ruled on Jan. 19 a class action filed by
Alicia Thompson of Pennsylvania against Global Marketing Research
Services (GMRS) of Melbourne, Fla., would be transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Thompson initiated legal action against GMRS in June, charging
they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by
calling cell phone customers in Pennsylvania without first
obtaining their consent, in the course of conducting their
business and political survey research.

GMRS motioned to transfer the case to Florida, where another class
action suit (Martin v. Global Marketing Research Services) was
already pending against it for similar alleged violations of the
TCPA.  Both suits contained similar language and the same
plaintiff counsel filed both actions.  The Martin suit was filed
in August 2014, and GMRS cited the first-to-file rule in their
motion to transfer.

The first-to-file rule provides that "in all cases of concurrent
jurisdiction, the Court which first has possession of the subject
must decide it."

Though Ms. Thompson argued the class definitions in both cases
were different (her suit includes individuals in Pennsylvania
while the Martin suit excludes individuals in Pennsylvania), Judge
Brody said the subject matter of the two suits was "substantially
the same" and weighed in favor of transferring the case.

Judge Brody then considered both the public and private interest
factors (known as Jumara factors) regarding transfer of the case.
Public factors included enforceability of the judgment, court
docket crowding and the judge's familiarity with local case law,
among others, while private factors included forum preferences of
the parties involved, convenience of the parties involved and
origin of the claim.

Judge Brody felt that administrative procedures could be made
easier if the case's jurisdiction were transferred, an element
which would "weigh heavily in favor of transfer."

"Transferring this case to the Middle District of Florida -- which
is already overseeing discovery with respect to GMRS's campaigns
in forty-eight other states -- will potentially result in more
streamlined discovery and a more efficient resolution of claims.
This will both conserve judicial resources and be more convenient
for the parties and the witnesses," Brody said.

Judge Brody explained the pending Martin case in the Middle
District of Florida would be "given considerable weight" in this
matter, and the other Jumara factors "did not tip the scales"
against transferring Thompson's case.

"Because the first-to-file rule applies to this case, and the
Jumara factors support transferring Thompson's case, I will grant
GMRS's motion to transfer," Judge Brody said.

The plaintiff was represented by Barry L. Cohen --
bcohen@rccblaw.com -- of Royer Cooper Cohen Braunfeld in
Conshohocken and Steven L. Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
-- of Woodrow & Peluso in Denver.

The defendants are represented by Steven G. Schwartz of Schwartz
Law Group in Boca Raton, Fla., plus Jonathan S. Ziss and Michael
P. Luongo of Goldberg Segalla in Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case
2:15-cv-03576


GO PRO: March 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Jan. 19 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Northern
District of California on behalf of investors who purchased GoPro,
Inc. (NASDAQ:GPRO) securities between July 21, 2015 and January
13, 2016.

Click here to learn about the case:
http://docs.wongesq.com/GPRO-Info-Request-Form-1072
There is no cost or obligation to you.

On October 28, 2015, GoPro issued a press release announcing
disappointing third quarter 2015 results, including revenue of
$400 million -- far below the Company's guidance of $430-$445
million.  During an earnings call held the same day, GoPro CEO
Nick Woodman attributed the Company's poor performance, in part,
to weak sales related to the Company's HERO4 Session camera.  Then
on January 13, 2016, GoPro announced a preliminary fourth quarter
2015 revenue of $435 million, far below the Company's guidance of
$500-$550 million.  The Company also announced a plan to reduce
its workforce by approximately 7 percent and is expected to incur
approximately $5 to $10 million in restructuring costs.

If you suffered a loss in GoPro 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.  To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com by telephone at
212.425.1140, or visit
http://docs.wongesq.com/GPRO-Info-Request-Form-1072

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigation involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel: (212) 425-1140
Fax: (866) 699-3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com


GREAT-WEST LIFE: Key Guaranteed Portfolio Fund Class Action Update
------------------------------------------------------------------
Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the Company has been named as a defendant in a
potential class action lawsuit that relates to its Key Guaranteed
Portfolio Fund.  A decision on whether the case should proceed as
a class is not expected until next year.  The Company is defending
this lawsuit, and due to the early nature of the proceedings, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or
estimate a possible range of loss.

PlanSponsor.com reported on June 29, 2015, that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado handed Great-West Annuity and
Life Insurance Company a small victory by dismissing part of a
class action suit filed by a retirement plan participant invested
in one of the firm's annuity products -- but key segments of the
challenge were permitted to proceed.

The complaint underlying the case alleges Great-West breached its
fiduciary duty of loyalty under Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) Sections 502(a)(2)-(3) -- namely by setting
predetermined interest rates artificially low and charging
excessive fees in order to increase its own profits from the sale
and servicing of certain group annuity contracts. Plaintiffs also
allege Great-West engaged in self-dealing transactions prohibited
under ERISA Sec. 406(b); and caused the plaintiff's retirement
plan to engage in prohibited transactions with a party in interest
in violation of ERISA Sec. 406(a).

At question in the case is the Great-West Key Guaranteed Portfolio
Fund, as offered to the Farmers' Rice Cooperative 401(k) Savings
Plan. The lead plaintiff in the case is John Teets, a participant
in the Rice Cooperative 401(k) plan who elected to invest his plan
contributions in the fund. The investment relationship between
Great-West and the plan is governed by a group annuity contract
entered into on March 4, 2008. Among other provisions, the
contract provides for a participant's investment to accrue
interest at a rate set prior to each quarter.  According to Mr.
Teets, the interest rate here is "determined unilaterally by
Defendant, without any specified methodology. . . .  However,
pursuant to the contract, the effective annual interest rate is
guaranteed never to be less than 0%."  Money invested in the fund
is not kept in a segregated account, but rather is deposited into
defendant's general account.

In filing a motion to dismiss, Great-West raised two arguments
that plaintiff's claims should be dismissed: first that the
Guaranteed Portfolio Fund falls under the guaranteed benefit
policy (GBP) exemption in ERISA, and thus Great-West would not be
an ERISA fiduciary that could have breached any fiduciary duties;
and second, Great-West says the plaintiff's claims fail because it
cannot be both a fiduciary and a party in interest under ERISA
Sec. 406(a).


GROUP O: Judge Strips Overtime Suit's Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has stripped the class action status from a
lawsuit that alleged a Caterpillar contractor rooked Joliet
workers out of overtime pay, with the judge describing the claims
of 94 plaintiffs as too individualized to pursue as a whole.

Judge Charles P. Kocoras issued the ruling Jan. 8 in U.S. District
Court for Northern Illinois, saying, the collective claim falters
for "lack of a common policy or plan that violated the law" and
for lack of an "identifiable factual nexus that binds the
plaintiffs together as victims of a particular violation of
overtime laws."

In June 2013, Michelle Creal, Kasandra Murphy and Felicia Wright
filed a putative class action suit against Group O, claiming Group
O violated the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Ms. Creal lives in Springfield, Murphy in Crest Hill and Wright in
Joliet, according to the suit.

Group O is based in Milan, Ill., near the Quad Cities in Rock
Island County, and provides staffing and logistical services to
industrial concerns.  Between 2010 and 2013, Group O provided such
services to the Caterpillar plant in Joliet, with its workers
employed in such jobs as clerk, forklift operator, packer and
storeroom manager, court documents said. The plaintiffs in this
case worked for Group O at the Joliet plant.

Plaintiffs alleged Group O had employees work before and after
their shifts, as well as during meal breaks, but without properly
paying them.  To short the employees, Group O allegedly programmed
its electronic timekeeping and payroll system to round off
employee clock-ins and clock-outs to scheduled start- and end-of-
shift times  -- when the clock-ins and clock-outs were within 15
minutes of the scheduled start- and end-of-shift times.  As a
result, employees were allegedly not paid for these periods of 15
minutes and less.

The complaint was conditionally certified as a class action
lawsuit, with 91 more plaintiffs subsequently joining the case.
However, Group O filed a motion to yank the class action status,
which Judge Kocoras found compelling.

"There is no efficiency gained by trying all the factual questions
and defenses in one trial," Judge Kocoras summed up, quoting the
U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin ruling in Adair v.
Wisconsin Bell.

Judge Kocoras ascertained, contrary to the plaintiffs'
allegations, that Group O did not direct employees to work outside
their shifts without pay.  Further, when employees did work before
or past their shifts, they would almost always receive overtime
pay, whether or not the overtime had been approved beforehand.
These procedures were spelled out in Group O's written policy,
Judge Kocoras noted.

Judge Kocoras was persuaded by Group O's argument that some
employees, who worked pre- and post-shift without compensation,
did so depending upon a host of factors, including their
positions, responsibilities, shifts, work stations, distances to
work stations and supervisors.  Further contributing to the mix,
was that some workers were tied to stations, while others roamed
the factory.  As a consequence, each plaintiff would require a
separate determination of whether tasks they performed were
deserving of overtime pay.

In addition, determinations would have to be made, on a case-by-
case basis, as to whether workers spent the time in question going
to and from their principal workstation or, beyond this, whether
the time involved was simply too trifling an amount to merit
consideration.  In this connection, Judge Kocoras pointed out
Group O could cite the U.S. District for Southern Illinois ruling
in Marshall v. Amsted Rail, in which the court found employers are
not obliged to pay in either situation.

As with the pre- and post-shift claims, Judge Kocoras also decided
claims for unpaid meal breaks were too differentiated to warrant
class action.

A status hearing is set for Feb. 11.

Plaintiffs are represented by Asonye & Associates and Prinz Law
Firm.  Group O is defended by Pappas, Davidson, O'Connor & Fildes.
All the firms are of Chicago.

The three original plaintiffs also brought a 2012 action against
Group O in Will County Circuit Court that remains pending.
Original plaintiff Murphy filed another federal suit against Group
O in 2011 in Chicago that was dismissed by stipulation in 2014,
court records show.


GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 21 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against GW Pharmaceuticals plc ("GW Pharmaceuticals" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:GWPH) and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-00472, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased GW
Pharmaceuticals securities between December 4, 2014 and January 8,
2016 inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased GW Pharmaceuticals
securities during the Class Period, you have until March 21, 2016
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.
A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

GW Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company.  Together with
its subsidiaries, GW Pharmaceuticals engages in discovering,
developing, and commercializing cannabinoid prescription
medicines.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company lacked effective
internal financial controls; (ii) the Company lacked effective
controls over completeness and valuation of clinical trial
accruals; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about GW Pharmaceuticals' business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

On January 10, 2016, The Sunday Times reported that GW
Pharmaceuticals had disclosed in its annual report for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2015 (the "FY 2015 20-F"), filed with the
SEC the previous month, that its internal financial controls were
not effective as of September 30, 2015, and further disclosed that
management had determined that it lacked effective controls over
the completeness and valuation of clinical trial accruals.
Specifically, the 2015 20-F reported that management lacked
sufficiently precise controls: (1) to evaluate the completeness
and accuracy of the calculation of clinical trial accruals due to
the incorrect allocation of expenditure to clinical studies; or
(2) to ensure completeness of clinical trial accruals in
connection with contractual progress payment liabilities.

On this news, GW Pharmaceuticals stock fell $3.55, or nearly 6%,
to close at $56.31 per share on January 11, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http:/www.pomerantzlaw.com -- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Preparing for Discovery in Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that defendants in a
class action lawsuit are preparing for the discovery phase of the
case.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of Schuff was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt,
Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil
Action No. 10323.

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v.
Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek,
Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda,
Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel.  The currently operative
complaint is the November 6, 2014 Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with
the tender offer, the individual members of the Schuff board of
directors and HC2, the controlling stockholder of Schuff, breached
their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The
Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form merger
based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company would cash out
the remaining public stockholders of Schuff International
following the completion of the tender offer.  Such a short-form
merger has never been formally proposed or acted upon and as of
September 30, 2015, approximately 341 thousand shares of Schuff
remain in public hands, representing approximately 9% of the
outstanding shares of Schuff. The Complaint seeks rescission of
the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as well as
attorney's fees and other relief.

The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015.
Defendants are currently preparing for the discovery phase of the
case.

"We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the
Complaint are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously,"
the Company said.


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Dismissal Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the lead
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed in April 2012 did not
appeal a court order denying a motion to consolidate this lawsuit
with the March 2014 lawsuits, and granting a motion to dismiss the
case.

"On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
us and our chief executive officer alleging that we made false and
misleading statements that artificially inflated our stock
prices," the Company said.  "The lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that we misrepresented the prospects and progress of our
drilling operations, including our drilling of the Sabu-1 well and
plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic of
Guinea.  The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages based
on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934."

"Although several lead plaintiffs were appointed by the Court and
then withdrew from the matter, a lead plaintiff has now been
appointed and a scheduling order governing briefing on a motion to
dismiss has been entered by the Court.  On May 12, 2014, lead
plaintiff filed his amended complaint adding our current and
former chief financial officers as defendants, and defendants
filed their motion to dismiss on July 11, 2014.

On August 25, 2015, the Court denied the motion to consolidate
this lawsuit with the March 2014 lawsuits, but granted the
defendants motion to dismiss and terminated the case. Lead
plaintiff did not appeal this ruling.


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties in 2014 Suit Await Scheduling Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in
the remaining class action lawsuit filed in March 2014 are waiting
for the issuance of a scheduling order.

"Beginning on March 13, 2014, two lawsuits styled as class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas against us and several officers of the Company alleging that
we made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated
our stock prices," the Company said.  "The lawsuits allege, among
other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes
and that we lacked adequate internal controls.  The lawsuits seek
damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not
specified."

"On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff, which remains pending. On August 25, 2015, the
court in the April 2012 lawsuit denied the motion to consolidate
the March 2014 lawsuits with the April 2012 lawsuits. One of the
March 2014 lawsuits has now been dismissed voluntarily, and the
parties to the remaining suit await the issuance of a scheduling
order in that matter.

"We have assessed the status of the remaining March 2014 lawsuit
and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably
possible, but not probable," the Company said.  "As a result, no
provision has been made in the consolidated financial statements.
Given the early stage of this dispute, we are unable to estimate a
range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of
this dispute will not have a material effect on our financial
condition and results of operations."


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Two Class Action Suits Stalling Rentech Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits have been filed related to the Rentech
Nitrogen merger, Icahn Enterprises L.P. and Icahn Enterprises
Holdings L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On August 9, 2015, CVR Partners entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Rentech Nitrogen Partners, L.P., and Rentech
Nitrogen GP, LLC, pursuant to which CVR Partners will acquire
Rentech Nitrogen and Rentech Nitrogen GP.

On August 29, 2015, Mike Mustard, a purported unitholder of
Rentech Nitrogen, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
public unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen,
Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech,
Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC and the members of the Rentech
Nitrogen Board, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
The Mustard Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
consideration offered by CVR Partners is unfair and inadequate and
that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an allegedly
conflicted and unfair process, certain of the defendants have
breached their duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen,
and are engaging in self-dealing.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants:
(i) failed to take steps to maximize the value of Rentech Nitrogen
to its public shareholders, (ii) failed to properly value Rentech
Nitrogen, and (iii) ignored or did not protect against the
numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed
transaction. The Mustard Lawsuit also alleges that Rentech
Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc.,
Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC aided and abetted the
director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties.

On October 6, 2015, Jesse Sloan, a purported unitholder of Rentech
Nitrogen, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the public
unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech
Nitrogen GP, CVR Partners and the members of the Rentech Nitrogen
Board, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The Sloan Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the attempted
sale of Rentech Nitrogen to CVR Partners was conducted by means of
an unfair process and for an unfair price. Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges that (i) Rentech Nitrogen GP and the Rentech
Nitrogen Board breached their obligations under the partnership
agreement and their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by
causing Rentech Nitrogen to enter into the merger agreement and
failing to disclose material information to unitholders of Rentech
Nitrogen, (ii) the Rentech Nitrogen Board violated fiduciary
duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen based primarily
on allegations of inadequate consideration, restrictive deal
protection devices and improper disclosure, (iii) each of the
defendants aided and abetted in the foregoing breaches described
in items (i) and (ii), and (iv) Rentech Nitrogen and the Rentech
Nitrogen Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 thereunder based on improper
disclosure contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-4
(Registration No. 333-206982), which was filed with the SEC by CVR
Partners on September 17, 2015.

"Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in these actions seek to
enjoin the mergers and seek unspecified money damages. The
lawsuits are at a preliminary state, and the outcome of any such
litigation is uncertain. An adverse ruling in these actions may
cause the mergers to be delayed or not be completed, which could
cause the CVR Partners not to realize some or all of the
anticipated benefits of the mergers. No amounts have been
recognized in our condensed consolidated financial statements
regarding the lawsuits," the Company said.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery is
ongoing in Solodyn(R) antitrust class actions.

From July 2013 to April 2015, 15 class action complaints were
filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its
generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original
complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against
defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the
other generic defendants.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1,
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the
action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be
coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The
original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only
against defendant Medicis.

On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting claims against the Company and the other generic
defendants.  The consolidated amended complaints allege that
Medicis engaged in anticompetitive schemes by, among other things,
filing frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous
Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement
agreements with several generic manufacturers, including the
Company, to delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in
violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek,
among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable
relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On August 14,
2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints. Discovery
is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Motions to Dismiss Opana ER Suits Sub Judice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in the Opana
ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions, defendants' motions to dismiss have
been briefed and are under submission.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 class action complaints were
filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and
the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United Stated
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were
filed on May 4, 2015. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaints on July 3, 2015. Those motions have been briefed and
are under submission.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settled Securities Class Action At No Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has
granted final approval of a settlement in a securities class
action lawsuit.

On March 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013, two class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors of the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California by Denis
Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, respectively, alleging that the Company
and those named officers and directors violated the federal
securities law by making materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts to the
public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies at the
Hayward, California manufacturing facility, including but not
limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's
ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's branded
product candidate, RYTARY(R) and its generic version of
Concerta(R).

These two Securities Class Actions were subsequently consolidated,
assigned to the same judge, and lead plaintiff has been chosen.
The plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint was filed on
September 13, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on November 14, 2013. On April 18,
2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.

On September 22, 2014, the Company, together with certain current
and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle
this consolidated securities class action, without any admission
or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the
other defendants. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay
$8.0 million for a full and complete release of all claims that
were or could have been asserted against the Company or other
defendants in this action.

On January 16, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and on July 23, 2015, the Court granted final approval
of the settlement. The Company did not take any charges for the
settlement as the settlement amount was paid for and covered by
the Company's insurance policies. The settlement does not resolve
the related shareholder derivative litigations.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Looks for Final Approval of Aruliah Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the settlement
in the Aruliah Class Action remains subject to final court
approval.

On August 13, 2014, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by Linus Aruliah, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated ("Aruliah Class Action").
The complaint alleged that the Company and those named officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts to the public in connection with
manufacturing deficiencies at the Company's Taiwan manufacturing
facility, including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies
would have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA
for the Company's then branded product candidate, RYTARY(R) (which
was subsequently approved by the FDA on January 7, 2015).

On January 13, 2015, the Company, together with certain current
and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle
this securities class action, without any admission or concession
of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants.
Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $4.75 million for
a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have
been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this
action. On June 22, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement.

The Company will not be taking any charges for the settlement as
the settlement amount will be paid for and covered by the
Company's insurance policies. The settlement remains subject to
final court approval and certain other conditions and does not
resolve the related shareholder derivative litigations.


INDONESIA: Aceh Citizens File Class Action to Preserve Leuser
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Nicholas Jong, writing for The Jakarta Post, reports that a
group of Aceh citizens will lodge a civil lawsuit against the Home
Ministry at the Central Jakarta District Court on Jan. 21 in a bid
to preserve the Leuser Ecosystem Zone (KEL), which they consider a
unique and irreplaceable natural environment.

The group, called Gerakan Rakyat Aceh Menggugat (GERAM), has
accused the ministry of failing to fulfil its duty of including
protection of the KEL in the Aceh Provincial Spatial Plan (RTWT-
P).

"We are an alliance of concerned citizens who have been fighting
for nearly two years, since the Aceh government legalized a new
land use plan that would effectively dissolve protection of much
of Aceh's remaining tropical rainforests, whitewashing crimes of
the past and paving the way for a new wave of catastrophic
ecological destruction," said one of the plaintiffs, Farwiza
Farhan.

The KEL spans the provinces of Aceh and North Sumatra.  Over 35
times the size of Singapore, this majestic and ancient ecosystem
covers more than 2.6 million hectares of lowland rainforest, peat
land, montane and coastal forests and alpine meadows.

Globally recognized as one of the richest expanses of tropical
rainforest found anywhere in Southeast Asia, the KEL is also one
of Asia's largest carbon sinks.

To the community living in the area, the local forest is a source
of livelihood.  Therefore, more recent laws have served to
strengthen the protection of the KEL and place the responsibility
for managing its preservation and restoration with the Aceh
provincial government.

The KEL also has special legal status as a national strategic area
for its environmental protection function (under Law No. 26/2007
juncto Law No. 26/2008), prohibiting any activity that would
reduce that function, including cultivation and infrastructure
development.

However, the Aceh administration failed to mention the KEL's
status as a national strategic area in its land use plan issued
through Qanun (Islamic bylaw) No. 19/2013.

"The Aceh administration cannot contest the inclusion of the KEL
in its spatial plan because it exists as a protected area in three
legal regulations: Law No. 11/2006 on Aceh governance, Law No.
26/2007 on spatial planning, and its derivative, Government
Regulation No. 26/2008 on the National Spatial Plan," said Nurul
Ikhsan, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs.

The Home Ministry has reviewed the Aceh spatial plan and found
numerous legal infringements that need to be resolved before it is
accepted.  Under Indonesian law, the Aceh government is required
to revise the regulation and in the absence of revisions, the home
affairs minister is required to reject it.

The Wildlife Conservation Society reports that from 2000 to 2009,
the Mount Leuser National Park (TNGL) lost 18,839 hectares of its
forest area annually.  Furthermore, half of the 60,000-ha area of
Tripa Swamp, a part of the KEL, has been converted into palm oil
plantations.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Underway in Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in a class action lawsuit are undergoing discovery.

On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder
class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company
and certain of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were
filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014.

The lawsuits allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10,
2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to the
Company's January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had
been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy
analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the January 9,
2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain
information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the
FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo.

On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the
cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the
Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the
order of the Court. On August 14, 2014, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. Oral arguments on the motion to
dismiss were held on February 24, 2015. On March 4, 2015, the
defendants' motion to dismiss was denied by the Court. The
defendants answered the amended complaint on April 13, 2015. On
July 15, 2015, the plaintiff moved for class certification and
appointment of class representatives and class counsel. On
September 14, 2015, the defendants opposed the plaintiff's class
certification motion. The plaintiff filed its reply to the
defendants' opposition on October 14, 2015, to which the
defendants intend to file a sur-reply. The parties are currently
undergoing discovery in relation to this matter.

The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of
the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims in
the lawsuit and intends to deny liability and defend itself
vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company
will be successful. At this time, no assessment can be made as to
the likely outcome of this action or whether the outcome will be
material to the Company. Therefore, the Company has not accrued
for any loss contingencies related to this lawsuit.


JAKKS PACIFIC: No Decision Issued on Motion to Dismiss Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a decision has not
been issued on the Company's motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint in a consolidated class action lawsuit.

On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett
(collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company
(collectively, "Defendants"). On July 30, 2013, a second purported
class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations
against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et
al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the
"Class Action") were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case
No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel
appointed.

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which
alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false
and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial
projections and performance as part of its public filings and
earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013.
Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the
Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public
statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to
disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the
Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring
workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements
with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable
to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and
Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended
Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint
sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as
well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with
leave to replead.

A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8, 2014 and
it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended
Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and
public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim
with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly
knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was granted with leave
to replead.

A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") was filed on March 23, 2015 with
similar allegations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the TAC
and that motion was argued on July 22, 2015; after argument it was
taken on submission and a decision has not been issued.

"We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit,
and we intend to defend vigorously against them," the Company
said. "However, because the Class Action is in a preliminary
stage, we cannot assure you as to its outcome, or that an adverse
decision in such action would not have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial condition or results of operations."


JANI-KING: 3rd Circuit Hears Arguments in Franchisee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
attorneys representing parties embroiled in a class action over
pay deductions argued in federal appeals court over whether --
workers in a cleaning service franchise were considered
independent contractors or employees of the franchisor.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard argument on
Jan. 20 in Williams v. Jani-King of Philadelphia.  The defendant,
the Jani-King cleaning franchise, appealed the district court's
certification of a class consisting of those who signed franchise
agreements with Jani-King. The plaintiffs claimed that they were
mischaracterized as independent contractors and not as employees
under Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law, resulting in
improper wage deductions by the franchisor.

To determine whether the franchisees were employees or independent
contractors, the question of who had control over the day-to-day
operations of the individual cleaning business had to be answered,
Jani-King's counsel, Aaron D. Van Oort, argued.

Mr. Van Oort told the three-judge panel consisting of Third
Circuit Judges D. Michael Fisher, Michael A. Chagares and Robert
E. Cowen that even though Jani-King offered its franchisees the
business model and use of its name, it did not control the way the
individual shops did business.

"Simply deciding what work is offered does not indicate control,"
Mr. Van Oort said, adding the franchisor did not have the right to
micromanage the individual franchisees.

Judge Chagares said that rather than quibble about who had control
over the end result of the work, it should be determined whether
Jani-King had the ability to amend the franchise agreement to
change how the cleaning work was done.

"Couldn't you amend everything?" he asked.

Mr. Van Oort said there were constraints on Jani-King's right to
amend what it can control.  The agreement stated, according to Van
Oort, that the franchisee has the responsibility of time and
method of providing services.

Mr. Van Oort said the plaintiffs' claims that Jani-King
oversaw quality control did not prove that it had control over
day-to-day-operations, nor was it relevant.

"Quality controls, even really invasive ones, are not the
evidence," Mr. Van Oort said.

Judge Fisher asked Mr. Van Oort to explain how the evidence fit
within the context of the appeal against class certification.
Mr. Van Oort claimed the only evidence the class members had to
show that Jani-King was in charge were the quality controls in
place for each business.  That evidence, he said, was not uniform
and had to be examined on an individual basis, making a class
unnecessary.

Expressing concern about the widespread implications of Mr. Van
Oort's argument, Fisher asked, "Doesn't that say that franchisors
are exempt from collective actions?"

Mr. Van Oort said they wouldn't be if there was common evidence of
control, but more importantly, it was the type of control that
mattered.

Next up was Shannon Liss-Riordan for the class members. Liss-
Riordan started off by telling the panel that Van Oort had
distracted the court with issues relating to the merits of the
case when the issue was class certification and whether the
district court abused its discretion by granting it.

Judge Cowen said the court was not interested in abuse of
discretion in a vacuum; the facts of the case had to be taken into
account to see if the district court correctly applied the law.

Ms. Liss-Riordan said Jani-King controls pricing, client
negotiation, sets pay rates, holds surprise inspections, and it
reserves the right to terminate franchise workers as it sees fit.
"But they don't have the right to control whether you send your
employees out at 8 or 10 in the morning," Judge Fisher said.

"Then we may lose one day on the merits, your honor,"
Ms. Liss-Riordan said, stipulating that the merits were not for
the appeals court to decide.

Judge Cowen then asked if Ms. Liss-Riordan acknowledged that the
franchisor was allowed to have specific regulations to protect its
brand and trademark.  Ms. Liss-Riordan said the franchisor had
that right, but the control factors had to be looked at.

Judge Cowen asked what regulations Jani-King was allowed to have
under the WPCL.

"If you recognize that there is such a thing as a franchisor and a
franchisee relationship, what regulations are they allowed to
have?" Cowen asked.

Ms. Liss-Riordan said the franchisor was allowed to protect its
trademark, but in states like Massachusetts and Mississippi,
Jani-King could still be considered an employer by doing so.


J2 GLOBAL: Settlement Reached in "Free-Vychine" Late Fee Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
j2 GLOBAL, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in the
class action filed by Andre Free-Vychine have reached a tentative
class-based settlement.

On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a
purported class action against a j2 Global affiliate in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles
("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint
alleges two California statutory violations relating to late fees
levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine is seeking,
among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of
himself and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated
persons.

On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV
Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate purported class
action against the same j2 Global affiliate in Los Angeles
Superior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleges three
California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common
law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global
affiliate's customers, including those with eVoice(R) and
Onebox(R) accounts. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other
things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On
September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court ordered both
cases related and consolidated for discovery purposes. On March
13, 2015, a third amended complaint was filed in this action,
which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added
Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff.

On or around June 26, 2015, the case filed by Free-Vychine was
dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. On October 7, 2015,
the parties reached a tentative class-based settlement that
remains subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval.


J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Junk Fax Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discsovery is ongoing in a class action filed by Paldo Sign and
Display Co. against j2 Global, Inc., j2 said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an
amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former
employee as additional defendants in an existing purported class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-
cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common
law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of
the j2 Global affiliates' systems to send unsolicited facsimile
transmissions.

On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"), was
added. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA
and conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern District of
Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Discovery is ongoing.


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Waiting for 9th Cir. to Set a Hearing Date
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing for
the appeal in a class action lawsuit has not been set.

"On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action
complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No.
2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington against us, certain of the
Company's directors and officers and the underwriters of the
Company's November 2012 initial public offering," the Company
said.  "The complaint alleges that all defendants violated
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that the Company and certain of its
directors and officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act
by making material false and misleading statements and omissions
in the offering's registration statement, and that we and certain
of our directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making false and misleading statements and omissions in the
registration statement and in certain of the Company's subsequent
press releases and SEC filings with respect to its NAF specimen
collection process, its ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and its MASCT
device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4,
2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount."

On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel.  The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM.  An amended complaint was
filed on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. On
October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing
all claims against the Company and all other defendants. On
October 30, 2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal.

On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Court and have appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015,
plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief. Defendants filed
an answer on April 13, 2015. On May 18, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a
reply brief in support of their appeal. A hearing for the appeal
has not been set.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and plans to
defend itself vigorously; however, failure by the Company to
obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the
complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations and financial condition.
Currently, the amount of such material adverse effect cannot be
reasonably estimated, and no provision or liability has been
recorded for these claims as of September 30, 2015. The costs
associated with defending and resolving the lawsuit and ultimate
outcome cannot be predicted. These matters are subject to inherent
uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as the distraction from
the conduct of the Company's business, will depend upon many
unknown factors and management's view of these may change in the
future.


LAM RESEARCH: Named as Defendant in Hedgecock v. KLA-Tencor Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lam Research Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2015, that a complaint was filed on October 28, 2015, in the
California Superior Court for Santa Clara County against KLA-
Tencor Corp., the members of KLA's board of directors, Lam
Research Corporation, Topeka Merger Sub 1, and Topeka Merger Sub
2. The action, captioned Hedgecock v. KLA-Tencor Corp., et al.,
Case No. 115CV287329, was filed by a purported KLA shareholder as
a purported class action on behalf of all KLA shareholders
(excluding defendants and their affiliates) against all
defendants. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the
individual defendants (KLA's board of directors) breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing KLA to agree to a
merger transaction with the Lam Defendants at an unfair price and
pursuant to an unfair process, and that the Lam Defendants aided
and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or rescind
KLA's transaction with the Lam Defendants, as applicable, as well
as an award of damages and attorney's fees, in addition to other
relief.


LAM RESEARCH: Named as Defendant in Karr v. KLA-Tencor Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lam Research Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2015, that a complaint was filed on October 28, 2015, in the
California Superior Court for Santa Clara County against KLA, the
members of KLA's board of directors, Lam Research, Topeka Merger
Sub 1, and Topeka Merger Sub 2. This action, captioned Karr v.
KLA-Tencor Corporation, et al., Case No. 115CV287331, was filed by
one of the same plaintiff's law firms as in the Hedgecock action
on behalf of a different purported KLA shareholder, as a purported
class action on behalf of all KLA shareholders (excluding
defendants and their affiliates) against all defendants. The
allegations in the Karr complaint are similar to the allegations
in the Hedgecock action. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that
the individual defendants (KLA's board of directors) breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing KLA to
agree to a merger transaction with the Lam Defendants at an unfair
price and pursuant to an unfair process, and that KLA and the Lam
Defendants aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin or rescind KLA's transaction with the Lam Defendants, as
applicable, as well as an award of attorney's fees, in addition to
other relief.


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Accord Reached in Del. Shareholder Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lattice Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in a class action lawsuit in Delaware related to a merger
have reached a tentative settlement, subject to final court
approval.

On or about January 29, 2015, Silicon Image, Inc., members of its
Board, the Company and the Company's wholly-owned merger
acquisition subsidiary were named as defendants in two complaints
filed in Santa Clara Superior Court by alleged stockholders of
Silicon Image in connection with the proposed merger of Silicon
Image and the Company. Both complaints were dated January 29, 2015
and were captioned respectively Molland v. George, et al. and
Stein v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al.

Five additional complaints were subsequently filed on January 30,
2015, February 4, 2015 and February 9, 2015 in Delaware Chancery
Court by alleged stockholders of Silicon Image, Inc. in connection
with the Merger, captioned respectively Pfeiffer v. Martino et.
al.; Lipinski v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al.; Feldbaum et. al. v.
Silicon Image, Inc. et. al; Nelson v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al.
and Partansky v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al.

The five Delaware matters were subsequently consolidated into an
action captioned In re Silicon Image Stockholders Litigation by
order of the Delaware Chancery Court on February 11, 2015, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed in the matter on February
13, 2015.

Two complaints captioned Tapia v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al. and
Caldwel v. Silicon Image, Inc. were also filed on February 4, 2015
and February 9, 2015 in Santa Clara Superior Court by alleged
stockholders in connection with the merger. Amended complaints
were filed in the Molland and Stein actions on February 11, 2015.

Each of these lawsuits are purported class actions brought on
behalf of Silicon Image stockholders, asserting claims against
each member of the Silicon Image Board for breach of fiduciary
duty, and against various officers of the Silicon Image, the
Company, and the Company's wholly-owned merger subsidiary for
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits allege
that the Merger does not appropriately value Silicon Image, was
the result of an inadequate process, and includes preclusive deal
devices. The amended complaints also assert that the Silicon
Image's disclosures regarding the Merger in its Schedule 14D-9
omitted material information regarding the Merger. Each of these
complaints purport to seek unspecified damages.

The California cases are ongoing, but have been granted a motion
to stay. The parties have reached a tentative settlement in the
Delaware case, subject to final court approval.


LOS CATRACHOS: "Iriarte" Overtime Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Iriarte et al. v. Los Catrachos,
Inc. et al., Case No. 15-023170-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-24527-KMW to
the proceeding.

The class action lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiffs to recover
from Defendants unpaid overtime and/or minimum wage compensation
and/or tips.

Los Catrachos is a Florida profit corporation having its main
place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Los Catrachos
Restaurant II has its main place of business in Miami Dade County,
Florida, at all relevant times was a corporate that performed
related activities for a common business purposes of restaurant
operation with Los Catrachos, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          Brody Max Shulman, 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
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nina Tarafa, Esq.
          Ricardo R. Corona, Esq.
          CORONA LAW FIRM, P.A.
          3899 NW 7th Street, 2nd Floor
          Miami, FL 33126
          Telephone: (305) 266 1150
          Facsimile: (305) 266 1151
          E-mail: nina@coronapa.com
                  rcorona@coronapa.com


MAJOR LEAGUE: Settles Antitrust Class Action Prior to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Zagger, Melissa Lipman, Benjamin Horney and Y. Peter Kang,
writing for Law360, report that MLB reached a deal with fans to
settle an antitrust class action over how out-of-market game
broadcasts are sold, just moments before the trial was due to
start on Jan. 19.

The settlement comes as the two sides were set to begin a nine-day
bench trial in Manhattan federal court on Jan. 19 over fans' claim
that Major League Baseball's long-standing policy of only selling
leaguewide cable and online game packages and its territorial
blackout policies violated federal antitrust law.

Under the agreement, MLB has agreed to offer next season single-
team packages for its online streaming service MLB.tv for $84.99,
a 23 percent reduction from the previous least expensive version
of the service, according to a statement from the plaintiffs. MLB
will also reduce the cost of its leaguewide MLB.tv package to
$109.99 under the agreement.

"The parties have successfully reached a compromise that will
lower prices, create brand new products, and increase consumer
choice," plaintiffs' lead counsel Ned Diver --
ndiver@langergrogan.com -- of Langer Grogan & Diver said in the
statement.

Under the agreement, MLB will also implement a new product by the
All-Star Break, which will cost an additional $10, that will allow
consumers who are subscribers to a Regional Sports Network to
watch a chosen away team's broadcast for "in-market" games, which
previously would have been blacked out, according to the
plaintiffs.

MLB will also work with DirecTV, Comcast and 21st Century Fox to
offer live-streaming of in-market games by 2017, or MLB will be
prohibited from increasing the price of its MLB.tv packages, the
plaintiffs said.

"We are pleased with the settlement and look forward to partnering
with Major League Baseball to enable our regional sports networks'
offering of live in-market streaming of games to subscribers."
Comcast-owned NBC Sports Regional Networks said in a statement.

However, the parties had not yet filed signed settlement documents
with the court as of late in the afternoon on Jan. 19.

The MLB issued a statement on Jan. 19 saying: "We can confirm that
a settlement of the Garber case has been reached.  Because the
process remains ongoing, it is not appropriate to comment further
at this time."

MLB had already said in a pretrial brief earlier in January that
it planned to start offering single-team packages later this year
at rates similar to what the National Hockey League agreed to
offer in its own settlement reached in a parallel case in June.

The long-running antitrust battle dates to 2012, when sports fans
originally targeted the leagues and television providers Comcast
Corp. and DirecTV LLC, which both own several regional sports
networks, over the way they sold packages to watch games online
and through traditional cable and satellite providers.

In particular, the fans complained about policies that kept them
from buying a la carte access to watch only the teams they were
interested in -- requiring leaguewide subscriptions instead of
allowing New York fans living in Florida to pay only for access to
Yankees and Rangers games, for example -- and keeping fans from
using online services to watch games when they are in the teams'
home markets.  The result, the fans maintained, was that they were
overpaying to watch out-of-market games.

MLB had repeatedly maintained that the exemption of the business
of baseball from the antitrust laws under a long-standing and
long-maligned U.S. Supreme Court ruling should protect it from the
current case.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, however, refused to let MLB
out of the case based on the exemption, and the Second Circuit
likewise refused to take an immediate look at the issue as well as
challenges to the judge's decision to certify the class action.

The plaintiffs are represented by Howard I. Langer, Edward A.
Diver and Peter E. Leckman of Langer Grogan & Diver PC, Jeffrey B.
Dubner -- jdubner@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, Robert J. LaRocca of Kohn Swift & Graf PC, Marc I.
Gross and Adam G. Kurtz of Pomerantz LLP, and Joshua D. Snyder --
JSnyder@bonizack.com -- of Boni & Zack LLC.

MLB is represented by Brad Ruskin -- bruskin@proskauer.com --
Jennifer Scullion, Jordan Leader, Stephen Ahron, Adrian
Fontecilla, Colin Kass, Carl Forbes, Jr., Shawn Ledingham of
Proskauer Rose LLP, and Daniel J. Toal -- dtoal@paulweiss.com --
Alexandra M. Walsh, Beth A. Wilkinson and William Y. Durbin of
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.

YES Network is represented by John E. Schmidtlein --
jschmidtlein@wc.com -- Kenneth C. Smurzynski, William J. Vigen and
James H. Weingarten of Williams & Connolly LLP.

Comcast is represented by Arthur J. Burke --
arthur.burke@davispolk.com -- David B. Toscano and James W. Haldin
of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.  DirecTV is represented by Louis A.
Karasik -- lou.karasik@alston.com -- Andrew E. Paris and Stephanie
A. Jones of Alston & Bird LLP.

The case is Garber et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of
Baseball et al., case number 1:12-cv-03704, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Revises Blackout Rules Following Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Draper, writing for Deadspin, reports that Major League
Baseball's antiquated blackout rules were rewritten on Jan. 19,
after the league reached an agreement in a class action lawsuit
that alleged collusion between teams and television networks in
erecting boundaries around where certain games could be aired.
The settlement resulted from a number of consumer-friendly changes
MLB agreed to make to MLB.TV, its online streaming subscription
service.

The biggest changes are a reduction in price for the full package
to $110, and the creation of new single-team packages that will
cost $84.99.  Another change will allow fans that subscribe to
both cable and MLB.TV to pay an extra $10 to gain access to the
visiting team feed for in-market games.  That means if you're a
diehard Rockies fan living in New York, instead of having to watch
the game on SportsNet New York, you can watch the Root Sports
Rocky Mountain feed on MLB.TV.

The settlement didn't kill all of MLB's awful blackout rules.  The
best example is Las Vegas, which is considered to be in the
blackout territory for the Dodgers, Angels, Giants, A's, Padres,
and Diamondbacks, and thus Las Vegas fans can't watch as many
games as fans in the blackout territory of just one or two teams.
But it's progress.


MCCORMICK & CO: Faces Suit Over Under-Filled Pepper Containers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Pellitteri and Patricia Fusco Coyne, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. McCormick &
Company, Inc., and Publix Super Markets, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-
81521-DMM (S.D. Fla., November 3, 2015) concerns the Defendants'
recent practice of allegedly selling partially empty containers of
ground and whole black pepper, a practice in the food industry
commonly known as nonfunctional slack fill.

The Plaintiffs contend that this practice is materially misleading
and violates federal and state law.

McCormick is a Maryland corporation, with its principal place of
business located in Sparks, Maryland.  McCormick describes itself
as a global leader in flavor.  McCormick manufactures, markets,
and distributes spices, seasoning mixes, condiments, and
other flavor products to the entire food industry, including
retail outlets, food manufacturers, and food services businesses.

Publix is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of
business in Lakeland, Florida.  According to Publix, it is the
largest employee-owned retail grocery chain in the United States.
Publix distributes, markets, and sells Publix-branded Pure Ground
Black Pepper.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Mark Dearman, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E Palmetto Park Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          June P. Hoidal, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center, 80 S 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com
                  david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  june.hoidal@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015 USA
          Telephone: (224) 632-4505
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          KARON, LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com


MCCORMICK & CO: "Bunting" Suit Moved to MDL 2665 in Wash. D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bunting et al. v. Mccormick &
Company, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01648, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington,
DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
02154-ESH to the proceeding.

Defendant violated Consumer protection and food labeling laws of
the states of California, Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois, the
suit claims.

McCormick is market leader in sales of ground pepper in the United
States, packaged in its iconic red and white tins. For decades,
McCormick has sold its ground pepper in three tin sizes, which
contained 2, 4 and 8 ounces of pepper.

The Bunting case is being consolidated with MDL 2665 in re:
Mccormick & Company, Inc., Pepper Products Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. This litigation involves the alleged slack-filling of
McCormick black pepper products and consists of four actions
pending in four districts: a competitor action pending in the
District of Minnesota and three putative class actions brought on
behalf of a New York class of purchasers of McCormick black pepper
products and two nationwide classes of similar purchasers. In its
December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the share factual
questions about the propriety of McCormick's pricing and packaging
of its pepper products under various federal and state laws. The
panel persuaded that the District of the District of Columbia is
an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. McCormick
is based near Baltimore, Maryland, so relevant documents and
witnesses likely will be found there
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Gouya Ranekouhi, 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
                  gouya@kazlg.com

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mal: NYJG@aol.com
                 danalgottlieb@aol.com

MCCORMICK & CO: "Dupler" Suit Moved to MDL 2665 in Wash. D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dupler v. Mccormick & Company,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03454, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02152-ESH
to the proceeding.

McCormick is a Fortune 1000 company that manufactures spices,
herbs, and flavorings for retail, commercial, and industrial
markets. The company began in 1889 in Baltimore, Maryland, United
States.

The Dupler case is being consolidated with MDL 2665 in re:
McCormick & Company, Inc., Pepper Products Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. This litigation involves the alleged slack-filling of
McCormick black pepper products and consists of four actions
pending in four districts: a competitor action pending in the
District of Minnesota and three putative class actions brought on
behalf of a New York class of purchasers of McCormick black pepper
products and two nationwide classes of similar purchasers. In its
December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the share factual
questions about the propriety of McCormick's pricing and packaging
of its pepper products under various federal and state laws. The
panel persuaded that the District of the District of Columbia is
an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. McCormick
is based near Baltimore, Maryland, so relevant documents and
witnesses likely will be found there.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward S, Scheidman, Esq
          DLA PIPER
          Washington, DC
          Telephone: (202) 799 4534
          Facsimile: (202) 799 5534
          E-mail: edward.scheideman@dlapiper.com


MDL 2371: United Messaging & j2 Global Appeal Pending in 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal is pending related to a multi-district litigation in
Illinois, j2 Global, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance
as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the
Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this
litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company
with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global
affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of
defendants. While claims against some defendants have been
settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among
other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity
of the patents-in-suit.

On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a
claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final
judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on
that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14-1611). The appeal remains
pending.


MEDBOX INC: To Defend Against Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medbox, Inc. intends to vigorously defend against a consolidated
class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On January 21, 2015, Josh Crystal on behalf of himself and of all
others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for Central District of California against Medbox,
Inc., and certain past and present members of the Board (Pejman
Medizadeh, Bruce Bedrick, Thomas Iwanskai, Guy Marsala, and C.
Douglas Mitchell). The suit alleges that the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its financial
results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of
the interim financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks
relief of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses
or all damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing.

On January 18, 2015, Ervin Gutierrez filed a class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws through
public announcements and filings that were materially false and
misleading when made because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose that the Company was recognizing revenue in a manner that
violated US GAAP. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory
damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all damages sustained
as a result of the wrongdoing.

On January 29, 2015, Matthew Donnino filed a class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California. The
suit alleges that the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding its financial results for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of the interim
financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks relief for
compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all
damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23,
2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the three related
cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v.
Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead
plaintiff. On July 27, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The Company must file a responsive pleading on
or before December 4, 2015.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this suit. Due to
the early stages of the suit the Company is unable to determine
whether the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the dispute is
probable or remote, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of
potential loss, should the outcome be unfavorable.


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: "Hayes" Suit Moved to Data Breach MDL 2667
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hayes et al. v. Medical
Informatics Engineering, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01308, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Indiana (South Bend). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-00591-RLM-CAN to the proceeding.

Medical Informatics Engineering provides Web-based software
solutions for physician practices and enterprises operating on-
site employee health clinics. The company is based in Fort Wayne,
Indiana.

The Hayes case is being consolidated with MDL 2667 In re: Medical
Informatics Engineering, Inc Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 1, 2015.
These actions share factual questions arising from a data security
breach that allegedly occurred sometime between May 7 and May 26,
2015.

According to plaintiffs, this data breach resulted in the
electronic theft of personally identifiable information and
personal health information of some 3.9 million individuals whose
healthcare providers used electronic medical record services
provided by MIE. In its December 1, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Indiana
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this Litigation.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class
certification, and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.

Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon Robert L. Miller, United States
District Judge. Jurist with multidistrict litigation experience
and the ability to steer this litigation on an efficient and
prudent course are selected. The lead case is 3:15-md-02667-RLM-
CAN.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J Schuckit, Esq.
          SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC
          4545 Northwestern Dr
          Zionsville, IN 46077
          Telephone: (317) 363 2400
          Facsimile: (317) 363 2257
          E-mail: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Claudia D McCarron, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          550 E Swedesford Rd Ste 270
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone; (215) 977 4100
          Facsimile: (215) 966 4101
          E-mail: claudia.mccarron@lewisbrisbois.com


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: "Schuttler" Suit Moved to MDL 2667
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Schuttler v. Medical Informatics
Engineering, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09210, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (South Bend).
The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00592-
RLM-CAN to the proceeding.

Medical Informatics Engineering provides Web-based software
solutions for physician practices and enterprises operating on-
site employee health clinics. The company is based in Fort Wayne,
Indiana.

The Schuttler case is being consolidated with MDL 2667 In re:
Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 1, 2015.
These actions share factual questions arising from a data security
breach that allegedly occurred sometime between May 7 and May 26,
2015. According to plaintiffs, this data breach
resulted in the electronic theft of personally identifiable
information and personal health information of some 3.9 million
individuals whose healthcare providers used electronic medical
record services provided by MIE. In its December 1, 2015 Order,
the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern
District of Indiana will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
Litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect
to class certification, and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon Robert L. Miller, United States District Judge. Jurist with
multidistrict litigation experience and the ability to steer this
litigation on an efficient and prudent course are selected. The
lead case is 3:15-md-02667-RLM-CAN.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Hutton, Esq.
          Anne M. Hull, Esq.
          Blake A. Shuart, Esq.
          Deborah B. McIlhenny, Esq.
          Mark B Hutton, Esq.
          J. Darin Hayes, Esq.
          Hutton & Hutton Law Firm, LLC
          8100 E. 22nd Street N, Bldg. 1200
          PO Box 638
          Wichita, KS 67226
          Telephone: (316) 688 1166
          Facsimile: (316) 686 1077

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason D. Stitt, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          1605 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 150
          Wichita, KS 67206
          Telephone: (316) 609 7900
          Facsimile: (316) 462 5746


MEDICINES COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Sub Judice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Medicines Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit is under consideration by
the Court.

"On February 21, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against us
and certain of our current and former officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey by David Serr
on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired our
common stock between February 20, 2013 through February 12, 2014,
which we refer to as the class period," the Company said.  "On
July 22, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing one of our
stockholders, Warren H. Schuler, the lead plaintiff and Pomerantz
LLP the lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 17, 2014, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated
during the class period because we and certain current and former
officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper
disclosures regarding the results of clinical trials, which tested
the efficacy and safety of cangrelor."

Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that statements made
throughout the class period about the trials were misleading
because they failed to disclose that cangrelor did not show
superiority to the drug clopidogrel, that the clinical trials were
unethically and inappropriately administered, that clopidogrel was
not administered optimally, and that cangrelor patients exhibited
higher bleeding rates. The amended complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

"On November 17, 2014, we and certain of our current and former
officers moved to dismiss the amended complaint," the Company
said. "Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on
December 19, 2014 and we filed a reply brief in further support of
the motion on January 16, 2015. Briefing is now complete."

On July 16, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the motion,
which is now under consideration by the Court.

"We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit,
will deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful,"
the Company said.


MERCURY PAYMENT SYSTEMS: Archer's Barbeque Suit Moved to N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Archer's Barbeque, LLC et al. v.
Mercury Payment Systems, LLC et al., Case No. 2015cv266822, was
removed from Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-04311-MHC
to the proceeding.

Mercury Payment Systems provides payments technology and services
for small and medium sized businesses, merchants, and resellers in
the United States and Canada. It offers Mercury Pay, a payment
processing solution that enables merchant accept common payment
types and card brands; integrated payments services that enable
restaurant and retail store operators, and service providers to
accept common transactions directly from devices; and customer
service and technical support services. The Company is based in
Durango, Colorado.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Marc Buckner, Esq.
          Seth Miles, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH, PA
          2525 Ponce de Leon, Suite 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372 1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372 3508
          E-mail: David@bucknermiles.com

               - and -

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444 0773
          E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com
                  flemond@webbllc.com
                  mattklase@bellsouth.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          David A. Pope, Esq.
          Gregory J. Phillips, Esq.
          James E. Von Der Heydt, Esq.
          Joseph A. Castrodale, Esq.
          BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP
          2300 BP Tower
          200 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 363 4500
          Facsimile: (216) 363 4588

               - and -

          H. Wayne Phears, Esq.
          John-Malcolm McLeod Cox, Esq.
          McGuire Woods LLP-GA
          1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Promenade, Suite 2100
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3534
          Telephone: (404) 443 5718
          Facsimile: (404) 443 5770
          E-mail: wphears@mcguirewoods.com
                  jmcox@mcguirewoods.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: To Defend Against "Owens" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
intends to defend vigorously against the case, Owens v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17,
2014).

This putative class action lawsuit alleges that the Company's use
of retained asset accounts, known as the Total Control Accounts,
as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some
group life insurance policies violates the Company's fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company realized on accounts
owned by members of the putative class. The court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Dismissed "Robainas" Consolidated Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court in New
York has granted the Company's motion to dismiss the case,
Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., December
16, 2014).

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

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

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Issued Show Cause Order in "Intoccia"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court in New
York has issued an order to show cause why the case, Intoccia v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015), should not
be dismissed.

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

The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New York
Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums
paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to the
Annuities. On October 9, 2015, the court issued an order to show
cause why the Intoccia action should not be dismissed pursuant to
the reasoning in the court's order dismissing the Robainas case.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Ill. Ct. Settlement Approval Order Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that objectors to the
settlement in the case, Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County,
Ill., July 3, 2014), have appealed the approval order.

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Voshall" Disability Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
intends to defend vigorously the case, Voshall v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. (Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015)

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


MICROSEMI CORP: Credit Agreement Covenant Lawsuit Settled in July
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsemi Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that all of the
conditions of dismissal of a class action lawsuit were satisfied
as of July 30, 2015.

On February 23, 2015, the Ironworkers Local No. 25 Pension Fund
filed a shareholder derivative class action lawsuit in Delaware
Chancery Court against the Company's current and former directors,
including James J. Peterson, Dennis R. Leibel, Thomas R. Anderson,
William E. Bendush, Paul F. Folino, William L. Healey, Matthew E.
Massengill and James V. Mazzo, and Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC").
The lawsuit challenged a provision in the Company's credit
agreement, as amended prior to that date, that allegedly triggered
an event of default if a majority of the board of directors was
replaced through various means over a specified period of time.
The plaintiff alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties by permitting the Company to agree to the challenged change
of control term on the theory that the term could have had the
effect of entrenching incumbent board members. The lawsuit also
alleged that RBC aided and abetted the purported breaches of
fiduciary duties by the directors. The lawsuit sought an order
invalidating the challenged change of control term and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiff's lawyers.

On March 31, 2015, before any substantive proceedings in the
lawsuit, the Company amended the credit agreement to remove the
challenged change of control term, and disclosed the amendment in
a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 1, 2015.

On June 18, 2015, the Chancery Court entered an order of
dismissal, as stipulated by the parties, providing that the
lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff, and
without prejudice to other putative class members, following the
satisfaction of certain specified events including the payment of
an agreed-upon amount of attorneys' fees and costs to the
plaintiff's counsel and the filing of the Company's 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 28, 2015. All of the conditions of dismissal
were satisfied as of July 30, 2015.

"The final resolution of this matter did not have a material
impact on our financial position or results of operations," the
Company said.


MILLER ENERGY: "Gaynor" Shareholder Suit Moved to E.D. Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gaynor v. Miller et al. (TV2),
Case No. 2015-cv-34, was removed from the Morgan County Circuit
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee (Knoxville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-00545-TAV-HBG to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for Miller
Energy Resources, Inc.'s securities offerings contained
misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Miller Energy.  The individual
defendants are executives of Miller Energy.

Miller Energy sought bankruptcy protection October 1, 2015 and is
not named in the lawsuit.

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

Following the acquisition of the assets in Alaska, Miller Energy's
stock closed at an all-time high price of $8.83 per share on
December 9, 2013, a 1,447% increase over their stock's value in
2009.  According to the lawsuit, that jump in stock was because
the company's assets were not estimated at fair value in reports
between 2010 and 2015.

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

The class action claims that former chief financial officer, Paul
W. Boyd, and Hall, provided expense projections that were in many
cases significantly lower than expenses recorded by the previous
owners of the field.  The lawsuit claims internal documents
maintained by Hall indicated that the cost to drill a new well at
Redoubt Shoal field was roughly $13 million, however he told the
engineering firm preparing reports used to determine the value of
the company that the costs to drill at the field was only $4.6
million per well.

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

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

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

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

The Defendants in the case are: Deloy Miller, Scott M. Boruff,
David J. Voyticky, Catherine A. Rector, David M. Hall, Merrill A.
McPeak, Gerald Hannahs, Charles M. Stivers, Don A. Turkleson, Bob
G. Gower, Joseph T. Leary, William B. Richardson, Marceau N.
Schlumberger, Paul W. Boyd, MLV & Co. LLC, Williams Financial
Group, Maxim Group LLC, National Securities Corporation, Aegis
Capital Corp., Northland Capital Markets, Dominick & Dominick,
LLC, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. and I-Bankers Securities, Inc.

Williams Financial Group provides transactional and operational
support services and financial services products for brokers and
advisors in the United States. It offers transaction and execution
processing, operational and administrative, compliance supervision
and education, industry research, and personalized account
customer services. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.

Maxim Group is an investment banking and securities brokerage
firm. The firm offers retail brokerage, wealth management,
securities underwriting, private placements, loan syndication,
merger and acquisition, institutional fixed-income and option
trading, asset management, and research and global institutional
sales services. The company is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Martin Wood, Esq.
          Mary K Blasy, Esq.
          Samuel H Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          414 Union Street Ste 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252 3798
          E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          William Margrabe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490 9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986 0158

               - and -

          Douglas S Johnston Jr, Esq.
          Jerry E Martin, Esq.
          Timothy L Miles, Esq.
          BARRETT, JOHNSTON, MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252 3798
          E-mail: djohnston@barrettjohnston.com
                  jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  tmiles@barrettjohnston.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda MacDonald, Esq.
          Margaret A Keeley, Esq.
          Steven M Farina, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          Edward Bennett Williams Building
          725 Twelfth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005

               - and -

          Jeffery P Yarbro, Esq.
          Shayne R Clinton, Esq.
          W Brantley Phillips, Jr, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS, PLC
          The Pinnacle At Symphony Place
          150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742 7793
          E-mail: iyarbro@bassberry.com
                  sclinton@bassberry.com
                  bphillips@bassberry.com

MILLER ENERGY: "Goldberg" Suit Moved to E.D. Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Goldberg v. Miller et al., Case
No. 2015-CV-33, was removed from Court for Morgan County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
(Knoxville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
00546-TAV-CCS to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for Miller
Energy Resources, Inc.'s securities offerings contained
misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Miller Energy.  The individual
defendants are executives of Miller Energy.

Miller Energy sought bankruptcy protection October 1, 2015 and is
not named in the lawsuit.

Williams Financial Group provides transactional and operational
support services and financial services products for brokers and
advisors in the United States. It offers transaction and execution
processing, operational and administrative, compliance supervision
and education, industry research, and personalized account
customer services. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.

Maxim Group is an investment banking and securities brokerage
firm. The firm offers retail brokerage, wealth management,
securities underwriting, private placements, loan syndication,
merger and acquisition, institutional fixed-income and option
trading, asset management, and research and global institutional
sales services. The company is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Martin Wood, Esq.
          Mary K Blasy, Esq.
          Samuel H Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          414 Union Street Ste 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252 3798
          E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          William Margrabe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490 9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986 0158

          Douglas S Johnston, Jr, Esq.
          Jerry E Martin, Esq.
          Timothy L Miles, Esq.
          BARRETT, JOHNSTON, MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252 3798
          E-mail: djohnston@barrettjohnston.com
                  jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  tmiles@barrettjohnston.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lawrence P Leibowitz, Esq.
          LEIBOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          608 South Gay Street, Suite 200
          Knoxville, TN 37902-1637
          Telephone: (865) 637 1809
          Facsimile: (865) 637 9276
          E-mail: lpl@leibowitzfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert David Weber, Esq.
          DLA Piper LLP
          North Tower, Suite 400
          2000 Avenue of the Stars,
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 595 3000
          Facsimile: (310) 595 3300
          E-mail: robert.weber@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Jeffery P Yarbro, Esq.
          Shayne R Clinton, Esq.
          W Brantley Phillips, Jr, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS, PLC
          The Pinnacle At Symphony Place
          150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742 7793
          E-mail: iyarbro@bassberry.com
                  sclinton@bassberry.com
                  bphillips@bassberry.com


MIR JOFFREY: Faces Class Action Over "Smart Sinus" Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Schaumburg doctor, who specializes in the so-called "Smart Sinus"
procedure, has been served with a class action lawsuit brought by
a DuPage County couple alleging the doctor pulled a bait-and-
switch, misleading them and potentially other patients into
believing he would perform the medical procedure, only to switch
them with no warning or consent to another doctor who was outside
their insurance network, costing them money.

On Jan. 14, plaintiffs Mark and Holly Sherman, through their
attorneys from the firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin
LLC, of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against
physician Mir Joffrey and his medical practice, which according to
court documents does business as Smart Sinus and Allergy, Lift
Specialty and Lift Laser & Body on Woodfield Road in Schaumburg.

According to the complaint, Holly Sherman sought out Dr. Joffrey
to perform the "Smart Sinus" surgery on her sinuses in July.

Advertising for Dr. Joffrey's medical practice described the Smart
Sinus procedure as "a minimally invasive treatment for patients
suffering from chronic sinusitis who have failed maximal medical
therapy, including antibiotics and oral steroids."  According to
the marketing materials, the procedure "utilizes a balloon
technology . . . to gently dilate and open up clogged sinuses that
result in the miserable symptoms of chronic sinusitis."

The procedure is typically performed on an outpatient basis in the
doctor's office.

According to the Shermans' complaint, they chose Dr. Joffrey to
perform the procedure, in large part, because Dr. Joffrey was an
"'in network' provider for which plaintiffs could obtain full
benefits."  The complaint said that in-network status was
confirmed by both their insurer, Golden Rule/United Healthcare,
and by Dr. Joffrey's office staff.

They said they were also informed by Joffrey's staff that "Joffrey
would perform the procedure . . . and that the charges from the
procedure would be covered as 'in network' services."

However, about a month after undergoing the procedure at
Dr. Joffrey's office, the Shermans said their insurer informed
them Dr. Joffrey's office had submitted a claim indicating the
service had been performed by another doctor, identified in court
documents as Kaerzyna Iwanieki.  The insurer said this other
doctor "was not an 'in network' provider, and that there would be
a substantial financial penalty for using an out of network
provider."

Further, the Shermans said they were also billed for the services
of an anesthesiologist who, similarly, was not covered in their
insurance network.

The Shermans said at no time were they informed concerning the out
of network providers nor did they consent to the alleged physician
swap.

The Shermans' complaint indicated they believed this has likely
happened to others of Joffrey's patients.  They estimated there
may be more than 50 others who could join the putative plaintiffs'
class.

The Shermans said they believed Joffrey's practice's alleged
actions violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and constituted
breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

They have requested unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
plus court costs and attorney fees.


MISSION LINEN SUPPLY: "Densmore" Suit Moved to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Densmore v. Mission Linen Supply,
Case No. 15CECG03163, was removed from Fresno County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California (Fresno). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-01873-LJO-SKO to the proceeding.

Mission Linen Supply provides textile rental, uniform rental, and
industrial laundry services for hospitality, medical, and
industrial businesses. The company offers uniforms and linens;
floor care products, such as entrance, safety, utility, kitchen,
logo, scraper, anti-fatigue, and flow-thru mats; and restroom
supplies, including air deodorizers, sanitizers, paper products,
soaps, hand sanitizers, dispensers, toilet seat covers, feminine
sanitary bin, restroom mats, deodorizing blocks, autoflush, and
touch-free solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCISTES, APLC
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 312 0299
          Facsimile: (310) 312 0296
          E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rafael Gonzalez, Esq.
          MULLEN AND HENZELL LLP
          112 East Victoria Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 966 1501
          Facsimile: (805) 966 9204
          E-mail: rgonzalez@mullenlaw.com


MODEL N: To Contribute $250,000 in Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Model N, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
that on November 4, 2015, all parties to the consolidated class
action lawsuit against Model N, Inc. and certain of the company's
current and former directors and executive officers and
underwriters of the initial public offering reached a mutually
acceptable resolution by way of a mediated settlement. The
agreement in principle calls for the company to contribute
$250,000 toward the settlement, with the remainder to be covered
by the company's D&O insurance. The company is satisfied with this
resolution given the risks and expenses associated with further
litigation. The settlement is subject to court approval.


MORRIS & REYNOLDS: "Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Garcia v. Morris & Reynolds, Inc.
et al., Case No. 15-23996 CA 01, was removed from 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-24546-MGC to the proceeding.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay overtime and/or minimum
wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Morris & Reynolds is a travelers indemnity company based in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiffs sre 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:

          Robert Stuart Turk, Esq.
          Bayardo E. Aleman, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON
          Museum Tower
          150 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789 3200
          Facsimile: (305) 789 3395
          E-mail: rturk@stearnsweaver.com
                  baleman@stearnsweaver.com


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 101 Recall Cases Filed as of Oct. 16
--------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as
of October 16, 2015, 101 putative class actions have been filed
against New GM related to the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the
underlying condition of vehicles covered by those recalls.

In its annual report on Form 10-K filed February 4, 2015, New GM
disclosed that, since the beginning of 2014, New GM had recalled
approximately 2.6 million vehicles to repair ignition switches or
to fix ignition lock cylinders, or the Ignition Switch Recall, and
had recalled an additional 33.4 million vehicles to address
certain electrical and other safety concerns, including
approximately 12.1 million vehicles to rework or replace ignition
keys. New GM does not consider any of these 12.1 million vehicles
to be a part of the Ignition Switch Recall.

Many of the vehicles affected by the foregoing recalls were
manufactured or sold prior to July 10, 2009, or the Closing Date,
the date on which the sale of substantially all of the assets of
Old GM pursuant to the MSPA was completed.

In its quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed October 21, 2015, New
GM also disclosed that, as of October 16, 2015, 101 putative class
actions have been filed against New GM in various federal and
state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for economic
losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls
announced in 2014 and/or the underlying condition of vehicles
covered by those recalls. Certain of these 101 cases, or the
Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions, concern the Ignition Switch
Recall, certain other cases, or the Other Economic Loss Actions,
concern recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet
others concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more
other recalls (such actions are described herein interchangeably
as Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions or Other Economic Loss
Actions). In addition, New GM disclosed that, as of October 16,
2015, 208 actions have been filed against New GM in various
federal and state courts seeking compensatory and other damages
for personal injury and other claims allegedly arising from
accidents that occurred as a result of the underlying condition of
the vehicles subject to the recalls initiated by New GM. Certain
of these 208 cases, or the Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall, certain other cases,
or the Other Personal Injury Actions, concern recalls other than
the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet others concern both the
Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other recalls (such actions
are described herein interchangeably as Ignition Switch Personal
Injury Actions or Other Personal Injury Actions).

Since June 2014, 233 Recall-Related Actions have been transferred
to the United States District Court of the Southern District of
New York, or the MDL Court, and have been consolidated into a
single case, case number 14-MD-2543 (JMF), or the MDL Proceeding.

Concurrently with the proceedings before the MDL Court, New GM has
taken steps in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin the Subject Recall-
Related Actions. In that respect, beginning on April 21, 2014, New
GM filed a series of motions with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to
enjoin the Subject Recall-Related Actions and to enforce the Sale
Order and Injunction entered on July 5, 2009, or the Sale Order
(under which all product liability and property damage claims
arising from accidents or incidents prior to the Closing Date were
to remain with Old GM as general unsecured claims), or the Motions
to Enforce.

Beginning on May 16, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered a series
of scheduling orders which identified a number of "threshold
issues" to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court, including (i)
whether plaintiffs' procedural due process rights were violated in
connection with the 363 Transaction, (ii) if such due process
rights were violated, what is the appropriate remedy, (iii)
whether any or all of the claims asserted in the Subject Recall-
Related Actions are claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust,
and (iv) whether any such claims against Old GM and/or the GUC
Trust should be dismissed as equitably moot. The GUC Trust
appeared as a party in interest with respect to New GM's Motions
to Enforce and filed briefs in opposition thereto, asserting that
none of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Subject Recall-Related
Actions may be properly asserted against Old GM or the GUC Trust.

On April 15, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court rendered a decision, or
the Threshold Issues Decision, on the threshold issues holding
(among other things) that the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch
Economic Loss Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions may seek authorization to file late claims in the
bankruptcy cases of Old GM, but that any such claims as against
the GUC Trust are "equitably moot" (that is, fashioning relief for
the plaintiffs against the GUC Trust would be "impractical,
imprudent and therefore inequitable"), and thus the assets of the
GUC Trust cannot be used to satisfy such claims, or the Equitable
Mootness Finding.

On June 1, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court issued a judgment, or the
Threshold Issues Judgment, which clarifies the terms of the
Threshold Issues Decision and distills the Bankruptcy Court's
holdings into a binding order. The Threshold Issues Judgment
provides, in pertinent part:

     (A) The plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss
Actions suffered a due process violation with respect to the Sale
Order, whereas the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Personal
Injury Actions did not suffer a due process violation with respect
to the Sale Order;

     (B) As a result of the due process violation, the provisions
of the Sale Order which purport to shield New GM from any
liability associated with its independent post-Sale actions can be
modified, and the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss
Actions may proceed against New GM with respect to its independent
post-Sale actions;

     (C) Any claims asserted in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss
Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions that
relate to actions of Old GM are enjoined from being pursued
against New GM on successor liability grounds;

     (D) Given the Equitable Mootness Finding, the assets of the
GUC Trust cannot be utilized to satisfy any claims that may be
filed by plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions
and Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions after the date of
entry of the Threshold Issues Judgment; and

     (E) Pursuant to section 502(j) of the Bankruptcy Code, assets
of the GUC Trust may be used to satisfy previously allowed or
disallowed claims that are reconsidered for cause. Hence, any
person who holds a previously allowed or disallowed claim may seek
to have that claim reconsidered by the Bankruptcy Court, and in
the event that any such claimant prevails in an application for
reconsideration, the resulting additional allowed claims could
dilute the recoveries of holders of Units in the GUC Trust.

The Equitable Mootness Finding became binding on plaintiffs in the
Other Economic Loss Actions and Other Personal Injury Actions
pursuant to a decision and order of the Bankruptcy Court dated
September 3, 2015. In addition, following entry of the Threshold
Issues Judgment, certain plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
the MDL Proceeding on June 12, 2015. New GM and those plaintiffs
have submitted briefs and argued before the Bankruptcy Court as to
whether the claims asserted in the amended complaint concerning
vehicles designed, manufactured or sold prior to the Closing Date
arise from the independent conduct of New GM. The Bankruptcy Court
has not yet issued a decision.

Certain plaintiffs in the Recall-Related Actions are appealing the
Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment, and New
GM and the GUC Trust have each filed cross-appeals with respect to
the Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment. On
September 22, 2015, the Second Circuit entered an order granting a
direct appeal of the Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold
Issues Judgment to the Second Circuit. On November 2, 2015, the
Second Circuit entered an order setting an expedited briefing
schedule with respect to the appeal. Pursuant to the scheduling
order, briefing shall commence on November 16, 2015 and conclude
on February 22, 2016, and oral argument shall be heard as early as
the week of March 14, 2016. If the Bankruptcy Court's Equitable
Mootness Finding is not overturned on appeal, the claims of the
plaintiffs in the Recall-Related Actions (even if allowed by the
Bankruptcy Court) may not dilute the recoveries of holders of
Units in the GUC Trust. However, in the event that the decision is
overturned with respect to the Equitable Mootness Finding, it is
possible that those plaintiffs could seek to assert claims against
the GUC Trust, which claims (if allowed) could dilute the
recoveries of holders of Units in the GUC Trust.

On June 24, 2015, certain plaintiffs in the Recall-Related Actions
filed a pleading, or the Stay Motion, requesting a "stay", or
suspension, of all interim GUC Trust distributions to holders of
GUC Trust Units while appeals and cross-appeals of the Threshold
Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment are pending. On
October 14, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court rendered a decision on the
Stay Motion, or the Stay Decision. The Stay Decision imposed a
temporary stay on GUC Trust distributions, but conditioned the
extension of such stay on the posting of a bond by the Plaintiffs
by October 28, 2015 in the amount of $10.6 million.

On October 27, 2015, the moving plaintiffs filed a Motion of the
Ignition Switch Plaintiffs and Certain Non-Ignition Switch
Plaintiffs for Reconsideration of the Decision and Order on
Request for Stay, or the Reconsideration Motion. The
Reconsideration Motion sought to modify or amend the Stay Decision
to permit interim distributions from the GUC Trust, but to
condition such distributions on a future disgorgement by the
holders of GUC Trust Units in the event that the plaintiffs are
successful in overturning the Equitable Mootness Finding on
appeal.

On October 28, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order denying
the Reconsideration Motion. As the moving plaintiffs also did not
post the required bond by the required time, the GUC Trust became
free to make distributions to holders of GUC Trust Units at that
time.


MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Faces Class Action Over Product Safety Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vimbai Chikomo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a sports
nutrition and supplements company facing a class action lawsuit
claiming its ingredients are not Food and Drug Administration-
approved is standing behind its products.

On Dec. 17, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, Mason Dabish and Bill Bohr filed a class action
lawsuit against MusclePharm Corp, accusing the company of breach
of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and violations of
California State Laws.

According to the plaintiffs, MusclePharm allegedly sells products
containing newly formulated ingredients designed to increase
effectiveness by fusing an amino or organic acid with a nitrate.

The plaintiffs claim that MusclePharm promotes these ingredients
as safe and advertises them as having addition benefits over
products containing traditional compounds. But the plaintiffs
disagree.

MusclePharm released the following statement to Legal Newsline:

"MusclePharm adheres to the strictest standards to deliver the
safest, most effective products on the market.  We are confident
that the allegations are without merit and MusclePharm will defend
the lawsuit vigorously.  We stand by the safety, efficacy, and
legality of every ingredient we use.

"To date, we have spent over $10 million dollars in research and
development to ensure our customers have the most innovative, yet
safest products possible."

The lawsuit claims that the new ingredients fall into the "new
dietary ingredients" category, and thus, MusclePharm must submit
evidence to the FDA that these ingredients are not harmful.

The plaintiffs allege that MusclePharm has not provided the
required information to the FDA, and also claim that the
supplements do not provide the benefits as advertised.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation in excess of $5 million in
actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, punitive and statutory
damages, interests, attorney fees and costs of the lawsuit.

MusclePharm went on to defend the company's use of nitrates,
asserting that they are used widely within the industry.

"Nitrates are a commonly used ingredient in pre-workout products.
Top respectable brands use it--in fact the #1 selling pre-workout
in the market uses nitrates and has for years.

"In addition, the safety of dietary nitrate ingredients is
supported through multiple studies, including a published clinical
study by MusclePharm Sports Science Institute, in conjunction with
the University of Tampa.

MusclePharm markets a variety of sports nutrition products and
supplements for athletes, including pre-workout, protein powder
and post-workout drinks.  Some of its products include the Arnold
Schwarzenegger Series Iron Pump Pre-Workout Powder, MusclePharm
Arnold Schwarzenegger Series Iron Cre3 Creatine Powder,
MusclePharm Creatine Supplement, MusclePharm Arnold Schwarzenegger
Series Iron Dream Nighttime Support Powder and MusclePharm Assault
Pre-Workout Powder.

This is not the first time a class has made accusations against
the company.  In January 2015, a lawsuit was filed against
MusclePharm in a California federal court alleging that the sports
nutrition company was misleading customers about the amount of
protein its products contain, specifically the MusclePharm Arnold
Schwarzenegger Series Iron Mass.

Other sports nutrition and supplements companies have faced
similar "protein-spiking" allegations.  In July 2014, NBTY Inc.,
United States Nutrition Inc. and Healthwatchers Inc. faced a class
action suit alleging that the three companies engaged in "protein-
spiking" in the popular Body Fortress line of protein powders.

Marianna Naum, Strategic Communications and Public Engagement
Staff for the FDA informed Legal Newsline that the FDA defines a
"new dietary ingredient" as a vitamin, mineral, herb/other
botanical, amino acid, dietary substance used to supplement the
diet by increasing the total dietary intake, or a concentrate,
metabolite, constituent or extract.

The FDA also specifies that a new dietary ingredient is one that
has not been sold in a dietary supplement in the U.S. before
Oct.15, 1994.

If a manufacturer or distributor plans to sell a new dietary
ingredient in a dietary supplement anywhere in the country, it is
required to notify the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act
(DSHEA) and provide information explaining why the ingredient is
"reasonably" expected to be safe for consumption.

Once the information is submitted, the FDA has 75 days to
acknowledge its receipt in writing, and specifies the date the
notification was received.  The manufacturer or the distributor is
not allowed to market the new dietary ingredient for the first 75
days after the filing date.

The FDA states that it "takes numerous actions on dietary
supplements to protect public health."

MusclePharm was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Denver.
Its products are sold in more than 120 countries.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Tavern Suit Moved to MDL 2668 in C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled 8812 Tavern Corp. d/b/a Bench
Sports Bar et al. v. National Football League, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-06771, 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-09529-BRO-JEM to the proceeding.

The Defendants allegedly protect and increase the monopoly profits
earned from the live broadcast of Sunday afternoon out of market
NFL games.

National Football League owns and operates a football league in
the United States and internationally. The company offers news,
videos, teams, players, scores, schedules, stats, and standings;
and online services, such as game rewind, field pass, game pass,
and tools and widgets. The legue is based in New York, New York.
DIRECTV Holdings operates as holding company. The Company through
its subsidiaries provides digital direct-to-home television
services via satellite. The Company is based in El Segundo,
California.

The 8812 Tavern case is being consolidated with MDL 2668 In re:
National Football League's Sunday Ticket antitrust litigation.
The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8, 2015. These actions
share complex factual questions arising out of allegations that
the NFL and DIRECTV have entered into anticompetitive agreements
granting DIRECTV the exclusive right to broadcast certain NFL
Sunday afternoon football games outside of a viewer's local
television market, in violation of federal and state antitrust
law. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Reid O'Connell. The lead case
is 2:15-ml-02668-BRO-JEM.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arun S Subramanian, Esq.
          Ian M Gore, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          650 Lexington Avenue 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-8346
          Facsimile: (212) 336 8340
          E-mail: asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
                  igore@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com
                  bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Averts Class Action Over Ticketing Process
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a proposed
class action alleging the National Football League inflated Super
Bowl ticket prices fails because the plaintiffs have no standing
to sue, the Third Circuit affirmed.

Josh Finkelman bought two tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl in
New Jersey on the resale market for $2,000 apiece; they had a face
value of $800.  Ben Hoch-Parker decided not to buy tickets when he
saw how expensive they were for resale.

The two filed a class action against the NFL, alleging that the
NFL's ticketing practices violated New Jersey law.  They argued
that the NFL distributed 99 percent of Super Bowl tickets to
league insiders and only made 1 percent available to the general
public, who had to enter a lottery for the chance to buy tickets.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held Jan. 14 that
neither had constitutional standing to bring the case.

"Were we to decide otherwise, anyone who purchased a Super Bowl
ticket on the resale market would have standing to sue in federal
court based on nothing more than conjectural assertions of
causation and injury," the court said.

Ticket Law

The plaintiffs relied on the New Jersey "Ticket Law," N.J. Stat.
Ann. Sec. 56.8-35.1, part of the state's Consumer Fraud Act.

That law makes it unlawful to withhold more than a certain number
of tickets to an event from sale to the general public.

The district court held that the plaintiffs didn't plead a viable
claim under the law, and that Mr. Finkelman failed to plead
causation because he couldn't demonstrate that he suffered an
injury from the NFL's alleged misconduct.

Hoch-Parker didn't have standing because he didn't show that he
suffered any harm "beyond pure speculation and mere hypothetical,"
the district court ruled.

'Speculation Is Not Enough.'

The appeals court agreed that Hoch-Parker didn't suffer a
"particularized" injury because he never purchased tickets to the
game.  The amount of damages he might have suffered due to the
NFL's misconduct is "completely indeterminate," it said.

But the appeals court criticized the district court for getting to
the merits of Mr. Finkelman's claim because he also doesn't have
standing.

He didn't adequately assert that his inability to buy a face-price
ticket is fairly traceable to any actions by the NFL.  Instead,
any harm he suffered is properly attributed to his own decision
not to enter the ticket lottery, the court said.

The court also rejected the argument that but for the NFL's
alleged wrongdoing, the price Mr. Finkelman paid for a resold
ticket would have been cheaper.

"We have no way of knowing whether the NFL's withholding of
tickets would have had the effect of increasing or decreasing
prices on the secondary market," the court said.  "We can only
speculate -- and speculation is not enough to sustain Article III
standing."

Nagel Rice LLP represented the plaintiffs.

Haynes & Boone LLP and Fox Rothschild LLP represented the NFL.


NOBILIS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on Jan. 20 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all persons or
entities who acquired Nobilis Health Corporation (NYSE:HLTH)
securities between April 2, 2015 and January 6, 2016, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Nobilis, together with its subsidiaries, acquires and manages
ambulatory surgical centers and healthcare facilities in the
United States.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(i) Nobilis's financial statements contained numerous errors
concerning the company's classification of warrants and options,
business combination accounting, share-based compensation, and
other financial and operating results; (ii) Nobilis had overstated
its net income for the year ended December 31, 2014 by more than
$4 million; (iii) Nobilis had overstated its net income for the
quarter ended March 31, 2015 by more than $3.27 million; and (iv)
as a result of the foregoing, Nobilis's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 9, 2015, Seeking Alpha published an article entitled
"Nobilis: About To Fall From Nobility, Part I, 65%+ Downside",
which raised a number of questions regarding Nobilis's accounting
practices.

Following this news, shares of Nobilis fell $1.42, or over 27%, to
close at $3.82 on October 9, 2015.

On November 11, 2015, post-market, Nobilis announced that the
company's preliminary results for the third quarter of 2015 and
the company's final earnings release would be delayed.

Following this news, shares of Nobilis fell $0.65, or over 18%, to
close at $2.95 on November 12, 2015.

On January 5, 2016, in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC, Nobilis
disclosed that its financial statements for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, the quarters ended March 31, 2015 and June 30,
2015 and the financial statements in its updated S-1 registration
statement filed with the SEC on October 23, 2015 could no longer
be relied upon.

Then, on January 7, 2016, Nobilis announced that defendant
Christopher J. Lloyd had resigned as the Company's Chief Executive
Officer.

Following this news, Nobilis stock fell $0.63, or more than 20%,
to close at $2.47 on January 7, 2016.

If you purchased Nobilis securities during the Class Period, have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters please contact J. Brandon
Walker, Esq. by email at investigations@bespc.com or telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation.


NOBILIS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 19 announced that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Nobilis Health Corp. ("Nobilis" or the
"Company") (NYSE:HLTH) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of Texas, and docketed under 15-cv-00141, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Nobilis
securities between April 2, 2015 and January 6, 2016 inclusive
(the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Nobilis securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 21, 2016 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Nobilis, together with its subsidiaries, acquires and manages
ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and healthcare facilities in
the United States.  Its ASCs are licensed ambulatory surgery
centers that provide scheduled surgical procedures in clinical
specialties, including orthopedic surgery, podiatric surgery, ENT,
pain management, gastro-intestinal, gynecology, and general
surgery.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Nobilis's financial statements
contained numerous errors concerning the Company's classification
of warrants and options, business combination accounting, share-
based compensation, and other financial and operating results;
(ii) Nobilis had overstated its net income for the year ended
December 31, 2014 by more than $4 million; (iii) Nobilis had
overstated its net income for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 by
more than $3.27 million; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing,
Nobilis's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On September 2, 2015, Calvetti Ferguson P.C. ("Calvetti Ferguson")
tendered its resignation as Nobilis's auditor, effective as of
August 14, 2015.  Concurrently, the Company's Audit Committee and
Board of Directors respectively recommended and approved Nobilis's
engagement of Crowe Horwath LLP ("Crowe Horwath") as the Company's
new auditor.

On October 9, 2015, Seeking Alpha published an article entitled
"Nobilis: About To Fall From Nobility, Part I, 65%+ Downside" (the
"October Seeking Alpha Report").  The October Seeking Alpha Report
raised a number of questions regarding Nobilis' accounting
practices.

As a result of this news, shares of Nobilis fell $1.42, or over
27%, to close at $3.82 on October 9, 2015.

On November 11, 2015, post-market, Nobilis announced that the
Company's preliminary results for the third quarter of 2015 and
the Company's final earnings release would be delayed.

As a result of this news, shares of Nobilis fell $0.65, or over
18%, to close at $2.95 on November 12, 2015.

On January 5, 2016, post-market, Nobilis confirmed what the
Company had strongly implied by failing to announce its quarterly
earnings in November 2015.  In a current report filed on Form 8-K
with the SEC, Nobilis disclosed that its financial statements for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, the quarters ended March
31, 2015 and June 30, 2015 and the financial statements in its
updated S-1 registration statement filed with the SEC on October
23, 2015 can no longer be relied upon.

On January 7, 2016, pre-market, Nobilis announced that defendant
Christopher J. Lloyd ("Lloyd") had resigned as the Company's Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO").

As a result of this news, Nobilis stock fell $0.63, or more than
20%, to close at $2.47 on January 7, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


NSK LTD: Accused of Conspiring to Fix Prices of Small Bearings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bearing Service, Inc., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. NSK Ltd., NSK Americas, Inc., and NSK
Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-13945-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich.,
November 9, 2015) alleges that the Defendants engaged in a global
conspiracy that effectively operated to artificially inflate, fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Small Bearings sold in the
United States from June 2003 through the present.

NSK Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
business in Tokyo, Japan.  NSK Americas, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Ann Arbor,
Michigan.  NSK Corporation has its principal place of business in
Ann Arbor.

The Defendants are manufacturers and suppliers of small-sized
bearings sold in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
          38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  bcaldes@srkw-law.com
                  jjagher@srkw-law.com
                  jspector@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIEVAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  msmith@preti.com

               - and -

          M. John Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1431
          E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          E-mail: mruan@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
          Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                  tbright@cerallp.com
                  pmarkert@cerallp.com


NUCOR CORPORATION: Defending Antitrust Action in N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation is defending against antitrust class-action
complaints filed in Illinois, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2015.

Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a
co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints
filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The majority of these complaints were filed in September
and October of 2008, with two additional complaints being filed in
July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints have been
voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending.

The plaintiffs allege that from April 1, 2005, through December
31, 2007, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in
anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale
of steel. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief on behalf
of themselves and a putative class of all purchasers of steel
products from the defendants in the U.S. between April 1, 2005,
and December 31, 2007.

Five of the eight defendants have reached court approved
settlements with the plaintiffs.

On September 9, 2015, the District Court entered an order ruling
on issues of class certification, which granted in part, and
denied in part, the plaintiffs' motion, certifying a class solely
on the issue of whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy in
violation of the antitrust laws, and declining to certify a class
on the issues of antitrust impact and damages.

"Although we believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
will vigorously defend against them, we cannot at this time
predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate the range of
Nucor's potential exposure. Nucor has not recorded any reserves or
contingencies related to this legal matter," the Company said.


OGLETHORPE POWER: Plaintiffs Challenge Special Master's Orders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oglethorpe Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a special
master has issued proposed orders to grant the Company's and the
other defendants' motions to dismiss both patronage capital class
action lawsuits on all counts. These orders have been challenged
by the plaintiffs and remain subject to approval by the Court.

"On March 13, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
DeKalb County, Georgia, against us, Georgia Transmission
Corporation and three of our member distribution cooperatives.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 28, 2014," the
Company said.  "The amended complaint challenges the patronage
capital distribution practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives
and seeks to certify a defendant class of all but one of our 38
members. It was filed by four former consumer-members of four of
our members on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of all
former consumer-members of our members."

"Plaintiffs claim that approximately 30% of all the defendants'
total allocated patronage capital belongs to former consumer-
members. Plaintiffs also allege that patronage capital owed to
former consumer-members includes patronage capital allocated by us
to our members but not yet distributed to our members.

"Plaintiffs claim that the patronage capital of former consumer-
members held by defendants and the proposed defendant class should
be retired immediately when the consumer-members end their
membership by terminating service, or alternatively, according to
a revolving schedule of no longer than 13 years from the date of
its allocation and seek relief to effect such retirements.
Plaintiffs further seek to require the defendants to adjust rates
in order to establish and maintain reasonable reserves to fund
patronage capital retirements on this basis.

"Plaintiffs also claim that defendants and the proposed defendant
class should be required to adopt policies to periodically retire
the patronage capital of all consumer-members on a revolving
schedule of no longer than 13 years from the date of its
allocation.

"Our first mortgage indenture restricts our ability to distribute
patronage capital. Although not expected, if we were ordered by
the Court to make distributions of our patronage capital, our
first mortgage indenture would require us to raise our rates to a
level sufficient so that we could comply with the current
patronage capital distribution restrictions, and the rate
increases required to meet the Plaintiffs' demands would be
significant for a period of years.

"On August 20, 2014, a second patronage capital lawsuit was filed
in the Superior Court of DeKalb County against us, Georgia
Transmission, and two of our member distribution cooperatives. The
case was filed by two current consumer-members of the two member
distribution cooperatives named in the lawsuit."

This complaint challenges the patronage capital distribution
practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives; however, one notable
difference is that the first case seeks to bring claims on behalf
of former members while this second case seeks to bring claims on
behalf of current members.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have (i) retained
patronage capital for an unreasonably long period of time; (ii)
conspired with each other to deprive consumer-members of their
patronage capital; and (iii) breached bylaw provisions allegedly
requiring that patronage capital be retired when the financial
condition of the cooperative will not be impaired. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages and equitable relief, including an order
declaring that the defendants be required to retire patronage
capital "according to a regular, reasonable revolving plan."

"Although not expected, if we were ordered by the Court to make
distributions of our patronage capital, our first mortgage
indenture would require us to raise our rates to a level where we
could comply with current patronage capital distribution
restrictions, and the rate increases required to meet the
Plaintiff's demands could be significant for a period of years.
The plaintiffs seek to certify three plaintiffs' classes but do
not seek to certify a defendants' class," the Company said.

In May 2015, the Superior Court judge for both patronage capital
lawsuits appointed a special master to oversee all pre-trial
issues relating to these cases, including motions to dismiss that
the Company and the other defendants filed in connection with each
lawsuit.

"In September, the special master issued proposed orders to the
judge to grant our and the other defendants' motions to dismiss
both patronage capital lawsuits on all counts. These orders have
been challenged by the plaintiffs and remain subject to approval
by the Court. If approved, the Court's decision to grant the
motions to dismiss will be subject to appeal," the Company said.
"We intend to defend vigorously against all claims in the above-
described litigation.


ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: April 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on Jan. 20 announced the
preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of common stock of Orthofix International
N.V.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED COMMON STOCK OF
ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL N.V. ("ORTHOFIX") BETWEEN MARCH 2, 2010 AND
JULY 29, 2013, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a proposed Settlement has been
reached in this Action. A hearing will be held with respect to the
Settlement on April 28, 2016, at 4:30 P.M. before the Honorable
John G. Koeltl, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Courtroom 12B, New York, New
York 10007.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the proposed
Settlement of the securities class action claims asserted in this
Action, pursuant to which Orthofix will cause to be deposited into
a Settlement Fund the sum of eleven million U.S. dollars
($11,000,000.00) in exchange for the dismissal of the Action with
prejudice and a release of claims against the Defendants and
Released Parties, should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Class. If
you purchased Orthofix common stock during the Class Period, you
may be entitled to share in the distribution of the Settlement
Fund if you submit a Proof of Claim Form postmarked no later than
April 16, 2016 to the Claims Administrator at: Orthofix Securities
Settlement, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 3, Media, PA 19063, and if
the information and documentation you provide in that Proof of
Claim Form establishes that you are entitled to a recovery.

This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters regarding
the Action and the Settlement.  A detailed notice (the "Notice")
describing the Action, the proposed Settlement, and the rights of
Class Members to appear in Court at the Final Approval Hearing, to
request to be excluded from the Class, and/or to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request by Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses, has been mailed to persons or entities known
to be potential Class Members.  You may obtain a copy of that
Notice, a Proof of Claim Form, the Settlement and other
information at www.orthofixsecuritiessettlement.com or by writing
to the following address or calling the following telephone
number.

          Orthofix Securities Settlement
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          600 N. Jackson St.
          Suite 3
          Media, PA 19063
          Tel: (866) 274-4004

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request by Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses,
or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting no later than
April 7, 2016, a written objection in accordance with the
procedures described in the Notice.  You also have the right to
exclude yourself from the Class by submitting no later than
April 7, 2016, a written request for exclusion from the Class in
accordance with the procedures described in the Notice.  If the
Settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound by the
Settlement and the Court's Judgment, including the releases
provided for in the Settlement and Judgment, unless you submit a
request to be excluded.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, Proof
of Claim Form and the Settlement referenced above, may be made to
Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff:

          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          Daniel S. Sommers
          1100 New York Ave N.W.
          Suite 500, East Tower
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Tel: (202) 408-4600
          Email: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com

Dated: December 18, 2015

By Order of the Court,
United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York


PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Continental Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Multnomah County Circuit Court has not yet issued a ruling on the
motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit.

On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Class Action)
was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the
County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money with
Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland (collectively, Berjac).
The Berjac entities merged and the surviving company, Berjac of
Oregon, is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Class Action
complaint, which has been amended several times, currently asserts
three claims against Pacific Continental Bank, Fred "Jack" W.
Holcomb, Holcomb Family Trust, Jones & Roth, P.C. and Umpqua Bank,
as defendants. The lawsuit asserts that Pacific Continental Bank
is jointly and severally liable for materially aiding or
participating in Berjac's sales of securities in violation of the
Oregon Securities Law. Claimants seek the return of the money
placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus
interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. The current version of
the complaint seeks $44 million in damages from all defendants.

After a lengthy proceeding to determine whether jurisdiction over
the Class Action is properly in the state or federal court, on
January 14, 2015, the federal court ruled that jurisdiction is
properly in the state court. The Class Action is now pending in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Multnomah. Pacific Continental Bank and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss. A hearing on the motions to dismiss was held
on October 28, 2015. The Multnomah County Circuit Court has not
yet issued a ruling on the motions to dismiss.


PAGEDALE, MO: Accused of Employing Excessive Fines & Police Power
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valarie Whitner, Vincent Blount, and Mildred Bryant, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of
Pagedale, a Missouri municipal Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-
01655-RWS (E.D. Mo., November 4, 2015) challenges the City's
ordinance enforcement and the prosecution and adjudication of
ordinance violations in municipal court.

The Plaintiffs allege they have been ticketed or fined for
violations of ordinances pertaining to the condition of their
residential property.  They accuse the City of violating their due
process rights, violating the excessive fines clause of the Eighth
Amendment, and of acting in excess of its police power.

The city of Pagedale is a Missouri municipal corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William R. Maurer, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, WASHINGTON CHAPTER
          10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 1760
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Telephone: (425) 646-9300
          Facsimile: (425) 990-6500
          E-mail: wmaurer@ij.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy J. Reichardt, Esq.
          Andrew T. Tangaro, Esq.
          Joseph C. Vitale, Esq.
          BEHR, McCARTER & POTTER, P.C.
          7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1400
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 862-3800
          Facsimile: (314) 862-3953
          E-mail: treichardt@bmplaw.com
                  atangaro@bmplaw.com
                  jvitale@bmplaw.com


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Court Set March 2017 Trial Date in KB Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pain Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has
set a new trial date of March 2017 in the case, KB Partners I,
L.P., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav Friedmann and
Peter S. Roddy.

"On December 2, 2011," the Company said, "a purported class action
was filed against us and our executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas. This complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, arising out of allegedly untrue or misleading
statements of material facts made by us regarding REMOXY's
development and regulatory status during the purported class
period, February 3, 2011 through June 23, 2011. The complaint
states that monetary damages are being sought, but no amounts are
specified. On June 3, 2013, the Court certified a class consisting
of all purchasers of our common stock and a class period of
December 27, 2010 through June 26, 2011. On July 7, 2015, the
Court set a new trial date of March 2017."


PEABODY ENERGY: Defending "Lynn" ERISA & 401(k) Plan Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit by
Lori J. Lynn, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On June 11, 2015, a former Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC)
employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of
three of the Company's or its subsidiaries' 401(k) retirement
plans and certain participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The
lawsuit, which was brought against the Company, Peabody Holding
Company, LLC (PHC), PIC and a number of the Company's and PIC's
current and former executives and employees, alleges breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) relating to the offering of the Peabody Energy
Stock Fund as an investment option in the 401(k) retirement plans.

On September 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
which, among other things, named a new plaintiff and named all of
the current members and two former members of the board as
defendants. The class period (December 2012 to present) remains
unchanged. The defendants' response to the amended complaint was
due November 6, 2015. The defendants dispute the allegations of
the lawsuit and plan to vigorously defend their positions. Based
on current information the Company believes these claims are
likely to be finalized without a material adverse effect of its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


PENNANTPARK FLOATING: Eyes Class Action Settlement Stipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pennantpark Floating Rate Capital Ltd. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2015, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015,
that parties in a consolidated class action lawsuit have planned
to file a stipulation of settlement with the court.

Between May 6, 2015, and May 18, 2015, a number of putative class
action lawsuits were filed by former stockholders of MCG
challenging the Company's acquisition of MCG in the Delaware Court
of Chancery. The complaints were consolidated and on June 10,
2015, a consolidated class action complaint was filed. The
consolidated complaint alleged that MCG's directors violated their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, not protecting against
their supposed conflicts of interest and failing to take steps to
maximize the consideration to be received by MCG's former
stockholders in our acquisition of MCG. The consolidated complaint
also alleged that the Company, PFLT Panama, LLC, PFLT Funding II,
LLC and the Investment Adviser aided and abetted the MCG
directors' purported breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint
demanded, among other things, a preliminary and permanent
injunction against our acquisition of MCG and rescission of the
transaction to the extent that it has been implemented.

"We believe that the consolidated complaint is without merit," the
Company said.

On July 30, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding setting forth an agreement in principle to settle
the class action complaint. The memorandum of understanding
provides for, among other things, additional public disclosure
with respect to the MCG merger, which disclosures were made by MCG
on July 31, 2015. The parties plan to file a stipulation of
settlement with the court, which provides for, among other things,
settlement of the class action complaint. There can be no
assurance that the settlement will be finalized or that the court
will approve the settlement.


PET VALU: Ont. Appeal Court Tosses $100MM Franchise Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed a $100-million class action
by franchisees against Pet Valu.

In a Jan. 14 ruling that limits the scope of franchisors'
obligations to deal fairly with franchisees, the appellate court
reversed a previous ruling that had awarded damages to the
franchisees.

"The decision puts a leash on the scope of the duty of good faith
and disclosure by a franchisor on matters beyond the performance
and enforcement of the franchise agreement," said Geoff Shaw of
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, who led Pet Valu's successful
defence.

Justice Edward Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court originally
ruled that Pet Valu had breached its statutory duty of fair
dealing by creating the expectation that it had "substantial
purchasing power" to obtain volume discounts from which the
franchisees could benefit.

But the Court of Appeal found that no abuses had occurred.  It
noted that products that franchisors bought from Pet Valu were on
average "15 per cent lower than outside distributor's prices."

Mr. Shaw said that his client's success is also an important
lesson for those in the business community facing class actions.

"It's easy to put together a bunch of facts and allegations that
result in certification but it's a lot harder to get across the
finish line," he said.  "Cases that are certifiable are not
necessarily winnable."

As it turns out, there were dark clouds on the horizon for the
plaintiffs: a considerable number of franchisors "opted-out'" of
the class action in the earlier stages.

"You have to wonder why someone didn't read the tea leaves on the
opt-outs, and perhaps plant their plow in more fertile fields than
this litigation," Mr. Shaw said.


POLAR AIR: Settles Antitrust Class Action, Denies Any Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Buxbaum, writing for Global Trade, reports that Polar Air
Cargo and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings have entered into a
settlement in an antitrust class action lawsuit in the United
States.

The companies will pay $100 million in three installments through
January 2018 as part of the settlement.  They continue to deny any
wrongdoing or liability, and there is no admission of any
wrongdoing or liability in the settlement agreement.

"It is important to put this legacy matter behind us and focus our
full attention on the continued execution of our strategic growth
initiatives," said William J. Flynn, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Atlas Air Worldwide.  "Our business continues to
generate substantial cash flows, and we look forward to
capitalizing on the significant opportunities ahead to deliver
value for our shareholders, employees and customers."

The settlement resolves all claims against the companies by
participating members in the class action.

The industry-wide litigation arose from allegations about the
pricing practices of a number of air cargo carriers on routes to
and from the United States from January 2000 through September
2006.

The lawsuit, filed in 2006 on behalf of a class of direct
purchasers of air cargo shipping services, alleged a multi-year
conspiracy perpetrated by more than thirty airlines around the
world. After reaching settlements of more than $1 billion with
twenty-seven of these airlines, including Singapore Airlines,
China Air, Asiana, Cathay Pacific, EVA Airways and Korean Air, the
plaintiffs won the right to proceed as a certified class against
the remaining defendants.

A trial is set for later this months against the remaining
defendants, which include Air China, Air China Cargo, Air India,
and Air New Zealand.

Twenty-three defendants have pleaded guilty to their role in the
conspiracy under a U.S. Department of Justice probe.  Over 20
airlines have been identified as conspiracy participants in the
European Union, and other airlines have been prosecuted in other
areas of the world, including Canada, Korea, Japan, Australia and
New Zealand.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Judge Approves $5MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paula Reed Ward, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
a federal judge in California has approved a $5 million class-
action settlement against Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries for 109
employees who worked for the company at Home Depot stores.

Several employees filed suit in the Northern District of
California in 2013, alleging that PPG misclassified them as exempt
from overtime and that they were underpaid.  The employees were
territory managers for PPG who worked in Home Depot stores
handling inventory management, caring for paint-sample displays
and providing product training, said attorney Bruce Fox.

The lawsuit alleged that the employees had no managerial
responsibilities, and therefore were entitled to overtime. In
addition, it said company officials knew they were working more
than 50 hours per week, excluding driving time between stores, and
were not properly compensated.

The settlement also included $1.6 million in attorney and
litigation fees, according to court documents. The estimated award
for each plaintiff, before taxes, is $29,250.


PREMIERE GLOBAL: "Noble" Class Action Challenges Pangea Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Premiere Global Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class
action lawsuit has been filed related to the Company's merger with
Pangea Private Holdings II, LLC.

On September 10, 2015, Premiere Global Services, Inc., a Georgia
corporation (the "Company" or "PGi"), entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger with Pangea Private Holdings II, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and Pangea Merger
Sub Inc., a Georgia corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among other things,
Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").

In connection with the Merger, on October 26, 2015, PGi filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a
definitive proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement"), which was
first mailed to the shareholders of PGi on or about October 27,
2015.

On November 10, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Merger, captioned John Noble, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Boland T. Jones, et al. (the
"Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia. The Complaint names PGi and each of
PGi's directors as defendants. The Complaint alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, by causing a materially incomplete and misleading
proxy statement to be filed with the SEC. The Complaint seeks
various forms of relief, including to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin the consummation of the proposed Merger unless
the defendants disclose certain information alleged to be material
and to have been omitted from the Proxy Statement and an award of
plaintiff's fees and expenses in connection with this litigation.

On November 10, 2015, the plaintiff moved the court to set a
hearing on the plaintiff's motion for emergency preliminary
injunction. Each of the defendants believes the claims asserted in
the Complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against this lawsuit. However, at this time, it is not possible to
predict the outcome of the proceeding or its impact on PGi or the
Merger.

A copy of the complaint is available at http://is.gd/tNzPFf

The attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

               David A. Bain, Esq.
               LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
               1050 Promenade II
               1230 Peachtree St., NE
               Atlanta, GA 30309
               Tel: (404) 724-9990
               Fax: (404) 724-9986
               E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

                    - and -

               Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
               LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
               30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
               New York, NY 10004
               Tel: (212) 363-7500


PRICELINE GROUP: Involved in 40 Cases Related to Travel Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Priceline Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
and certain third-party OTCs are currently involved in
approximately 40 lawsuits, including certified and putative class
actions, brought by or against U.S. states, cities and counties
over issues involving the payment of travel transaction taxes
(e.g., hotel occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.).
The Company's subsidiaries priceline.com LLC, Lowestfare.com LLC
and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all of these cases.
Generally, the complaints allege, among other things, that the
OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant travel
transaction tax ordinance with respect to the charge and
remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law.  The
complaints typically seek compensatory damages, disgorgement,
penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

In addition, several U.S. jurisdictions have initiated audit
proceedings, issued proposed tax assessments or started inquiries
relating to the payment of travel transaction taxes.  Additional
state and local jurisdictions are likely to assert that the
Company is subject to travel transaction taxes and could seek to
collect such taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively.


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Parties in Haverhill Case Reached Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
parties in the case, Haverhill Retirement System v. Kerley et al.,
have reached an agreement in principle and executed a memorandum
of understanding providing for the settlement of claims.

On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v.
Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL.  The complaint names Richard A.
Kerley, Kristi L. Meints, Warren S. Rustand, Christopher
Shackelton (the "Individual Defendants") and Coliseum Capital
Management, LLC ("Coliseum") as defendants, and the Company as a
nominal defendant.  The complaint purported to allege that the
dividend rate increase term originally in the Company's
outstanding convertible preferred stock was an impermissibly
coercive measure that impaired the voting rights of the Company's
stockholders in connection with the vote on the removal of certain
voting and conversion caps previously applicable to the preferred
stock (the "Caps"), and that the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by approving the dividend rate increase
term and attempting to coerce the stockholder vote relating to the
Company's preferred stock, and by failing to disclose all material
information necessary to allow the Company's stockholders to cast
an informed vote on the Caps. The complaint also purports to
allege derivative claims alleging that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by entering into
the subordinated note and standby agreement with Coliseum, and
granting Coliseum certain stock options.  The complaint further
alleges that Coliseum has aided and abetted the Individual
Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties and that demand on
the Board is excused as futile.  The complaint sought, among other
things, an injunction prohibiting the stockholder vote relating to
the dividend rate increase, a finding that the Individual
Defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties to the
Company and the Company's stockholders, a finding that Coliseum is
liable for aiding and abetting the Individual Defendant's breaches
of their fiduciary duties, a finding that Coliseum is liable for
unjust enrichment, a finding that demand on the Board is excused
as futile, a revision or rescission of the terms of the
subordinated note and preferred stock as necessary and/or
appropriate, a requirement for the Company to reform its corporate
governance profile to protect against future misconduct similar to
that alleged by the putative stockholder class, a certification of
the putative stockholder class, compensatory damages, together
with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and disbursements
(including expenses, attorneys' and experts' fees), and any other
and further relief as is just and equitable.

On August 31, 2015, after arms' length negotiations, the parties
reached an agreement in principle and executed a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of claims concerning
the dividend rate increase term and stockholder vote and related
disclosure. The Memorandum of Understanding stated that the
Defendants have entered into the partial settlement of the
litigation solely to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense,
and potential delay of further litigation involving claims that
have been settled. Pursuant to the partial settlement, the Company
agreed to supplement the disclosures in its definitive proxy
statement on Schedule 14A ("Definitive Proxy Statement"), Coliseum
and certain of its affiliates and the Company entered into an
amendment to the Exchange Agreement dated as of February 11, 2015
described in the Definitive Proxy Statement, and the Board of
Directors of the Company agreed to adopt a policy related to the
Board's determination each quarter as to whether the Company
should pay cash dividends or allow dividends to be paid in the
form of PIK dividends on the preferred stock, as further described
in the supplemental proxy disclosures. On September 2, 2015,
Providence issued supplemental disclosures through a Supplement to
the Proxy Statement. On September 16, 2015, Providence
stockholders approved the removal of the Caps.

The settlement provides for, among other things, the release of
any claims based on alleged coercion and disclosure related to the
stockholder vote on the removal of the Caps. The settlement is
subject to court approval. No settlement has been reached as to
the derivative claims related to the underlying subordinated note
and standby purchase agreement and the options.


READING HOSPITAL: Ordered to Provide Documents in FLSA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for PennRecord.com, reports that a
local hospital has been compelled to provide documents on the
procedures associated with compensating its employees for meal
breaks, in a prospective class action suit brought by those same
employees.

The employees' October 2013 complaint alleges Reading Hospital
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay
plaintiffs' wages owed for work performed during their unpaid meal
breaks.  Amanda Neifert and Evelyn Santoro originally filed the
suit, but attorneys substituted colleague Susan Bell as the
lawsuit's named plaintiff in December 2014.

As part of discovery procedure, Ms. Bell sought Reading Hospital
to provide various documentation regarding compensation for meal
breaks and for the hospital to provide top-level information on 15
subjects in a designee deposition notice -- records and
information for whose request the hospital characterized as
"overly broad and burdensome" and "outside the scope of
proportional discovery," and filed a protective order to prevent
their disclosure.

Per Pennsylvania's Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Henry S. Perkin
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania opted to consider a number of factors when deciding
whether Ms. Bell's information requests were in fact burdensome or
disproportionate to the boundaries of discovery.

These factors included: "Relevance to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit."

In reference to these factors, Judge Perkin found the discovery
requests to be "relevant and appropriate," the at-stake costs of
$5,000 to $10,000 for each of the opt-in plaintiffs as not
exceeding the amount in controversy, and the resources/information
being asked for by Ms. Bell as being pertinent and necessary to
the question of class certification -- a factor allowing for
greater consideration and interest in a case of this nature,
according to Judge Perkin.

"We find the requested discovery to be relevant, and not unduly
burdensome or disproportionate," Judge Perkin said.  "Based on the
foregoing, we find that there is no basis to conclude that
plaintiffs' pending discovery requests pose a burden so unfairly
'disproportionate' as to require a protective order."

Judge Perkin denied Reading Hospital's motion for a protective
order, and ordered Reading Hospital to produce all documents it
used to "provide orientation or training on plaintiffs'
entitlement to wages for missed meal breaks, and any procedures
for requesting such wages"; "provide orientation or training on
plaintiffs' entitlement to wages for interrupted meal breaks, and
any procedures for requesting such wages"; and "its final analysis
and report concerning how frequently its hourly employees missed a
meal break, or experienced an interrupted meal break performed in
conjunction with its roll-out of the Kronos [electronic time
clocks] attestation" within 15 days of his ruling.

Further, Judge Perkin granted Ms. Bell's motion to compel Reading
Hospital to provide "department-level information" on 15 topics
covered in the plaintiff's designee deposition notice.

The plaintiff is represented by David J. Cohen, in Philadelphia.

The defendant is represented by Elizabeth A. Malloy --
elizabeth.malloy@bipc.com -- James J. Sullivan Jr., Jeffrey
Francis Klamut and Rose E. Isard of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney,
also in Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case
5:13-cv-05927


REMINGTON: $7.5-Mil. Rifle Class Action Settlement Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Webb, writing for The Legal Examiner, reports that a class-
action settlement involving roughly 7.5 million (allegedly)
defective Remington rifles has been delayed to give both parties a
chance to come up with a better way to inform the public of
dangers.  The Remington Model 700 rifle has a safety-related
design defect which causes the rifle to fire without anyone
pulling the trigger.  Not exactly what you want from a firearm.

There have been deaths and injuries tied to this defect as far
back as the late 1960's.  The lawsuits filed against Remington
over the past decades have been, for the most part, protected by
strict privacy rulings that kept all Remington in-house documents
from the public.  As U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith, of
Missouri, however, was deciding to push the class-action case back
to February, CNBC released a story on its investigation into
allegations about the defective trigger.

Remington insists that there is no trigger defect but is
nonetheless offering to replace the triggers, at no charge, in
millions of rifles.  This would simplify the pending settlement.
The problem is that only 2,327 gun owners have submitted claims
for the new trigger so far -- leaving the bulk of the 7 million
plus guns in owners' hands who may, or may not, know about the
defective trigger and the free "fix".

Remington, which legally withheld documents about the safety
features and possible defects for decades, must now find a way to
alert gun owners while maintaining its stance that the trigger is
not defective.

Remington has said it is agreeing to retrofit the rifles, "to
avoid the uncertainties and expense of protracted litigation, and
to ensure continued satisfaction for its valuable customers."  As
Arthur Bryant, Chairman of the watchdog group Public Justice
notes, "These rifles can fire when no one pulls the trigger. The
proposed settlement would let over 7 million people get them
repaired or replaced for free. As many gun owners as possible need
to learn these rifles are dangerously defective, stop using them,
and file a claim to get them repaired or replaced for free. Every
claim filed is a potential life saved."  (CNBC.com, 1/12/16)

The release of thousands of internal documents from Remington
reveals much about the internal workings of the company as it
struggled to deal with the serious safety defect.  The documents
show meeting notes from 1989 indicating that Remington had
knowledge of the defective trigger.  It would take 17 years before
the company addressed the trigger on its Model 700-after thousands
of complaints and approximately 100 additional lawsuits.  There
have been multiple deaths blamed on the trigger.  Why did it take
so long?

The delay in the legal case, paired with the release of these old
documents, may give critics additional ammunition (no pun
intended) to strengthen the case against Remington.  Critics want
the gun manufacturer to take stronger action in notifying rifle
owners and replacing the defective triggers.  With less than 3,000
out of 7 million gun owners filing claims, it is a valid concern.
It is hard to imagine that any owner of one of these dangerously
defective rifles would not want it repaired free of charge.

The judge in the case signaled his intent not to let Remington
push for a protective order, effectively sealing (hiding) the
contents of the case -- something the company has successfully
done for decades.  "There is a strong public interest in not
allowing the Court's orders to be used as a shield that precludes
disclosure of this danger," Smith wrote in an order late last year
denying a joint motion by Remington and the plaintiffs for a
protective order in the class-action case.  (CNBC.com, 1/12/16)

It is not clear how the case will proceed, or what will result
from the disclosure of these documents. What we do know is that
Remington and one-time owner DuPont were aware of the defect and
were able to replicate the defect through internal testing --
something Remington had previously denied in lawsuits.  The
documents show an all too familiar focus on saving money (a common
corporate theme of profits over safety) and avoiding any
appearance of admitting to manufacturing faulty, dangerous
products or wrongdoing.

"What is essential for this case to really succeed is a massive
campaign if the settlement is approved, after the settlement is
approved, so everyone understands how dangerous these guns are,
and files a claim," Mr. Bryant says. (CNBC.com, 12/08/15)

The settlement covers the following Remington firearms: The Model
700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, 721, 722,
and 725 rifles, and the XP-100 bolt-action pistol.  (CNBC.com,
1/12/16) If you own one of these defective guns, Remington has a
website discussing the firearms involved and the claims process.

Something important to note here is that Remington did not
voluntarily come to the table, admitting its sins and offering
repentance, repair and restitution.  Nor was Remington brought to
the table by the government -- a regulatory agency.  Remington has
agreed to retrofit and repair millions of its firearms because the
tort system forced it to do so.  The ability of citizens to access
the civil justice system, and to have the right to a jury trial
under the Seventh Amendment, brought Remington to the table.  This
is one of many great examples of the success of our country's tort
system.  Generally, the only people seeking tort "reform" are
those being held accountable for harming us because they want
immunity.  So, when a reader hears about how badly we need "tort
reform", keep this case in mind.  There are very few countries in
which a solitary citizen, or a small group of them, can force a
corporate giant to make change.


REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Faces Class Action Over "Spam" Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Nashville parent has filed a
class-action lawsuit against an operator of charter schools in
Tennessee, saying that it illegally sent a series of text messages
to promote enrollment at its schools.

The Tennessean reports that Irika Skeete is the lead plaintiff of
a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court on Jan. 14 against
RePublic Schools Nashville on behalf of people who received what
the lawsuit calls "spam" text messages.

The lawsuit says the nonprofit sent four sets of mass text
messages from Nov. 16 to Jan. 12, encouraging enrollment. The
lawsuit says RePublic Schools Nashville violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act because the recipients never
consented to the messages.

RePublic Schools Nashville Regional Director Abigail Rockey says
organization officials are confident they are in full compliance
with the law.


RESONANT INC: Has Moved to Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resonant Inc. said it intends to file a motion to dismiss a
consolidated complaint in a class action lawsuit, according to its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

"Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, naming us, Terry Lingren and John Philpott
as defendants," the Company said. The three lawsuits were
consolidated into a single putative class action, In re Resonant
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-01970 SJO (VBKx), and
the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs.

"On September 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint purporting to assert claims under the federal securities
laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the underwriter
of our May 29, 2014 IPO," the Company said. "The plaintiffs
purport to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers
or acquirers of our common stock between May 28, 2014 and April 2,
2015, or the Class Period, as well as a subclass of persons or
entities who purchased or acquired our shares in (or traceable to)
our IPO. The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the
defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions concerning our business, operations, prospects and
performance, our common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices throughout the Class Period. The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but
have not specified the amount of damages being sought in the
action."

The Company anticipated filing a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on or before November 30, 2015. It is not
known when the court will rule on the motion.


SHUFERSAL: Faces Discrimination Class Action in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Jack Khoury, writing for Haaretz, reports that a class-action suit
for 450 million shekels ($113.4 million) was filed on Jan. 20 with
the District Court in Haifa against Shufersal, claiming the
supermarket chain discriminates against Israeli Arabs by not
allowing them to buy from its online store.

A resident of the village of Rameh together with a resident from
the village of Fassuta, both located in northern Israel, filed the
suit through their attorney, Jamela Hardal-Wakem, after they
discovered that while they could enjoy the service, which includes
buying products online and having them delivered to their home,
their Jewish neighbors living in adjacent communities even more
distant could take advantage of it.  The plaintiff from Fassuta
said in a statement he submitted to the court for the suit that he
has been a member of Shufersal's club for years, and that he and
his wife do a substantial amount of their shopping at the
Shufersal branch in Maalot.  According to him, he and his wife
have made a number of attempts to buy from Shufersal's online
store, but every time they were rejected "because Fassuta is not
included in the chain's distribution areas."

"At first we thought naively that the company only delivers to big
cities that have one of the branches," he stated.  "But lately we
learned that Shufersal supplies a delivery service almost
everywhere in Israel, on condition that it is not an Arab
community."

According to him, it emerged that the vehicles used for the
chain's deliveries drive through Arab towns and villages, which do
not receive service, on their way to Jewish communities, such as
Harashim.  Another instance in the lawsuit refers to Rameh, which
is five kilometers from the Carmiel branch but does not receive
the service.

The plaintiffs stated that this information led them to conduct a
sample check on the Shufersal Online website.  They discovered
that almost every Arab community in the Carmiel area is excluded
from the chain's distribution areas, while all the Jewish
communities in the area are included.   A more thorough
examination, according to the plaintiffs, found that 313 of 320
Jewish communities (98 percent) are included in the distribution
areas, compared to just 11 of 113 Arab communities, or 10 percent.

The plaintiffs, together with experts in the field, examined in
depth the chain's distribution area maps, the range of possible
criteria that could have guided Shufersal in setting the
distribution areas, such as distance from the branch, size of the
community or type of community.  They assert there was no economic
or marketing criterion that could explain the distribution, save
for the ethnic character of the community.

They stressed that the communities in which the plaintiffs live
are included in the same areas that are marked on the maps of the
anti-trust commissioner as areas in which Shufersal has a market
share of over 30 percent, and in some places over 50 percent.
Based on the anti-trust commissioner's map from November 2014,
Shufersal has the widest distribution in Israel among all
supermarket chains, operating at least 283 branches.

"This is not only callous discrimination based on national
affiliation but also illegal discrimination," Hardal-Wakem, their
attorney, said.  "It is important that this suit be handled as a
class-action suit so we can rectify this injustice and force the
company to compensate the entire Arab public that has suffered
discrimination.  It is inconceivable that the big companies
benefit from the Arab public's buying power while discriminating
against it so callously and outrageously."

Shufersal commented: "Shufersal provides service to the entire
population of Israel irrespective of religion, race or sex.  We
have yet to receive the lawsuit, and when it is received we will
respond through legal proceedings."


SINGING RIVER: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 16
---------------------------------------------------------
WLOX reports that U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., has
given preliminary certification for the class action lawsuit
against Singing River Health System, meaning the retirement
settlement can move forward in federal court.

He also ruled there is enough in the proposal to move forward with
a fairness hearing for the $149 million settlement.  That hearing
will be on May 16 at 10:00 a.m.

The attorneys who brokered the settlement deal presented the plan
they say will save the retirees' pensions and keep the health
system operating.

Judge Guirola said he will take under advisement a motion by SRHS
to issue a stay on the 46 cases in Jackson County Circuit Court.

Attorneys for the settlement deal asked the judge to take control
of this contentious case, telling him those opposing the
settlement are disingenuous, misleading people and causing worry.

Attorney Jim Reeves told the judge that opposing attorneys have
been invited to settlement meetings but don't show up, and then
use the social and traditional media to spread stories of secret
meetings.

Attorneys for Singing River Health System asked Judge Guirola to
put state court cases on hold now that the federal class action
case is moving forward.  However, Judge Guirola said he does not
see those cases as a threat to the class action case at this
point, because those cases are basically on hold, because they
have been filed but not served.


SKYWEST AIRLINES: "Russell" Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Donald Russell v. Skywest
Airlines, Inc. et al., Case No. BC599915, was removed from the 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-09500-GW-KS to the
proceeding.

SkyWest Airlines operates as an airline company that provides air
services in North America. The company was founded in 1972 and is
based in St. George, Utah. The airlines operates as a subsidiary
of SkyWest Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L Starr, Esq.
          Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L STARR
          23277 Ventura Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 225 9040
          Facsimile: (818) 225 9042
          E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
                  adam@starrlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hwannie L Shen, Esq.
          WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 615 1873
          Facsimile: (213) 615 1750
          E-mail: hshen@winston.com

               - and -

          Patricia T Stambelos, Esq.
          STAMBELOS LAW OFFICE
          543 Country Club Drive Suite B209
          Simi Valley, CA 93065
          Telephone: (805) 578 3474
          Facsimile: (895) 994 0199

               - and -

          Amanda C Sommerfeld, Esq.
          WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615 1700
          Facsimile: (213) 615 1750
          E-mail: asommerf@winston.com

SKYWEST AIRLINES: "Tapp" FLSA Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tapp et al., v. SkyWest Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-05146, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California Northern,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The Illinois Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-11117 to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay
wages at all to Plaintiffs including but not limited to performing
preliminary and postliminary activities which are integral and
indispensable to their principal activities as flight attendants,
thus violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SkyWest is a Utah corporation that is registered to do business in
California, and whose principal office is located in George, Utah.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dylan S. Hughes, Esq.
          Steven Augustine Lopez, Esq.
          Eric H Gibbs, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          E-mail: dsh@girardgibbs.com
                  sal@classlawgroup.com
                  ehg@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Gregory F Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247 0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522 0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346 2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346 0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  mrm@wexlerwallace.com
                  aek@wexlerwallace.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda C Sommerfeld, Esq.
          WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615 1700
          Facsimile: (213) 615 1750
          E-mail: asommerf@winston.com


SPRINT CORPORATION: "Bennett" Securities Case Settled in Aug. 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has
granted final approval of the settlement in the case, Bennett v.
Sprint Nextel Corp.

In March 2009, a stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications and three of its
former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged
operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger,
and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements
regarding the write-down of goodwill. The plaintiff sought class
action status for purchasers of Sprint Communications common stock
from October 26, 2006 to February 27, 2008.

The Company said, "On January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion
to dismiss. Subsequently, our motion to certify the January 6,
2011 order for an interlocutory appeal was denied. On March 27,
2014, the court certified a class including bondholders as well as
stockholders."

"On April 11, 2014, we filed a petition to appeal that
certification order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The
petition was denied on May 23, 2014. After mediation, the parties
reached an agreement to settle the matter, and the settlement
amount was substantially paid by the Company's insurers. The
district court granted final approval of the settlement in August
2015, and the case is now completed."


STEINER LEISURE: Continues to Defend "Nesbitt" FLSA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steiner Leisure Limited continues to defend the class action
Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

The Company said, "On April 7, 2014, a former student at our
Schools Division's Denver School of Massage Therapy brought a
putative class action against our Schools Division, Nesbitt v.
FCNH, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and various state wage and hour laws. The plaintiff
alleges that, in performing certain therapies on individuals from
the public as part of the requirements that students perform
clinical services (required for a massage therapy license), she
was acting as an employee for purposes of the FLSA and applicable
state law and was entitled to wages for those services. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages. The plaintiff brought the
action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated at
the schools operated by our Schools Division."

"At this time, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or provide an estimate of
the amount or range of potential loss in this matter. Should we be
found liable in this matter, the amount that we may be required to
pay in connection with such liability could have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition and results of
operations."


STEINER LEISURE: Settlement in "Marlow" FLSA Case Not Yet Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steiner Leisure Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the settlement
in the case, Marlow v. Ideal Image Development Corp., is subject
to approval of the court and, accordingly is not yet final.

On November 17, 2014, a former sales consultant brought a putative
collective action against Ideal Image Development Corporation,
Marlow v. Ideal Image Development Corp., in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleging violations
of the FLSA. The plaintiff alleged that she and others working as
sales consultants were not paid the applicable minimum wage for
certain training and travel work and were not paid overtime for
hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The complaint sought
unspecified damages. The plaintiff brought the action on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated across the country. Other
individuals joined the lawsuit.  The matter went to mediation and
the parties reached a settlement in compromise of the claims
pursuant to which Ideal Image agreed to pay $780,000, the loss of
which was included in Administrative expenses in the accompanying
condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three and
nine months ended September 30, 2015. The settlement is subject to
approval of the court and, accordingly is not yet final.

"Should such settlement not be so approved, the litigation resume
and we be found liable in this matter, the amount that we may be
required to pay in connection with such liability could have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of
operations," the Company said.


STEVEN POHL: Parents Mull Civil Suit Over Child Porn
----------------------------------------------------
Connie Leonard, writing for WAVE, reports that it was a shocking
confession when a Louisville priest and former St. Margaret Mary
Pastor admitted to accessing child porn.  Now, as Steven Pohl
waits to be sentenced, some parents have signed a petition
demanding photographs.

According to the parents attorney, the petition has more than 100
signatures. During the investigation of Pohl it was discovered
that he took photos of some students fully clothed, in what was
described as inappropriate stances or positions.

Parents involved with the petition want to make sure those photos
are preserved so they can see them and depending on what they
find, a civil suit could follow.

Even if there were no student victims at St. Margaret Mary as
Federal investigators have said, there were some students who
ended up in those clothed photos taken by Pohl.  Those photos were
not part of the child pornography case against the priest who has
now pleaded guilty to accessing child porn on his computer. Some
parents want to see them anyway.  A parent driven petition
obtained by WAVE 3 News asks the Archdiocese of Louisville, St.
Margaret Mary, the U.S. Attorney's office, the FBI and other
agencies to provide those the images.  A return letter from the
school explained to parents that Federal authorities have the
images.

Parent attorney William McMurry has already spoken with the U.S.
Attorneys Office and requested to maintain what he says could be
evidence.

"There's good reason to believe that many of these photographs are
taken in such a way and such a pose or angle that the child can't
even be identified," Mr. McMurry said.

Defense attorney Greg Butrum, who is not involved in the case,
said the parents are probably going to have to wait until the
Pohl's sentencing in March.

"I think once the case is concluded," Mr. Butrum they'll find they
can get this information."

Other parents at St. Margaret Mary are upset that the petition is
being circulated and are sounding off about it on Facebook saying
the school doesn't need any more negative attention.  Mr. McMurry
said 100 parents have signed the petition and some of those
parents may decide to take civil action if necessary.

"Yes, it's a possibility," Mr. McMurry said, "these children have
until their 19th birthday to bring a claim and parents on their
child's behalf can bring a claim at any time."

Mr. McMurry said the U.S. Attorney's office has acknowledged the
request to preserve evidence.  Mr. McMurry settled a class action
lawsuit for survivors of priest abuse and has sued the Vatican.

The U.S. Attorney's Officer released the following statement
regarding the question raised about the photos taken by Fr. Pohl
of St. Margaret Mary students: "The United States Attorney's
Office will preserve the images while sorting through logistical
steps to identify every affected child and notify the parents."


SUBWAY: $5.9-Mil. Sandwich Class Action Settlement Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Vielmetti, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports that
four people, including the director of a class-action watchdog
organization, filed objections with U.S. District Judge Lynn
Adelman, who is overseeing the litigation that combined several
Subway lawsuits from around the country.  The lawsuits got rolling
after one customer's social media post of a ruler next to his sub
went viral.

Judge Adelman gave his preliminary approval to the proposed
settlement in October, and recently held a settlement fairness
hearing.

The deal announced last fall would have paid up to $1,000 to the
few named plaintiffs, as class representatives, but nothing to the
millions of other customers who may have purchased sandwiches
shorter than six inches or a foot long, as advertised by Subway.

The settlement did not find Subway's marketing was unlawful or
improper.

But the settlement also would require Subway to continue new
procedures meant to guarantee more buns (all made from the same
weight of dough) measure six or 12 inches when they become part of
a sandwich.

That injunctive relief benefits all class members to the tune of
about $5.9 million a year, according to an economics expert hired
by the plaintiffs' attorneys.

The larger the benefit to the class, the easier it becomes for its
attorneys to convince Adelman that their requested fee -- $525,000
-- is reasonable.

Theodore Frank, founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness,
calls the expert's valuation of the injunctive relief little more
than junk science, and successfully challenged Subway's attempt to
get the report filed under seal.  What's more, Mr. Frank says the
class and Subway filed the expert's valuation after the deadline
for class members to object to the proposed settlement.

Subway claimed that its sales and pricing data, used by the
plaintiff's expert to value the injunctive relief, is private
information.  But Mr. Frank argued does not qualify as "trade
secrets" or other information exempt from the normal public
disclosure.

Ultimately, Mr. Frank got the class and Subway to file in the
court record a redacted version of the expert's report, so at
least the methodology could be examined, and ultimately attacked.

In addition to Mr. Frank, three other people from sent letters to
Adelman objecting to the proposed settlement.

"I feel ripped off," wrote Mary Repine of Kansas.  "I do not have
an attorney, but I feel I am owed some compensation."

There is no scheduled date for Judge Adelman's final decision.


SUNEDISON INC: Gardy & Notis Amends Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Gardy & Notis, LLP, filed an amended class action
lawsuit on Jan. 19 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 15-cv-1769, on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
SunEdison, Inc. ("SunEdison" or the "Company") (NYSE: SUNE) from
August 7, 2014 through November 9, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The action alleges that SunEdison and certain of its
executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act").

If you are an investor who purchased SunEdison securities during
the Class Period, you have until February 1, 2016 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the Class.  If you have
questions about the case or would like to get a copy of the
complaint, please contact Mark Gardy or Jennifer Sarnelli at Gardy
& Notis, LLP, 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022,
email: mgardy@gardylaw.com or jsarnelli@gardylaw.com

The lawsuit alleges that SunEdison and certain corporate insiders
made materially misleading misrepresentations and omissions
regarding SunEdison's business and operations.  Among other
things, the lawsuit alleges that defendants misrepresented and
failed to disclose that SunEdison did not have the financial
resources to sustain its acquisition binge.  The Company's true
financial condition was revealed through a series of disclosures.
On November 9, 2015, the last day of the Class Period, the Company
filed a Form 10-Q with the SEC disclosing significant new facts
about its true financial condition, and revealed that the Company
was in fact facing a cash and liquidity crisis.  In response to
these disclosures, SunEdison's stock dropped from a high of $33.45
per share to $4.54 per share -- an 86% price decline.

Plaintiff seeks to recover money damages on behalf of all
purchasers of SunEdison securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Gardy & Notis, LLP, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.  Gardy & Notis,
LLP has investigated the facts of this action and filed the first
complaint on behalf of SunEdison investors.


SUNOPTA INC: "Jesus" Case in Pre-Class Certification Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunopta Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2015, that parties in the case,
Jesus, et al. v. Frozsun, Inc., are engaged in pre-class
certification discovery.

In April 2013, a class-action complaint, in the case titled De
Jesus, et al. v. Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, alleging
various wage and hour violations was filed against Sunrise
Growers, Inc. (then named Frozsun, Inc.) in California Superior
Court, Santa Barbara County seeking damages, equitable relief and
reasonable attorneys' fees. This case includes claims for failure
to pay all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, meal and
rest period violations, waiting-time penalties, improper wage
statements and unfair business practices. The putative class
includes approximately 4,000 to 4,500 non-exempt hourly employees
from Sunrise's production facilities in Santa Maria and Oxnard,
California. The parties are currently engaged in pre-class
certification discovery. The Company is unable to estimate any
potential liabilities relating to this proceeding, and any such
liabilities could be material.


SYNGENTA AG: "Logsdon" Suit Moved from McLean Court to W.D. Ky.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Logsdon et al. v. Syngenta AG et
al., Case No. 15-CI-00104, was removed from McLean Circuit Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
(Owensboro). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-
00156-JHM-HBB 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. As of
2009 it ranked third in seeds and biotechnology sales. Sales in
2014 were approximately US$15.1 billion, over half of which were
in emerging markets

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK PC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 985-9177

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq
          CARELLA BYRNE
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
          HERZFELD AND RUBIN
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 471 8500
          Facsimile: (212) 344 3333
          E-mail: jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com

               - and -

          Michael R McDonald, Esq.
          Jennifer Marino Thibodau, Esq.
          Thomas R Valen, Esq.
          GIBBONS PC
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
                  jmarino@gibbonslaw.com
                  tvalen@gibbonslaw.com

               - and -

          Natalie Marie Lefkowitz
          CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
          354 Eisenhower Pkway Ste 1100
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

SYNGENTA AG: VJW Farm Suit Moved to S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled VJW Farm, Inc. et al. v. Syngenta
Seeds, Inc. et al., Case No. 49D11-1511-CT-038514, was removed
from the Marion County Superior Court 11, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01953-WTL-DML 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. Archer-Daniels-Midland
Company procures, transports, stores, processes, and merchandises
agricultural commodities and products. The company's Oilseeds
Processing segment originates, merchandises, crushes, and
processes soybeans and soft seeds into vegetable oils and protein
meals. It offers ingredients for the food, feed, energy, and
industrial products industries; crude vegetable and salad oils;
refined oils; oilseed protein meals; natural health and nutrition
products, and other specialty food and feed ingredients; and
cottonseed flour and cotton cellulose pulp. The company is based
in Chicago Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Thomas Dassow, Esq.
          HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS LLC
          Meridian Tower, Suite 500
          201 West 103rd Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 818 3100
          Facsimile: (317) 818 3111
          E-mail: rdassow@hovdelaw.com

The Defendant is 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

               - and -

          Andrew J. Detherage, Esq.
          Kathleen L. Matsoukas, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP (Indianapolis)
          11 South Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 231 7717
          Facsimile: (317) 231 7433
          E-mail: andy.detherage@btlaw.com
                  kmatsoukas@btlaw.com


TEAM HEALTH: MOU Reached in Lawsuit Challenging IPC Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Team Health Holdings, Inc. has reached a Memorandum of
Understanding in a class action lawsuit, the Company said in an
exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015.

The Company said a purported shareholder of IPC Healthcare, Inc.,
filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned
Smukler v. IPC Healthcare, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11392-CB), on
August 14, 2015, on behalf of a purported class of IPC
shareholders. The lawsuit names IPC, each of its current
directors, us and our merger subsidiary. Intrepid Merger Sub, Inc.
("Sub") as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
failing to take appropriate steps to maximize the value of IPC to
its shareholders, failing to value IPC properly, and taking steps
to avoid competitive bidding by alternate potential acquirers. The
lawsuit also alleges that IPC, we and Sub aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, certification of the action
as a class action; injunctive relief enjoining the merger; an
accounting of all damages purportedly suffered by the plaintiff
and the class including rescissory damages in favor of the
plaintiff and the class; and the fees and costs associated with
the litigation."

On August 18, 2015, an additional lawsuit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting similar claims and
allegations to those in the Smukler lawsuit and seeking similar
relief on behalf of the same putative class. Crescente v. Singer,
et al. (Case No. 11405-CB).

Additionally, on August 19, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California in Los Angeles County.
Khemthong v. IPC Healthcare Networks, Inc., et al. (No. BC
591953). The lawsuit asserted similar claims and allegations to
those in the Smukler lawsuit and sought similar relief on behalf
of the same putative class. On August 27, 2015, the plaintiff
filed a request for voluntary dismissal of the suit without
prejudice, and on August 28, 2015, the court entered an order
granting that request.

By Order dated September 11, 2015 (the Consolidation Order), the
Smukler and Crescente actions were consolidated, and all further
litigation relating to or arising out of the merger were directed
to be consolidated with such actions under the caption In re IPC
Healthcare, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 11392-CB (the
"Consolidated Action").

On September 17, 2015, an action captioned Spencer v. IPC
Healthcare, Inc., C.A. No. 11516-CB, was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery. Under the Consolidation Order, such action is
required to be consolidated with the previously-filed actions. On
September 18, 2015, a Verified Consolidated Class Action Complaint
was filed in the Consolidated Action. On October 2, 2015, the
defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint.

"On November 6, 2015, we and the other defendants in the
Consolidated Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action providing for the
settlement and the release of all claims that were or could have
been brought against us and the other defendants in the
Consolidated Action based upon a duty arising under Delaware law
to disclose or not omit material information in connection with
the IPC Acquisition, upon entry of a final order by the Delaware
Court of Chancery approving the settlement," the Company said.

The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that, subject to
completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the
plaintiffs, the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the settlement even if the
parties were to enter into such a stipulation. If the Delaware
Court of Chancery does not approve the settlement, such proposed
settlement, as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding,
may be terminated.


TICC CAPITAL: Two Stockholders File Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
TICC Capital Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that two stockholders
of the Company filed on October 27, 2015, a putative class action
complaint in the Court against the Company, the Board, and the
Company's President. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and breached the fiduciary duty of candor under Maryland
law. The complaint sought (i) an injunction requiring the
defendants to hold the Special Meeting only after corrective
information has been disseminated to the Company's stockholders,
and (ii) an injunction requiring the defendants to issue
additional corrective proxy materials. On November 3, these
purported stockholders filed proposed corrective proxy materials
in the NexPoint lawsuit where they are not a party. Defendants
addressed plaintiff's filing in their November 4, 2015 response to
NexPoint's objections.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Ongoing in Blue Cross Antitrust
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery
is ongoing in the case, In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust
Litigation.

Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with multiple Blue
Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a
multi-district class action litigation filed on July 24, 2012 that
alleges that the exclusive service area (ESA) requirements of the
Primary License Agreements with Plans violate antitrust law, and
the plaintiffs in these suits seek monetary awards and in some
instances, injunctive relief barring ESAs. Those cases have been
centralized in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama. Prior to centralization, motions to dismiss
were filed by several plans, including TSS. Plaintiffs opposed
TSS' motion to dismiss.

On April 9, 2014, the Court held an argumentative hearing to
discuss the motions to dismiss. On June 18, 2014, the court denied
TSS' motion to dismiss. TSS refilled its motion to dismiss,
asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, which
plaintiff opposed.

An argumentative hearing was held May 19, 2015, and subsequently,
the court denied the motions to dismiss.   Discovery is ongoing.

Also, on June 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in the United States
District Court of Puerto Rico, which the Company believes does not
preclude TSS' jurisdictional arguments. The Company has joined
BCBSA in vigorously contesting these claims.

The case is In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 2:13-cv-20000 (N.D. Ala.)


USAA CASUALTY: Billings Residents File Class Action Over Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clair Johnson, writing for Billings Gazette, reports that a
lawsuit by two Billings residents who are alleging an insurance
company unlawfully denied their medical claims could affect
hundreds of other Montanans.

In late December, state District Judge Gregory Todd certified as a
class action case a civil suit filed against USAA Casualty
Insurance Company by Peter Byorth and Ann McKean, both of
Billings, on behalf of themselves and others in similar
situations.

The class action case could affect an estimated 100 to 700 other
Montanans, court records said.

Mr. Byorth and Ms. McKean, both injured in separate car crashes,
claim USAA illegally denied their medical coverage based on file
reviews that concluded medical treatment was not necessary and
based on coding errors.

Billings attorneys John Heenan and Colette Davies, who represent
Mr. Byorth and Ms. McKean, said USAA's actions are a breach of
contract and violate Montana's Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Similar lawsuits against USAA in other states indicate "it's more
profitable for them to keep the status quo than to come into
compliance with the law," Mr. Heenan said.  "We want USAA to be
held accountable for its business practices," he added.

In September 2015, USAA settled for $4.2 million a similar class
action case involving three medical providers and an insured party
in Washington.  The company denied any wrongdoing and settled to
end litigation, court records said.

USAA has appealed Judge Todd's ruling to the Montana Supreme
Court.

The company is based in San Antonio, Texas, and markets insurance
to American servicemen and women and their families.

Roger Wildermuth, USAA's spokesman, said the company "employs its
Medical Bill Audit process to preserve member benefits by
identifying medical charges that are excessively high, duplicative
of other charges and possibly unrelated to a particular accident.
By identifying billing inaccuracies and other inappropriate
charges, the process also helps prevent fraud."

USAA, Mr. Wildermuth continued, takes allegations attacking its
process seriously.  "We will continue to defend it when
challenged," he said.

The company also disagrees with Judge Todd's class action
certification and is appealing, Mr. Wildermuth said.  "This
procedural decision does not address the merits of the plaintiff's
claims, which remain very much in dispute," he said.

USAA, Mr. Heenan said, makes it a practice to "serially delay and
deny or pay less than they owe" on claims because it knows it is
difficult for the consumer to do anything about it.

Policy medical coverage typically runs between $5,000 and $10,000,
is paid promptly and without regard to fault and the insured gets
help immediately, Mr. Heenan and Ms. Davies said.  The benefit is
one of the easiest to collect in such policies, they said.

But when a claim is denied or delayed, it's difficult to get
lawyers to represent clients because of the work involved for a
relatively small amount, Mr. Heenan said.  "And they (the company)
know that," he added.

Incidents lead to complaint

In 2011, Mr. Byorth was riding his bicycle when he was hit by a
car making a U-turn, Ms. Davies said.  Mr. Byorth was seriously
injured and had to have spinal fusion surgery, she said.

The driver's insurance company promptly paid $100,000 in coverage,
but that was not enough to cover all of Mr. Byorth's expenses,
Ms. Davies said.

Mr. Byorth also had a USAA policy with a $10,000 medical pay
benefit. USAA repeatedly denied Mr. Byorth's claims, which totaled
about $85,000, Ms. Davies said.  Only after Mr. Byorth filed a
complaint with the state's insurance commissioner did USAA pay the
$10,000, she said.

McKean also suffered injuries when her vehicle was rear-ended at a
stoplight in 2014.  McKean had $10,000 in a medical pay benefit
through USAA, which denied her claims, Mr. Heenan said.

The decision to sue USAA, Mr. Heenan said, came after he got
frustrated in trying to get McKean's claim paid promptly.  He
walked down the hall to Ms. Davies' office and told her he didn't
know why McKean was having such trouble getting her claim paid.
Ms. Davies realized that she had encountered a similar experience
with USAA in representing Mr. Byorth, he said.

"Once we filed the case, you wouldn't believe how many lawyers
have contacted us to say, 'Oh my gosh, I represent someone like
that. I had no idea this was going on,'" Mr. Heenan said.

Mr. Heenan and Ms. Davies allege in court records that USAA
referred claims to a company called Auto Injury Solutions to
prepare "file reviews" that would "uniformly conclude that medical
treatment was not necessary."

USAA used AIS' "sham 'file reviews'" that concluded Mr. Byorth's
and Ms. McKean's treatments were "not medically necessary" to deny
their claims, the complaint said.

The company also created "artificial barriers" to prevent policy
holders from collecting medical benefits, they said.  In
particular, USAA denied Mr. Byorth's benefits "on the basis of
'coding errors' even though the medical records associated with
the bills clearly showed the bills were related to the subject
accident," the complaint said.

In addition to alleging breach of contract, the lawsuit accuses
USAA of violating the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The
law, Mr. Heenan said, is like a "bill of rights" for insurance
consumers and requires companies to promptly and fairly pay claims
and to investigate claims before they deny them.

Insurance companies, Mr. Heenan said, can't deny a claim, make a
consumer jump through the hoops of hiring a lawyer and filing a
complaint, finally pay the claim and say, "no harm, no foul."

Other plaintiffs

Judge Todd's order said other plaintiffs in the class action suit
are those who were insured by USAA from April 2007 to April 2015
and who had their claim denied after a "file review" by AIS or
because of an asserted "coding error."

USAA has said in court records that 154 medical claims have been
submitted by Montana consumers in the past three years.

In a recent court filing seeking to stop further work on the case
pending appeal of the class certification, USAA said more than 700
Montanans could potentially be class members.

To identify a list of class members would require hundreds of
hours and would be a wasted effort if the certification order is
overturned or modified, USAA said in its filing.


XPO LOGISTICS: Faces 153 Calif. Labor Classification Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that certain of the
Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries received notices from
the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of 153 owner operators
contracted with these subsidiaries have filed claims with the DLSE
in which they assert that they should be classified as employees,
as opposed to independent contractors. These claims seek
reimbursement for the owner operators' business expenses,
including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease payments.

After a decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer in seven
of these claims, the Company appealed the decision to California
Supreme Court, San Diego, where a de novo trial was held on the
merits of those claims.  On July 17, 2015, the court issued a
final statement of decision finding that the seven claimants were
employees rather than independent contractors, and awarding an
aggregate of $2.0 million to the claimants. The court's judgment
is subject to appeal, and the Company is evaluating its options
with respect to these claims.

The Company cannot provide assurance that the Company will
determine to pursue an appeal or that an appeal will be
successful. The remaining DLSE claims have been transferred to
California Superior Court in three separate actions involving
approximately 200 claimants, including the 153 claimants
mentioned. These matters are in the initial procedural stages.


XPO LOGISTICS: "Mendoza" Class Action May Involve 600 Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that one of the
intermodal drayage subsidiaries is a party to a putative class
action litigation (Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, Inc.)
brought by Edwin Molina in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of California on August 19, 2013. Mr. Molina asserts that
he should be classified as an employee, as opposed to an
independent contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of
various California wage and hour laws. Mr. Molina seeks to have
the litigation certified as a class action involving all owner-
operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August
2009 to the present, which could involve as many as 600 claimants.
Certain of these potential claimants also may have claims under
the actions pending in California Superior Court as described
above.

This matter is in the initial stages of discovery and the court
has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class
action. The Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle
this litigation with the claimant, subject to court approval and
acceptance by a minimum percentage of members of the purported
class. There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement
will be finalized and executed, that the court will approve any
such settlement agreement or that it will be accepted by the
requisite percentage of members of the purported class.


XPO LOGISTICS: No Decision on Class Certification in "Arevalo"
--------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that one of the
intermodal drayage subsidiaries is a party to a putative class
action litigation (C. Arevalo v. XPO Port Services, Inc.) brought
by Carlos Arevalo in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles Central District filed in August
2015. Mr. Arevalo asserts that he should be classified as an
employee, as opposed to an independent contractor, and seeks
damages for alleged violation of various California wage and hour
laws. Mr. Arevalo seeks to have the litigation certified as a
class action involving all owner-operators contracted with this
subsidiary at any time from August 2011 to the present. Certain of
these potential claimants also may have claims under the actions
pending in California Superior Court.

This matter is in the initial pleading stage and the court has not
yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class action.
The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that it may incur as a
result of this matter.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settled Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has
reached tentative agreements to settle class action lawsuits in
Massachusetts, Illinois, Arizona and one of the California related
to the last mile logistics classification claims.

Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are
party to several putative class action litigations brought by
independent contract carriers contracted with these subsidiaries
in which the contract carriers assert that they should be
classified as employees, as opposed to independent contractors.
The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the
claims generally allege unpaid wages, overtime, alleged failure to
provide meal and rest periods and seek reimbursement of the
contract carriers' business expenses.

Putative class actions against the Company's subsidiaries are
pending in Massachusetts (Celso Martins, Alexandre Rocha, and
Calvin Anderson v. 3PD, Inc.), Illinois (Marvin Brandon, Rafael
Aguilera, and Aldo Mendez-Etzig v. 3PD, Inc.), Arizona (Dennis
Montoya v. 3PD, Inc.), California (Cesar Ardon et al v 3PD, Inc.
and Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.), New Jersey
(Leonardo Alegre v. Atlantic Central Logistics, Simply Logistics,
Inc.), Pennsylvania (Victor Reyes v. XPO Logistics, Inc.) and
Connecticut (Carlos Taveras v. XPO Last Mile, Inc.).

The Company has reached tentative agreements to settle the
Massachusetts, Illinois, Arizona and one of the California (Ardon)
litigations with the respective claimants, subject to court
approval and acceptance by a minimum percentage of members of the
respective purported class (except in the Arizona matter, in which
the settlement is of Mr. Montoya's individual claims). There can
be no assurance that the settlement agreements will be finalized
and executed, that the respective court will approve any such
settlement agreement or that it will be accepted by the requisite
percentage of members of the respective purported class.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing
last mile logistics claims that are probable and reasonably
estimable. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that it may
incur as a result of the New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut
claims, which are in preliminary stages.


V/LINE: Border Rail Action Group Mulls Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Tahlia McPherson, writing for The Border Mail, reports that the
Border Rail Action Group will look seriously at class action
against V/Line to present to the public in February.

The group is expected to convene on Jan. 27 to discuss its options
on how to improve the Southern Cross to Albury train service.

It comes after Victorian public transport minister Jacinta Allan
announced there would be compensation in the form of free travel
for all V/Line passengers from Saturday until Sunday January 31.

The free rides were offered after a week of disruptions
surrounding the Metro area.

Border rail group convenor Bill Traill said he planned to seek
legal advice on the possibility of presenting class action as an
option to North East commuters.

"We are seriously looking at the prospect of class action, but
there are other actions as well which can be taken in the
political arena," he said.

"We will also be pushing for the immediate contribution of new
rolling stock.

"Our rolling stock is based on a 17-year life cycle.

"It was introduce in early 80s and has had twice its lifespan.

"How can we expect critical equipment like this to still perform
on the tracks after its life span has been exceeded by 200 per
cent?"

"And it is scheduled to still be on the tracks in 10 years time.

"This is a non-sustainable situation regarding the fleet."

In addition to applying pressure for updated trains on the Albury
line, Mr. Traill said the bias toward the metropolitan areas
needed to be addressed.

The group planned to host a public meeting early in February,
however a date had not yet been set.

"It could be an important way of considering our decision moving
ahead," Mr. Traill said.


VBI VACCINES: Defending Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
disputes the claims asserted in a putative class action case in
New York and is vigorously contesting the matter.

On November 26, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, Case No. 14-cv-9435, as amended on February 11, 2015 and
March 25, 2015, on behalf of pre-Merger shareholders of Paulson
Capital (Delaware) Corp. who held shares on October 11, 2013 and
were entitled to vote at the 2013 Shareholder Meeting, against the
Company and certain individuals who were directors as of the date
of the vote, in a matter captioned Furlong et al. v. VBI Vaccines,
Inc. et al., making claims arising under Section 20(a) and Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by
the SEC. The claims allege false and misleading information
provided to investors in the Definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A filed by the Company with the Commission on October
18, 2013 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders to
authorize the Board to pursue potential restructuring
transactions.

"If the plaintiffs were able to prove their allegations in this
matter and to establish the damages they assert, then an adverse
ruling could have a material impact on the Company. However, the
Company disputes the claims asserted in this putative class action
case and is vigorously contesting the matter," the Company said.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Scott Cole Files Emissions Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on January 19, 2016 by Scott Cole
& Associates, APC on behalf of plaintiffs Darin Petersen, et al.,
against Volkswagen in connection with its use of illegal software
to cheat U.S. emissions standards for nearly a half million
domestic vehicles.

This case joins the scores of individual and class actions already
filed against the automaker, many of which having been
consolidated in San Francisco and assigned to U.S. District Court
Judge Charles R. Breyer pursuant to a judicial panel's decision
reached last month.  "We are thrilled these actions will be
managed in our backyard and by this skilled jurist," says class
action attorney Scott Cole, who will lead the Petersen case.
"This litigation will likely be immense and will demand a team of
extremely-qualified advocates to ensure VW fully answers for its
actions."

The lawsuit is entitled Petersen, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., et al. (U.S.D.C., Northern District Case # 3:16-cv-
00300) and will be prosecuted by Scott Cole & Associates, APC and
co-counseled by the Law Offices of Timothy P. Rumberger.

For well over two decades, Oakland-based Scott Cole & Associates,
APC has served as one of California's premiere class action law
firms, dedicating itself to representing individuals in consumer
rights and employment litigation.  For more information about its
practice and cases, visit it at www.scalaw.com email to
info@scalaw.com or call (510) 891-9800.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Vodonick" Suit Moved to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vodonick v. Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft, et al., Case No. CU15-081424, was removed from
Nevada County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California (Sacramento).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-at-01281 to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a
statewide class of all purchasers or lessees in California of
Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles allegedly containing defeat
software.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael V. Nudelman, Esq.
          12782 Woodpecker Point
          Nevada City CA 95959
          Telephone: (530) 913 7309
          Facsimile: (530) 615 4390
          E-mail: mnudelman@sbcglobal.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
          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: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com
                  jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                  nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
                  mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com
                  aedelstein@mayerbrown.com

          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: "Criston" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Criston v. Volkswagen Group Of
America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06988, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California District
(San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-05636-CRB to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK PC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985 9177

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
          HERZFELD AND RUBIN
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 471 8500
          Facsimile: (212) 344 3333
          jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com

               - and -

          Michael R McDonald, Esq.
          Jennifer Marino Thibodau, Esq.
          Thomas R Valen, Esq.
          GIBBONS PC
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
                  jmarino@gibbonslaw.com
                  tvalen@gibbonslaw.com

               - and -

          Natalie Marie Lefkowitz
          CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
          354 Eisenhower Pkway Ste 1100
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Kerwood" Suit from Mass. to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kerwood v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-13435, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 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-05655-CRB to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq.
          John J Roddy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439 6730
          Facsimile: (617) 951 3954
          E-mail: eryan@baileyglasser.com
                  jroddy@baileyglasser.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew R Levin, Esq.
          David A. Barry, Esq.
          SUGARMAN ROGERS BARSHAK & COHEN, PC
          101 Merrimac Street, 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 227 3030
          Facsimile: (617) 523 4001
          E-mail: levin@srbc.com
                  barry@srbc.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Levin" Suit from N.J. to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Levin v. Volkswagen Group Of
America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06985, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 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-05638-CRB to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.
          Jay J. Rice, Esq, Esq.
          Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
          Diane E. Sammons, Esq.
          Greg Michael Kohn, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 201
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618 0400
          Facsimile: (973) 618 9194
          E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
                  jrice@nagelrice.com
                  rmatloff@nagelrice.com
                  dsammons@nagelrice.com
                  gkohn@nagelrice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
          HERZFELD AND RUBIN
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 471 8500
          Facsimile: (212) 344 3333
          E-mail: jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com

               - and -

          Michael R McDonald, Esq.
          Jennifer Marino Thibodau, Esq.
          Thomas R Valen, Esq.
          GIBBONS PC
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
                  jmarino@gibbonslaw.com
                  tvalen@gibbonslaw.com

               - and -

          Natalie Marie Lefkowitz
          CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
          354 Eisenhower Pkway Ste 1100
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Clinton" Suit Moved from E.D.N.Y to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Clinton et al. v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05497, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern 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-05665-CRB to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Andrew Walsh, Esq.
          Weitz and Luxenberg
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558 5836
          Fax: (212) (212) 344 5461
          E-mail: wwalsh@weitzlux.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Natalie Marie Lefkowitz
          CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
          354 Eisenhower Pkway Ste 1100
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Lucas" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to N.D Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lucas, et al. v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01672, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, 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-05658-CRB to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dargan Maner Ware, Esq.
          Courtney L. Peinhardt, Esq.
          D. Frank Davis, Esq.
          John E. Norris, Esq.
          Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          2154 Highland Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930 9900
          Facsimile: (205) 930 9989
          E-mail: dware@davisnorris.com
                  courtney@davisnorris.com
                  fdavis@davisnorris.com
                  jnorris@davisnorris.com
                  wbarnett@davisnorris.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Harlan Irby Prater IV, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC
          400 20th St North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          E-mail: hprater@lightfootlaw.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Naparstek" Suit Moved from Mass. to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Naparstek v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-13418, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 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-05654-CRB to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marie Ann McCrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 789 6390
          Facsimile: (415) 449 6469
          E-mail: marie@gutridesafier.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew R Levin, Esq.
          David A. Barry, Esq.
          SUGARMAN ROGERS BARSHAK & COHEN, PC
          101 Merrimac Street, 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 227 3030
          Facsimile: (617) 523 4001
          E-mail: levin@srbc.com
                  barry@srbc.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Defiesta" Suit Moved from N.J. to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Defiesta et al v. Volkswagen Group
Of America Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07012, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California Northern
(San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-05637-CRB to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph A. Maurice, Esq.
          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRYMANN & KNOFF, LLP
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845 9600
          E-mail: jam@njlawfirm.com
                  psp@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          David S. Stone, Esq.
          Robert A. Magnanini, Esq.
          STONE & MAGNANINI LLP
          100 Connell Drive, Suite 2200
          Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
          Telephone: (973) 218 1111
          E-mail: dstone@stonemagnalaw.com
                  magnanini@stonemagnalaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
                  jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Scott A. George
          SEEGER WEISS
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 553 7982
          E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
          HERZFELD AND RUBIN
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 471 8500
          Facsimile: (212) 344 3333
          E-mail: jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com

               - and -

          Michael R McDonald, Esq.
          Jennifer Marino Thibodau, Esq.
          Thomas R Valen, Esq.
          GIBBONS PC
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
                  jmarino@gibbonslaw.com
                  tvalen@gibbonslaw.com

               - and -

          Natalie Marie Lefkowitz
          CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
          354 Eisenhower Pkway Ste 1100
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Lance" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lance et al. v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01058, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
05660-CRB to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


WAYFAIR INC: "Jenkins" Class Action Dismissed; "Dingee" Still Open
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Jenkins class
action has been dismissed while the Dingee class action remains
pending.

On September 2, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Dingee v. Wayfair Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-06941) by an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all other similarly situated individuals, or collectively, the
Plaintiffs, under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act related to a drop in stock price that had followed a
report issued by Citron Research.

On September 3, a second putative class action complaint was
filed, asserting nearly identical claims (Jenkins v. Wayfair Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06985).

On November 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the Dingee action moved to
consolidate the two lawsuits, and to designate himself as lead
plaintiff in the class action and his attorney as lead counsel for
the class.

On November 3, plaintiff in the Jenkins action voluntarily
dismissed his complaint. As a result, only the Dingee action
remains pending.

The Plaintiff's complaint seeks class certification, damages in an
unspecified amount, and attorney's fees and costs. The company
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


WINDSOR & TECUMSEH: Lawyers Seek to Stop Charitable Group Opt-Outs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Battagello, writing for Windsor Star, reports that lawyers
pursuing a class-action lawsuit against Windsor and Tecumseh are
asking a judge to prohibit the municipalities from asking
charitable groups to opt out of the lawsuit that alleges they were
overcharged for bingo licenses.

Windsor Mayor Drew Dilkens said the city will abide by the request
until the motion is heard in Ontario Superior Court on Jan. 18.

Windsor and Tecumseh launched a 120-day campaign on Jan. 16 asking
organizations that fundraise through bingos or other charitable
games to opt out of a class-action lawsuit that could potentially
cost the two municipalities $80 million.

"We believe we have the legal right to communicate fair and
current information about the impact of this class-action
lawsuit," Mr. Dilkens said.  "But out of respect of the court
process, for this short period now until the conclusion of the
motion," the municipalities won't be commenting on the campaign,
he said.

The lawsuit launched in 2007 claims municipalities can't profit
from license fees paid for bingos and other charitable gaming
events.

If the claim is successful, Windsor and Tecumseh will have to
reimburse charities all gaming license fees paid going back to
1993.  For the city, that adds up to at least $70 million, while
for Tecumseh, it would be roughly $7 million, Mr. Dilkens said.

It's money, the city and town say, will end up being paid by
taxpayers.

The lawsuit was initiated in 2007 by the ALS Society -- a group
that fundraises and provides help to fight amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis disease.  Because it has been certified by an Ontario
Superior Court judge as a class action, the lawsuit covers every
organization that paid for a bingo or charitable gaming license
fee in the two municipalities.

Windsor and Tecumseh launched the joint opt-out campaign on
Jan. 16 based on legal advice after the court set a May 15
deadline for groups to indicate that they do not wish to be part
of the lawsuit.

It has community and sports organizations across the region
scrambling for information.

Windsor Regional Hospital has requested roughly one license a week
from the city for bingo fundraisers or other charitable gaming
events.  Its board of directors was set to meet on Jan. 21 and
will likely make a decision on whether to participate in the
lawsuit then, said spokesman Ron Foster, who declined to comment
further.

Dean Lapierre, president of Windsor Minor Hockey Association, said
the organization used to request one or two bingo licenses per
month.  He expects it will discuss the issue at its next board
meeting in early February.

"It's still kind of fresh for us," he said.  "We will try and work
with the city on this, considering the amount of ice time we use
at their facilities. They have been a good partner with us."

Glen Malott, office manager for Brentwood Recovery Home, said the
addiction treatment centre also has not made a decision.  The
board was discussing it on Jan. 19, he said.  "We have not had
much of a chance yet to really look at it."

Bingos were very lucrative as charity fundraisers in the
industry's heyday in the 1990s when players crowded into nearly a
dozen gaming halls across the city.  All that was needed for a
fundraiser was a licence from the municipality.

The provincewide smoking ban, competition from area casinos and
the loss of U.S. customers due to tighter border restrictions all
combined to essentially kill much of the once booming industry.


WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Labor-Related Suit Settled at Nominal Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in a class action lawsuit settled the dispute for an
immaterial amount and the Court has approved the settlement.

On March 15, 2012, a former mortgage loan originator employed by
Wintrust Mortgage Company, named Wintrust, Barrington
Bank and its subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants
in a Fair Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"FLSA Litigation"). The suit asserts that Wintrust Mortgage
Company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
challenges the manner in which Wintrust Mortgage Company
classified its loan originators and compensated them for their
work. The suit also seeks to assert these claims as a class. On
September 30, 2013, the Court entered an order conditionally
certifying an "opt-in" class in this case. Notice to the potential
class members was sent on or about October 22, 2013, primarily
informing the putative class of the right to opt-into the class
and setting a deadline for same. Approximately 15% of the notice
recipients joined the class.

On September 26, 2014, the Court stayed actions by opt-in
plaintiffs with arbitration agreements, which reduced the class
size by more than 40%. The Court also denied the opt-in
plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling, which the Company
anticipates will reduce the class size by an additional 15%.

On April 30, 2015, the parties settled the dispute for an
immaterial amount and the Court approved the settlement on June
17, 2015.


YAKIMA COUNTY, CA: Launches Pretrial Program Amid Bail System Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Morey, writing for Yakima Herald, reports that on Feb. 1, the
Yakima County criminal justice system will launch a new effort to
free certain defendants awaiting trial.  The project has been more
than two years in the making.

The idea behind the pretrial release program is to maintain public
safety while allowing lower-risk suspects to remain productive as
they await resolution of their criminal cases.

The program grew out of a 2012 report on the county's criminal
justice system, which among other points found that defendants
were spending too long in jail before trial.

Supporters say the pretrial program takes a more complex approach
to deciding who should be released than simply slapping a bail
amount on each case.

"It keeps the right people in jail and moves the right people out
of jail -- based on their risk to the community, not on money,"
said Harold Delia, a Yakima County court consultant who has served
on the pretrial release policy committee that helped develop the
program.

It should most benefit the poorest defendants, who can spend
months in jail prior to trial simply because they can't afford to
post bail.

While cash bail remains an option, the program's focus will be on
identifying defendants who can be released and monitored.
Monitoring options range from being released without conditions,
which already happens occasionally; being required to report to a
pretrial officer; or wearing an ankle bracelet.

The decision-making process uses a matrix that rates each suspect
based on their current charge, criminal history and whether
they've ever skipped court appearances.

Suspects considered dangerous will not be recommended for release.

The risk assessment tool was designed by the Texas-based Arnold
Foundation and has been tested on 50,000 defendants, which has
shown an 87 percent success rate in predicting who will comply
with release conditions.

County Prosecuting Attorney Joe Brusic said he believes the
program will lead to better decisions about which suspects should
be released.

"My key goal is community safety," Mr. Brusic said.

"If I didn't think this program was going to make the community
safer, I wouldn't support it, but I believe that it will."

Presiding Superior Court Judge Richard Bartheld, who has served on
the pretrial policy committee, said he believes the new process
will allow him to make better decisions about which defendants to
release.

Under the current approach, Judge Bartheld said, defendants can be
jailed up to three weeks before attorneys schedule a bail hearing.

Some defendants who can't afford bail end up serving more time
than their eventual sentences because of how long it takes to
resolve their cases.

"Sure, it is politically safer to lock everybody up, but is that
the right thing to do? Is that the safe thing to do?" Judge
Bartheld asked.  "I don't think it is."

Paul Kelley, director of the county's public defenders, said a
criminal case disrupts a defendant's life.  Losing a job, a car or
a relationship makes it more difficult to stay out of further
trouble once someone has served their time.  Giving them a chance
to prepare for serving time should improve their chances of
success, he said.

"If this prevention of such an upheaval in their life assists
that, there's a significant chance our community will be a bit
safer, so why not try it?" Mr. Kelley said.

The program could potentially help Yakima County avoid future
lawsuits.  California is facing a class-action lawsuit that
alleges its bail system treats poor defendants unfairly.

The county has budgeted $315,000 a year for the program, mostly
for pretrial staff, a deputy prosecutor and a public defender.
The attorneys will review each new case to help make decisions on
which defendants to release.

The program is expected to handle about 200 defendants at a time.

The federal Department of Justice gave Yakima County a $300,000
planning grant to serve as a pilot site, along with the county and
city of Denver and the state of Delaware, for pretrial models that
can be implemented across the country.

Releasing any defendant carries a certain risk.

In 2013, Yakima police Chief Dominic Rizzi complained to county
judges about a defendant who was furloughed to attend the funeral
of a close relative.  The man, who was awaiting sentencing for
leading police on a high-speed chase, did not return when he was
supposed to, and fled again when officers tried to arrest him.

Jim Hagarty, the former county prosecuting attorney, and court
officials said they did not believe the furlough would have been
granted had a pretrial program been in place.  Defendants who
escape on furlough are relatively rare, officials said.

Yakima police Capt. Gary Jones, who represented the department on
the pretrial policy committee, said he and other law enforcement
representatives emphasized that their goal was to keep the
riskiest defendants behind bars.

He said he hopes that will happen under the program.

"It does add another layer of complexity to the process, but we
are also realists that we can't lock everybody up prior to trial,"
Jones said.


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Jan. 15 Was Cut-Off for Expert Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2015, that pursuant to
the Court's scheduling order, expert discovery is expected to be
completed by January 15, 2016, and dispositive motions are to be
filed by February 12, 2016, in the case, In re Symbol
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company acquired Symbol Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of
Motorola Solutions. A putative federal class action lawsuit,
Waring v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al., was filed on August
16, 2005 against Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York by Robert Waring. After the filing of the
Waring action, several additional purported class actions were
filed against Symbol and the same former officers making
substantially similar allegations (collectively, the "New Class
Actions").

The Waring action and the New Class Actions were consolidated for
all purposes and on April 26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron
Workers Local # 580 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved
its retention of lead counsel on behalf of the putative class.

On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and
named additional former officers and directors of Symbol as
defendants. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and
forecasting processes, and that, as a result, all of the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint
alleges that it was damaged by the decline in the price of
Symbol's stock following certain purported corrective disclosures
and seeks unspecified damages.

By orders entered on June 25 and August 3, 2015, the court granted
lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying a
class of investors that includes those that purchased Symbol
common stock between April 29, 2003 and August 1, 2005. The
parties have substantially completed fact discovery.


* House Passes Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abby Sacunas, Esq. -- asacunas@cozen.com -- of Cozen O'Connor, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that in 2015, the chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte (R. Va.), proposed the
Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2015-2016 (H.R. 1927).
The Act passed the House on January 8, 2016, and is presently
before the Senate.

If passed, the Act will amend the federal judicial code to
prohibit federal courts from certifying "any proposed class
seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss
unless the party seeking to maintain such a class action
affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed class member
suffered an injury of the same type and scope as the injury of the
named class representatives."  H.R. 1927.  According to its
sponsor, the Act "aims to reform the current federal class action
lawsuit framework by requiring uninjured parties to be part of
separate class action suits than those parties experiencing more
extensive injuries."  Data from the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts indicates that enactment of this legislation
could reduce the number of class action suits filed and the number
of plaintiffs in them.

The Act would in effect tighten what in class actions is called
the typicality requirement: all the class plaintiffs need to look
the same.  While a lot will turn on judicial interpretation of the
Act's language, one thing is certain -- if passed, the standard
for class certification will rise to a new heightened level,
likely relieving manufacturers from the threat and pursuit of any
number of overly broad and no-injury class action lawsuits.

This could have tremendous impact for companies like, for example,
Volkswagen, which faces economic loss class action suits across
the country that are seeking certification.  Indeed, there are
some who are referring to this legislation as the "Volkswagen
Immunity Bill" or "VW Bailout Bill".  If passed, it could impact
certification to, if nothing else, reduce overall class size or
splinter the classes based upon nature or extent of economic harm.

The Act would certainly prevent, for example, the certification of
the classes brought on behalf of consumers who did not all
experience the claimed issue with the product.  For example, this
legislation would likely have prevented certification of the class
in the matter of In re Whirlpool Front-loading Products Liability
Litigation.  In that case, plaintiffs alleged a design defect
existed in Whirlpool Corp.'s front-loading washing machines, which
caused the machines to develop mold. The district court granted
class certification, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, in In re Whirlpool Front-Loading Washer Products
Liability Litigation, 722 F.3d 838, 844 (6th Cir. 2013) affirmed,
even though many consumers in the class never actually experienced
mold.  The Act could also reduce settlements and awards in
personal injury class actions because it would stratify classes
based upon the severity or type of injury and certify the people
who were actually injured so those who were not do not receive the
same relief.

Bottom line is that if passed, this Act will change the landscape
of product liability class action litigation going forward.  Stay
tuned here for updates as to whether the Fairness in Class Action
Act of 2015-2016 gets through the Senate and signed into law.


* More Labor Depreciation Class Action Filings Expected in 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in
an article for JSupra Business Advisor, provided a Labor
Depreciation Class Action Update.

Mr. Ackerman said "There have been three decisions since my last
update, with sharply conflicting results.  So what does this mean?
I expect that 2016 will bring a significant number of additional
class action filings on this issue, including both filings against
additional insurers in jurisdictions where the issue has been
decided favorable to plaintiffs, and new filings in additional
jurisdictions.  Until there is more appellate law on this issue
that is favorable to insurers' position, plaintiffs' attorneys are
likely to file more class actions."

Arkansas: In Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. v. Goodner, 2015 Ark. 460,
2015 Ark. LEXIS 658 (Ark. Dec. 10, 2015), the Arkansas Supreme
Court majority held that, where the insurance policy expressly
provided for the application of depreciation to labor costs, this
provision was contrary to public policy because "providing for
depreciation of labor violates established principles of indemnity
. . . ." The court did not explain how depreciation of labor costs
violates principles of indemnity. The basic principle of indemnity
-- that an insured should be placed in the same economic position
as prior to the loss, and should not profit from a loss --
supports the application of proper depreciation.  Without
application of the correct amount of depreciation, an insured that
replaces, for example, an old roof with a new one with a much
longer life expectancy will profit from the loss.  The Arkansas
Supreme Court had previously ruled, in Adams v. Cameron Mut. Ins.
Co., 430 S.W.3d 675 (Ark. 2013), that an insurance policy that did
not define the term "actual cash value" was ambiguous and,
construing the policy against the insurer, application of
depreciation to labor costs was improper.  Arkansas has now taken
this ruling a step further and concluded that an insurer cannot
apply depreciation to labor costs even if the policy explicitly
provides for that result.  A strong dissent by Justice Wood,
joined by Chief Justice Brill, stressed that "public policy lies
almost exclusively in the legislative domain," and the dissent
could not "say that this contract term interferes with the public
welfare to the extent that we would take the unprecedented step of
creating public policy in the absence of legislation."  The
dissent also emphasized freedom of contract, and that the insureds
chose to purchase actual cash value rather than replacement cost
insurance.  In my mind, the Goodner decision demonstrates how
Arkansas is an outlying jurisdiction on this issue.  I would be
surprised if other courts follow this decision. Even courts that
may be perceived as hostile to the insurance industry rarely will
usurp the prerogative of the legislature with respect to public
policy.

Missouri: In Labrier v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 160020 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 30, 2015), a Missouri federal
district court denied State Farm's motion to dismiss a putative
class action concerning depreciation of labor costs.  The court
concluded that: (1) certain Missouri statutes concerning loss
payment under property policies applied only to fire losses (and
thus were inapplicable to a hail loss); (2) the term "actual cash
value" was ambiguous in State Farm's policy where the policy did
not define "actual cash value," and the court therefore adopted
the plaintiff's definition of "actual cash value" as replacement
cost less depreciation; and (3) under a replacement-cost-less-
depreciation definition of "actual cash value," the term
"depreciation" was ambiguous with respect to whether labor costs
could be included in estimating the depreciation.  The court
appeared to recognize that State Farm's application of
depreciation made more economic sense when applied to specific
examples, but nevertheless found ambiguity.

Pennsylvania: In Papurello v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154536 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2015), a Pennsylvania
federal district court granted State Farm's motion to dismiss with
respect to the putative class claims. With respect to depreciation
of labor costs, the court explained that "[w]hen a roof is in
issue, as it is here, the 'plain and ordinary' meaning of the
'property' to which the Policy refers is the finished product in
issue -- the result or physical manifestation of combining
knowhow, labor, physical materials (including attendant costs,
e.g., the incurrence of taxes), and anything else required to
produce the final, finished roof itself."  The court explained
that the "property" to be depreciated could not refer to only the
materials, as the plaintiffs asserted. This was because it was the
full value of the finished roof that suffered depreciation over
time, not merely the materials.  The court further found that the
plaintiffs' position would convert actual cash value coverage into
a form of replacement cost coverage (which was payable only where
replacement was completed).

The next significant decision on this issue appears likely to come
from the Minnesota Supreme Court, which has heard oral argument on
the issue, but has not yet issued a decision.


                            *********

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  * * *