CAR_Public/160127.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 27, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 18


                            Headlines


ABBOTT'S COMPOUNDING: Recalls Sterile Compounded Products
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing Completed on Motion to Strike
ALERE INC: Class Action Suit Related to Laptop Theft Settled
ALL CITY REMODELING: "Palaguachi" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages
ALLADIN BAIL BONDS: "Singleton" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Back Wages

AMEDISYS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Action in M.D. La.
AMEDISYS INC: Settlement in Wage and Hour Litigation Pending
AMEDISYS INC: Employee Class Suit in Illinois Still Pending
AMERIANA BANCORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Stein"
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Facing Two Shareholder Suits in Mass.

AVID LIFE: Faces "Alfaro" Class Suit Over Alleged Security Breach
AVID LIFE: "Lisuzzo" Suit Goes to Northern Dist. Illinois
BANCORP INC: "Fletcher" Stockholder Suit in Preliminary Stages
BIG B WORLD: "Arzeno" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT Pay
BIG DOG: Recalls Raw Dehydrated Dog Food Products Due to Listeria

BLENDTECH INC: Recalls Fish Batter Mix Products Due to Milk
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: "Davis" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2418
CADIZ INC: Defending "Van Wingerden" Class Action
CAFE VENEZIA: Skimmed Tips & Doesn't Pay OT, "Quiroz" Suit Says
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SVC: Faces "McLaran" Suit Over Health Plan

CAPE COD: Recalls Yogurt Covered Products Due to Almonds
CATHEDRAL ENERGY: "Price" Suit Goes from Colorado to S.D. Texas
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in "Ford" Suit Awaits Approval
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Accord in Ford-Rodriguez Case Awaits Final OK
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Mediation Held in "Wright" Case

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid Pending in "Sinohui" Case
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Defending Class Suits Over Apollo Merger
CEDAR FAIR: $4.75MM Settlement in "Ortegon" Has Final OK
CELLADON CORPORATION: Expects Consolidation of 3 Shareholder Suits
CELGENE CORPORATION: No Discovery Yet in IUB Class Suit

CELGENE CORPORATION: MOU Reached in Suits Over Receptos Purchase
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Wants to Send "Guglielmo" Case to Arbitration
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: MOU Reached in Hourly Employee's Case
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defending Employee Suit in Orange County
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Arbitration Ruling in "Garcia" Upheld

CHEMIX ENERGY: "McGarry" Action Seeks Overtime Wages
CHERYL & CO: Recalls Ornaments With Cookies and Confections
CHINA XD: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: "Rocco" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
COMEAUX'S INC: Recalls Pork Products Due to Listeria

CONFORMIS INC: Denies Liability in IPO Stock Purchasers Lawsuit
COST PLUS: Recalls Tovin Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
CR BARD: "Rouse" Suit Consolidated in IVC Filters Liability MDL
CREATIVE CO-OP: Recalls Monogrammed Mugs Due to Fire Hazard
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Deal Reached in Class Suits in Canada

CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Deal Reached in Suit Over Spansion Merger
DARSHEN PATEL: "Mays" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
DASHED INC: "Billingslea" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Pay
DATADIRECT NETWORKS: "Molina" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
DESTINATION MATERNITY CORP: "Long" Suit Goes to S.D. California

DIGITEK COMPUTER: "Viciedo" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Boast" Suit Alleges Illegal Online Gaming
EGS FINANCIAL CARE: "Burns" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Pay
ELIZABETH WILLIAMS: Faces Tenant Suit Over Poor Living Conditions
EMERSON ELECTRIC: "Rockwood" Suit Hits Defective Filters

EVERI HOLDINGS: Court Has Not Ruled on Class Certification Motion
FANDUEL INC: "Williams" Suit Alleges Illegal Gambling
FIRST SOLAR: Petition for Interlocutory Appeal Remains Pending
FTS INTERNATIONAL: "Wharton" Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Wages
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Complete

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Quintero" Suit Over Towing Capacity
GERON CORPORATION: Calif. Securities Suit Remains Pending
GFI GROUP: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Delaware Action
GFI GROUP: Moved to Dismiss or Stay "Quaker" Securities Lawsuit
GFI GROUP: Moved to Dismiss "Gross" Shareholder Class Action Suit

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Simpson" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Reynolds" Suit Goes from N.D. Alabama to Mass.
GODADDY.COM LLC: "Ventures" Suit Hits Substandard Software Pack
GOTHIC GROUNDS: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Rest Period Premium Wages
GRAMERCY TAVERN: "Siddiky" Action Seeks Minimum Wages, Tips

GRAYSON COUNTY GLASS: "Jones" Suit Goes from N.D to E.D. Texas
HAWKINS INC: East Grand Forks Suit Hits Aluminum Sulfate Pricing
HOME OF THE SAGES OF ISRAEL: "Block" Action Hits Charity Fraud
HOMELAND HOUSEWARES: "De Groen" Suit Hits Defective Blender
HUISKEN MEAT: Recalls Beef Products Due to Wood Materials

HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: "Ridler" Suit Hits Merger Deal
IKEA NORTH: Recalls LATTJO Tongue Drums and Drumstick Sets
INSIGHT GLOBAL: "Rosenbaum" Suit Moved to S.D. California
J&B IMPORTERS: Recalls Folding Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
K.A.M. FOOD STORE: "Braxton" Suit Alleges Labor Violations

KAYEM FOODS: Recalls Chicken Sausage Products Due to Misbranding
KNOLLWOOD SERVICE: "Haddad" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
KTM NORTH: Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles Due to Injury Risk
KTM NORTH: Recalls Motocross Motorcycles Due to Fire Hazard
KTM NORTH: Recalls Motocross Motorcycles Due to Crash Risk

LA PLACITA DGO: "Peralta" Action Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Shareholder-Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint
LOUISIANA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Lack of Public Defenders
MAGNUM HUNTER: Securities Cases in New York and Texas Dismissed
MANHATTAN HOTEL: Customer Sustained 2nd Degree Burns, Suit Says

MANNKIND: New York City Law Firm Files Class Action
MASTERS AUTO CORP: "Vasquez" Action Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: "Mogle" Suit Seeks to Block Acquisition
MAYTAG CORP: "Corzine" Suit Goes from Superior Court to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2179: New Class Gets 72.8% Allocation of Settlement Funds

MEDICAL INFORMATICS: "Greulich" Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana
MENASHA CORP: "Linares" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Meal Period Premium
MERCK & CO: "Reinhold" Action Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
MERCK & CO: To Settle Investors' Vioxx Class Action for $830MM
MIA HOSPITALITY: "Perez" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

MICHAEL STORES: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
MIDWEST TECHNICAL INSTITUTE: "Lee" Action Seeks Unpaid OT Pay
M&V CONCRETE: "Padilla" Action Seeks Back Wages & Overtime Pay
NETO'S SAUSAGE: Recalls Beef, Pork, and Chicken Products
NEW DIAMOND CAFE: "Abdelsalam" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages

NEW YORK: CA Vacates Order Declaring Section 518 Unconstitutional
NEW YORK ROAD: Faces $11MM Class Action Over Qualification Lottery
NEW YORK STYLE: Recalls Pork Sausage Products Due to Misbranding
NORTHEAST SERVICE INTERIORS: "Prado" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: "French" Suit Hits Autodialer Calls

OFFICE DEPOT: Recalls Executive Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
ORBITAL ATK: Deal Pending in Merger Class Action
PEET'S COFFEE: "Slattery" Suit Hits Under Filled Coffee
PERSONNEL SUPPLY: "Gabbidon" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
PFIZER INC: Some Effector Personal Injury Cases Dismissed

PFIZER INC: End-Payer Effexor XR Claims Facing Dismissal Bids
PFIZER INC: Says Plaintiffs Drop Zoloft Personal Injury Claims
PFIZER INC: Appeal by Lipitor Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Pending
PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Cases Ongoing in Ontario
PFIZER INC: Still Defending Celebrex Purchaser Cases in E.D. Va.

PHOENIX COMPANIES: Settlement Approved in Fleisher and SPRR Cases
PHOENIX COMPANIES: Nassau Re Merger Challenged in Conn. Super. Ct.
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Recalls Swingasan(R) Chairs and Stands
PL SLATON: "Morales Vega" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PLY GEM: $1.6-Mil. Liability in Vinyl Clad Settlement Outstanding

PLY GEM: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Certification
PLY GEM: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint in Securities Case
PNC BANK: "Muhammad" Suit Goes from Circuit Court to S.D. W.Va.
PRIMARY STRUCTURES: "Samonte" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: "Tuff" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalls BMX Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
REACHLOCAL INC: Class Action by Former Clients in Early Stage
ROSEBURG FOREST: "Lankford" Action Seeks Unpaid OT, Meal Periods
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Class Suit Under Appeal
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss "Kader" Suit Pending

SASAC: "Brooke" Suit Goes from S.D. Fla. to E.D. Louisiana MDL
SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Recalls Classroom Stools Due to Fall Hazard
SEARS ROEBUCK: "Azimpour" Suit Hits Discount Price Confusion
SEASONAL SPECIALTIES: Recalls Music and Lighting System
SICKKIDS: Koskike Issues Statement of Claim in "Motherisk" Suit

SOLAZYME INC: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
SOLERA HOLDINGS: Court Declined to Enjoin Special Meeting
SOUTHERN CONSTRUCTION: "Cumberland" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay
SPRING SOHO: "Bello" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage & OT Pay
STATE FARM FIRE: "Burdess" Suit Moved to Nebraska Dist. Court

STEELCASE INC: Recalls Swivel Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
SUNRUN INC: "Fausto" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Premium
SWAGGIN WAGON: "Hart" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
SYNGENTA AG: "Welsh" Suit Goes from Circuit Court to E.D. Ky.
SYNGENTA AG: "Richardson" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. Alabama

TACO HUT PLACE: "Lu" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Pay
TASTE OF MAO: "Chan" Action Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Action Hits Share Price Drop
TOTAL SYSTEM: JPML Transfers Arizona Case to Massachusetts
TRANSTAR INDUSTRIES: "Bauer" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Jury Trial Scheduled for June 20
UNIVERSAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE: "Campos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
VIVINT SOLAR: 2nd Amended Complaint in "Stadnick" IPO Suit Tossed
VIZIO INC: "Mason" Suit Hits Illegal Data Gathering
VIZIO INC: "Ogle" Suit Hits Illegal Data Gathering

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Lieff Cabraser Leads Plaintiff Steering Panel
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Mathis" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Henley" Suit Moved to N.D. California MDL
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bonda" Suit Transferred to N.D. California MDL
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Triplett" Suit Moved to N.D. California MDL

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Brewitt" Suit Transferred to MDL 2672
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Farmer" Suit Moved to N.D. California MDL
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bustamante" Suit Moved to N.D. California MDL
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Youngblood" Suit Over Emission Test
WALMART STORES: Recalls Rival Griddles Due to Shock Hazard

WALT DISNEY: Recalls Infant Bodysuits Due to Chocking Hazard
WALTER ENERGY: $25MM Accord in Securities Case Awaits Final OK
WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Noncompliance
WEST ELM: Recalls Saddle Bar, Counter Stools Due to Fall Hazard
ZULILY INC: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Burn Hazard

* 401(K) Plan-Related Class Actions Surge in 4th Quarter 2015
* Department Stores in Calif. Face False Advertising Class Action
* Employers Face Uncertainty in Obtaining Class Action Waivers
* Employment-Related Class Actions Hit record High in 2015
* New Law Brings Changes to Class Action Rules in Quebec


                            *********


ABBOTT'S COMPOUNDING: Recalls Sterile Compounded Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Abbott's Compounding Pharmacy is voluntarily recalling all
unexpired lots of sterile compounded products due to concerns of
lack of sterility assurance. All unexpired lots are subject to the
recall. These include injectable medications, sterile solutions,
eye drops, and eye ointments. All recalled products were
distributed to patients, physician offices and clinics, and
veterinarians within California.

All recalled products have a label that includes the Abbott's
Compounding Pharmacy name and expiration date. If unsure,
Customers can call the pharmacy to determine the expiration date.
This recall impacts all sterile products distributed between
01/01/2015 and 01/14/2016.

The recall was issued after a series of onsite inspections by the
FDA. Out of an abundance of caution, Abbott's Compounding Pharmacy
is voluntarily recalling all sterile compounded products within
expiry. If there is microbial contamination in products intended
to be sterile, patients are at risk for serious and potentially
life-threatening infections.

To date, Abbott's Compounding Pharmacy has not received any
reports of any adverse effects or injuries, and the recalled
products were distributed exclusively within the state of
California directly from its Berkeley, California pharmacy
location.

Customers that have recalled product should immediately stop using
it and contact the pharmacy to arrange for the return of unused
product. Customers should contact their physician or health care
provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related
to taking or using these products.

Customers with questions regarding this recall can contact
Abbott's Compounding Pharmacy by phone Monday thru Friday, 9:00am
to 5:00pm at (510) 548-8777, or email its media representative.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

For reporting animal adverse drug events:
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ReportaProblem/uc
m055305.htm

Abbott's Compounding Pharmacy deeply regrets any disruption that
this voluntary recall and temporary suspension of Sterile
compounding services have on its Customers, but notes that safety
and quality are its primary concerns.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing Completed on Motion to Strike
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion 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 briefing
is complete with respect to the Company's motion to strike the
second amended complaint in a class action lawsuit.

In January 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
certain misstatements and omissions related to the marketing of
JUXTAPID and the Company's financial performance in violation of
the federal securities laws.

On March 11, 2015, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel. On April 1, 2015, the Court entered an order permitting
and setting a schedule for co-lead plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint within 60 days, and for defendants to file responsive
pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any opposition, and
defendants to file reply briefs.

Accordingly, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June
1, 2015. The amended complaint filed against the Company and
certain of its former executive officers alleges that defendants
made certain misstatements and omissions during the first three
quarters of 2014 related to the Company's revenue projections for
JUXTAPID for 2014, as well as data underlying those projections,
in violation of the federal securities laws. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on July 31, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs filed a putative second
amended complaint, which alleges that the defendants made certain
misstatements and omissions from April 2013 through October 2014
related to the marketing of JUXTAPID and the Company's financial
projections, as well as data underlying those projections.

On September 4, 2015, the Company moved to strike the second
amended complaint for the co-lead plaintiffs' failure to seek
leave of court to file a second amended pleading, and briefing is
complete with respect to the motion to strike.

As of the filing date of this 10-Q, the Company cannot determine
if a loss is probable as a result of the class action lawsuit and
whether the outcome will have a material adverse effect on its
business and, as a result, the Company has not recorded any
amounts for a loss contingency.


ALERE INC: Class Action Suit Related to Laptop Theft Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
Alere 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 have settled
class action litigation related to the theft of a laptop computer.

In September 2012, a password-protected laptop containing
personally identifiable information of approximately 116,000
patients was stolen from an employee of Alere Home Monitoring, or
AHM. On January 24, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against AHM, asserting claims for damages and other relief under
California state law, including under California's Confidentiality
of Medical Information Act, or CMIA, arising out of this theft.

On October 7, 2014, the class action was dismissed with leave to
amend the complaint. On October 28, 2014, an amended complaint was
filed, and on November 17, 2014 AHM responded by filing another
motion to dismiss.

On February 23, 2015, AHM's motion to dismiss was granted in part,
but denied as to the plaintiffs' amended CMIA claims.

The parties have settled this litigation and, in connection with
such settlement, the Company has paid a nominal amount to the
plaintiffs.


ALL CITY REMODELING: "Palaguachi" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Palaguachi, Daniel Galdame and Marco Morocho, on behalf of
themselves and other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
All City Remodeling, Inc., T&G Contracting Inc., George
Tsimoyianis, and John Does 1-100, the actual names of such
individuals or entities being unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-
cv-09688 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2015), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees under New York State Labor
Law, Sec. 190, 650 et seq. and the New York Minimum Wage Act Sec.
650 et seq. as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended,
29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.

Palaguachi has worked as a carpenter, Galdame worked as a
plasterer and painter while Morocho worked as a general laborer.
They claim not paid being the mandatory overtime premium in excess
of 40 hours per work week as well as reimbursement for work-
related expenses.

All City Remodeling, Inc. is a New York corporation located at 47-
14 32nd Place, Long Island City, New York 11101.

T&G Contracting Inc. is a New York corporation located at 47-14
32nd Place, Long Island City, New York 11101.

Both are residential and commercial construction contractors owned
by George Tsimoyianis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry Cary, Esq.
      Melissa S. Chan, Esq.
      CARY KANE LLP
      1350 Broadway, Suite 1400
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212) 868-6300


ALLADIN BAIL BONDS: "Singleton" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Back Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Singleton, Plaintiff, v. California Surety Investigations,
LLC, Two Jinn d/b/a Aladdin Bail Bonds and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC603729 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County,
December 9, 2015), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California
Labor Code.

Singleton works for the Defendant as an investigator. He claims to
have worked in excess of his regular time without overtime
compensation and alleges Defendant of not maintaining proper wage
statements. He also claims back wages upon his separation from the
company on August 24, 2015.

Defendant is bail bonds company located at 900 Avila, Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Matthew Norton, Esq.
      MATTHEW NORTON & ASSOCIATES
      444 West Ocean Boulevard, #800
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Tel: (562) 624-2894
      Fax: (562) 624-2879
      Email: Matt@Matthew-Norton.com


AMEDISYS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Action in M.D. La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. remains a defendant in a securities class action
lawsuit in Louisiana, which had been revived by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Amedisys appealed from the Fifth
Circuit court's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 30,
2015, and the High Court handed down its decision on June 29,
2015, denying the Company's petition for a writ of certiorari.

In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, Amedisys said that on June 10, 2010, a
putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the
"District Court") against the Company and certain of the Company's
current and former senior executives. Additional putative
securities class actions were filed in the Court on July 14, July
16, and July 28, 2010.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints.

"The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
about our business, financial condition, operations and prospects,
particularly relating to our policies and practices regarding home
therapy visits under the Medicare home health prospective payment
system and the related alleged impact on our business, financial
condition, operations and prospects," the Company said.

The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may
be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and
September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint.

On June 28, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
District Court denied on April 9, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth Circuit"). On October 2, 2014, a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing
the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. On
October 16, 2014, all defendants filed a petition with the Fifth
Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision en banc, or as
a whole court. On December 29, 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the
defendants' motion for en banc review of the Fifth Circuit panel's
decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the
Securities Complaint. The case then returned to the District Court
for further proceedings.

On March 30, 2015, the defendants filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari (the "Petition") with the United States Supreme Court
asking the Supreme Court to consider whether the Fifth Circuit
erred in reversing the District Court's dismissal of the
Securities Complaint, which motion was granted by the District
Court. All discovery in the case is stayed pursuant to federal
law. No assurances can be given about the timing or outcome of
this matter.

Attorneys for Petitioners Amedisys, Inc., et al.:

          Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Esq., Counsel of Record
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC  20006
          Tel: (202) 737-0500
          E-mail: jbucholtz@kslaw.com

Attorneys for Respondents Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi, et al.:

          John Browne, Esq., Counsel of Record
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY  10019-6028


AMEDISYS INC: Settlement in Wage and Hour Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An $8 million settlement of a wage and hour litigation remains
pending, according to Amedisys, Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against the Company in which three former employees
allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim
that they were not paid overtime for all hours worked over 40
hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. More
specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per-visit and
an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in their
misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them
overtime pay.

Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing that plaintiffs'
complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous and failed to
provide fair notice of the claims asserted and plaintiffs'
opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held that the
complaint adequately raises general allegations that the
plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week
over 40, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under other
theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work, in
addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based on
misclassification.

On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former
employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back
three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania
statute.

On October 8, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
equitable tolling requesting that the statute of limitations for
claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs who opt-in to the lawsuit be
tolled from September 24, 2012, the date upon which plaintiffs
filed their original motion for conditional certification, until
90 days after any notice of this lawsuit is issued following
conditional certification.

Following a motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on
December 3, 2013, the Court modified this order, holding that
putative class members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29,
2012 through the date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification.

On January 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' July 10, 2013
motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims and
authorized issuance of notice to putative class members to provide
them an opportunity to opt in to the action.

On April 17, 2014, that notice was mailed to putative class
members. The period within which putative class members were
permitted to opt into the action expired on July 16, 2014.

On September 10, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Connecticut case
filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a new
claim under the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA") alleging that
the Company did not pay certain home health clinicians working in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky all of the overtime wages they were
owed, either because the Company misclassified them as exempt from
overtime or, while treating them as overtime eligible, did not
properly pay them overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a week.
On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former
employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back five
years before the filing of their original complaint under the
KWHA.

On October 1, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion to amend. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed
a reply brief in support of their motion.

On December 12, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
amend the complaint to add the claims under the KWHA. The Company
and the plaintiffs agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated
settlement of the Connecticut case, and on February 23, 2015 filed
a joint motion to stay proceedings for six months to pursue that
process, which was granted by the Court on February 24, 2015.

On June 10, 2015, the Company and plaintiffs participated in a
mediation whereby they agreed to fully resolve all of plaintiffs'
claims in the lawsuit for $8.0 million, subject to approval by the
Court. The settlement agreement will be submitted to the Court for
preliminary approval and plaintiffs will request certification of
Pennsylvania and Kentucky classes for the sole purpose of this
proposed settlement.

If the Court grants preliminary approval, notice will be issued to
members of the settlement classes to provide them with an
opportunity to object to the settlement and, in the case of
members of the Pennsylvania and Kentucky classes, opt out of the
settlement. Following this notice period, the Court will hold a
final fairness hearing for the purpose of considering objections
and deciding whether to grant final approval of the settlement.

"As of September 30, 2015, we have an accrual of $8.0 million for
this matter," the Company said.


AMEDISYS INC: Employee Class Suit in Illinois Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois class action lawsuit by a former employee remains
pending, Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company said, "On September 13, 2012, a putative collective
and class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us in which a
former employee alleges wage and hour law violations. The former
employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly
basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in her
misclassification as an exempt employee, thereby denying her
overtime. The plaintiff alleges violations of Federal and state
law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law. Plaintiff seeks class certification of similar employees who
were or are employed in Illinois and seeks attorneys' fees, back
wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA
and three years under the Illinois statute."

On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay
the case pending resolution of class certification issues and
dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case.

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


AMERIANA BANCORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Stein"
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint, captioned Shiva Stein v. Ameriana
Bancorp, et al., was filed on July 8, 2015, under Case No. 49D01-
1507-PL-022566 in the Marion Circuit Court, Indiana, against the
Company, its directors and First Merchants Corporation challenging
the merger of the Company with and into First Merchants. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its
stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger at an unfair price
and by agreeing with First Merchants to unreasonable deal
protection provisions that discourage other bidders. The plaintiff
further alleges that the Company's directors and officers were not
independent or disinterested with respect to the merger. The
plaintiff also alleges that First Merchants aided and abetted the
Company directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from
consummating the merger, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees
and certain other damages.

On August 12, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim. On August 13, 2015,
defendants filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of
the motion to dismiss.

On September 23, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
purporting to assert direct and derivative claims against the
Company, its directors and First Merchants Corporation, Ameriana
Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

The amended complaint makes the same allegations as the initial
complaint, except it adds a claim that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose allegedly
material information related to the proposed merger in the Form S-
4 Registration Statement filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission. The amended complaint also seeks, among other
things, an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the
merger, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other
damages.

The Company, its directors, and First Merchants believe the
amended complaint is without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against the lawsuit.


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Facing Two Shareholder Suits in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend two purported
shareholder class action lawsuits in Massachusetts, 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.

Two purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the Company and certain of its former officers and
directors (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer
and Ronald DePinho). The cases were consolidated as In re AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-11157-
DJC, and in an amended complaint filed on February 3, 2014 the
lead plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements concerning the development of the drug
tivozanib and its prospects for FDA approval. The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and after
briefing and oral argument, on March 20, 2015, the Court granted
its motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. The lead
plaintiffs were allowed to amend and refile their complaint, and
they filed a second amended complaint bringing similar
allegations.

The Company filed a new motion to dismiss this new complaint on
July 17, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion
on July 31, 2015, and the Company filed a reply brief on August
14, 2015.  The Court heard oral argument on this latest motion to
dismiss on September 24, 2015.

The Company intends to continue to deny any allegations of
wrongdoing and to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However,
there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its
defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund
any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action.
Moreover, the Company unable to predict the outcome or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss at this time.


AVID LIFE: Faces "Alfaro" Class Suit Over Alleged Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Alfaro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Avid Life Media, Inc., a corporation, Avid Dating
Life, Inc. d/b/a Ashley Madison, and Noel Biderman, Case No. 5:15-
cv-02295-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., November 6, 2015) arises from an
alleged breach of the Defendants' security system that governs
their electronic transactions, resulting in the compromised and
breached security of the Plaintiff's and class members' personal
financial and other information.

Avid Life Media, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the Canadian Province of Ontario, with its
principal place of business and headquarters in Toronto, Ontario.
ALM owns various companies that are in the business of operating
online dating Web sites.

Avid Dating Life, Inc., doing business as Ashley Madison, is a
Canadian corporation also headquartered in Toronto.  The Company
is regularly engaged in the business of operating online dating
Web sites, including AshleyMadison.com.  Noel Biderman is an
individual and former CEO of Defendant ALM and ADL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven W. Ritcheson, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          9800 D Topanga Canyon Boulevard, #347
          Chatsworth, CA 91311
          Telephone: (818) 882-1030
          Facsimile: (818) 337-0383
          E-mail: swritcheson@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          Christopher B. Hood, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
                  taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
                  chood@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          James F. Mcdonough, III, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 996-0869
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com


AVID LIFE: "Lisuzzo" Suit Goes to Northern Dist. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lisuzzo v. Avid Life Media, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2015 CH 13066, was removed from Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-11305 to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman , Jr.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440 4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com

               - and -

          Scott Theodore Ferrill, Esq.
          115 55th Street, Suite 400
          Clarendon Hills, IL 60514
          Telephone: (630) 908-7680
          Facsimile: (630) 908-7165
          E-mail: chicagolaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christine Elizabeth Skoczylas, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 214 5613
          E-mail: christine.skoczylas@btlaw.com


BANCORP INC: "Fletcher" Stockholder Suit in Preliminary Stages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fletcher v. The Bancorp Inc., et al., is in its preliminary
stages, 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, that

On July 17, 2014, a class action securities complaint captioned
Fletcher v. The Bancorp Inc., et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.   A
consolidated version of that class action complaint was filed
before the same court on January 23, 2015 on behalf of Lead
Plaintiffs Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System under the caption of In re The
Bancorp Inc. Securities Litigation.

On October 26, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint against Bancorp, Betsy Z. Cohen, Paul Frenkiel, Frank M.
Mastrangelo and Jeremy Kuiper, which alleges that during a class
period beginning January 26, 2011 through June 26, 2015, the
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that (i) Bancorp had wrongfully extended
and modified problem loans and under-reserved for loan losses due
to adverse loans, (ii) Bancorp's operations and credit practices
were in violation of the BSA, and (iii) as a result, Bancorp's
financial statements, press releases and public statements were
materially false and misleading during the relevant period. The
amended consolidated complaint further alleges that, as a result,
the price of Bancorp's common stock was artificially inflated and
fell once the defendants' misstatements and omissions were
revealed, causing damage to the plaintiffs and the other members
of the class.  The complaint asks for an unspecified amount of
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees. The defendants had until November 23, 2015, to file a motion
to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  This litigation is
in its preliminary stages.

"We have been advised by our counsel in the matter that reasonably
possible losses cannot be estimated.  We believe that the
complaint is without merit and we intend to defend vigorously,"
the Company said.


BIG B WORLD: "Arzeno" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Arzeno and Giancarlo Bellino, individually and in behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Big B World,
Inc. d/b/a Cricket Wireless, and Hye K. Han a/k/a Richard Han,
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-09724
(S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2015), seeks an award of unpaid or
underpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, award of
liquidated damages, spread-of-hours wages, uniform maintenance
pay, earned commissions, under the Minimum Wage Act and Sec. 191
and 191(1)(c) of the New York Labor Law and pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), statutory damages,
permanent injunction and attorney's fees, costs.

Plaintiff worked as a sales representative for the Defendants, and
claims not being paid the mandatory overtime premium in excess of
40 hours per work week.

Big B World, Inc. is a prepaid wireless service provider and
electronics retailer doing business as Cricket Wireless, located
at 5547 Broadway, Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Tel: (212) 229-2249
      Fax: (212) 229-2246
      Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
             bsherr@zellerlegal.com
             jazeller@zellerlegal.com


BIG DOG: Recalls Raw Dehydrated Dog Food Products Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Dog Natural of Brick, NJ is voluntary recalling a select
production lot of Big Dog Natural raw dehydrated dog food Chicken
Supreme potentially contaminated with Salmonella and Fish Supreme
potentially contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes that was
shipped in the week of 10/31/2015 to 11/13/2015 to online
customers. Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes can affect
animals eating the products and there is risk to humans from
handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not
thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the
products or any surfaces exposed to these products.
Healthy people infected with Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes
should monitor themselves for some or all of the following
symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal
cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes
can result in more serious ailments, including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation,
and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with this product should contact their healthcare
providers.

Pets with Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes infections may be
lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and
vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and
abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be
carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has
consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please
contact your veterinarian.

These products were sold directly to consumers through the
company's online website and in the US. The voluntarily recalled
product include all weight volumes of the Big Dog Natural Chicken
and Fish Supreme. No additional products are affected by this
recall.

Big Dog Natural became aware of a potential issue after receiving
notification from the FDA that an investigational sample of
Chicken Supreme tested positive for Salmonella and an
investigational sample of Fish Supreme for Listeria monocytogenes.

Consumers should discontinue feeding the affected product and
monitor their pet's health, and contact their veterinarian if they
have concerns. Consumers who purchased the product can obtain a
full refund or exchange by returning the product in its original
packaging.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/HjT3qJ


BLENDTECH INC: Recalls Fish Batter Mix Products Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
BlendTech Inc. of Wichita, KS, is voluntarily recalling one lot of
Uncle Buck's Fish Batter Mix - Original due to the presence of an
undeclared milk ingredient. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The recalled Batter Mix was distributed in Bass Pro Shops stores
nationwide and through mail order.

The affected product is packaged in a 22 ounce, yellow plastic
bottle with black cap, UPC 9222972528, and marked with lot
#09241505 on the bottom of the bottle.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after BlendTech discovered product
containing milk was distributed in packaging that did not reveal
the presence of milk.

Consumers who have purchased the affected product are urged to
discard it. Consumers who would like replacement or have questions
may contact the company at 1-844-265-7354 or at 1-316-941-9660,
Monday - Friday 8:00AM to 4:30PM CST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/HPeSz7


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: "Davis" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2418
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Davis v. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00774, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton). The New
Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-08643-FLW-TJB to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arose due the Defendants' negligence and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling
and/or sale of Plavix.

Plavix (clopidogrel) helps to prevent platelets in your blood from
sticking together and forming a blood clot. Unwanted blood clots
can occur with certain heart or blood vessel conditions.
Plavix is used to prevent blood clots after a recent heart attack
or stroke, and in people with certain disorders of the heart or
blood vessels.

Bristol-Myers Squibb is a Delaware corporation with offices
located at Princeton, New Jersey and headquarters located at New
York, New York. Sanofi-Aventis manufactures and markets Plavix in
the United States. Sanofi-Synthelabo is a Delaware corporation
with its commercial headquarters at New York, New York. The
company did business as Sanofi Pharmaceuticals, Inc and was the
sponsor for the Defendants' application for Plavix.

The Davis case is being consolidated with MDL 2418 in re: Plavix
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No.
II) The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8, 2015. Plaintiffs
do not dispute that their actions share questions of fact with the
actions already in MDL No. 2418 arising from allegations that the
Bristol-Myers and Sanofi defendants falsely touted Plavix as
providing superior cardiovascular benefits to those of aspirin,
and knew or should have known, misrepresented, or failed to
disclose various serious risks of taking Plavix. In its December
8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that actions involve common
questions of fact with actions previously transferred to MDL No.
2418, and that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Freda L. Wolfson,
United States District Judge; The lead case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-
EPD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Diane Marie Coffey, Esq.
          NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES LLP
          300 North Market Street
          Building One, Ste 100
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 300 4625

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
          Cowan & Kelly, Esq.
          1018 S. BROAD STREET
          Trenton, NJ 08611
          Telephone: (609) 393 1043

               - and -

          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          Renaissance Centre
          405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984 6300
          Facsimile: (302) 984 6399
          E-mail: djbrown@mccarter.com
                  mkelly@mccarter.com


CADIZ INC: Defending "Van Wingerden" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Cadiz Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that a putative class action
lawsuit, entitled Van Wingerden v. Cadiz Inc., et al., No. 2:15-
cv-03080-JAK-JEM, was filed on April 24, 2015, against Cadiz and
certain of its directors and officers ("Defendants") in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
purporting to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint, which purports to be
brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders, alleges that the
Company's public disclosures were inadequate in relation to the
Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project (the
"Water Project").  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.


CAFE VENEZIA: Skimmed Tips & Doesn't Pay OT, "Quiroz" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Quiroz, Victorino Hernandez Gonzalez and Jonatan Alameda
Perez, on behalf of themselves, and other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiffs, v. Cafe Venezia Corp., Shaul Ashkenazi and
Moshe Dahan, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-09724 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 12, 2015), seeks unpaid overtime compensation; (3)
compensation for misappropriated tips, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq., New York Labor Laws and New York Wage
Theft Prevention Act.

Roberto Quiroz worked as a cook for the Defendants. He claims to
have worked over 40 hours per week without overtime premium.

Gonzalez worked as a kitchen preparation helper and waiter. He
claims to be paid only for doing kitchen preparation work and
receives only tips for waiting tables. He also claims to have
worked over 40 hours per week without overtime premium and did not
receive any wage statement or any other documentation of his
weekly hours, hourly rate, any deductions, and compensation.

Jonatan Alameda Perez worked as a waiter and claims to have worked
in excess of 44 hours per week without overtime compensation. He
did not receive wages for all hours worked, but only tips. He also
did not receive any form of statement of his wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102
      Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SVC: Faces "McLaran" Suit Over Health Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McClaran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, California Physicians' Service and Does 1-20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC603628 (Cal. Super., December
11, 2015), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, special,
general and punitive damages, costs of suit and attorneys' fees in
violation of the Unfair Competition Law under the California
Business and Professions Code section 17200 as well as in breach
of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

California Physicians' Service operates under the name Blue Shield
which is a health care service plan licensed by the Department of
Managed Health Care and subject to the relevant provisions of the
Health and Safety Code.

Plaintiff developed neck pain radiating into his right arm and
numbness and tingling in his left arm. His surgeon recommended
that Plaintiff undergo two-level cervical artificial disc
replacement. He alleges that Blue Shield systematically denied all
requests for two-level cervical artificial disc replacement
contrary to the treatment's approval by the United States Federal
Drug Administration as safe and effective.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
      Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
      Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
      GIANELLI & MORRIS, A LAW CORPORATION
      550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 489-1600
      Fax: (213) 489-1611

           - and -

      Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
      Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq.
      KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
      19839 Nordhoff Street
      Northridge, CA 91324
      Tel: (818) 886-2525
      Fax: (818) 350-6272


CAPE COD: Recalls Yogurt Covered Products Due to Almonds
--------------------------------------------------------
Cape Cod Provisions LLC of Pocasset, MA is recalling Cape Cod
Cranberry Candy(TM) and Harvest Sweets(TM) Milk Chocolate/Dark
Chocolate/Yogurt Covered Cranberry Blend (mix of all three
varieties in the package) because they may contain undeclared
yogurt covered almonds. These products can further be identified
by their UPC codes; Cape Cod Cranberry Candy(TM) UPC 6 12681 10259
3 and Harvest Sweets(TM) UPC 6 12681 44259 0. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to almonds run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

The trio of covered cranberries product was distributed nationwide
through retail stores and mail order. The specific product comes
in a 5oz. gable-top box with color graphics and can be identified
by a lot # of 5230-1 on the inside bag.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that yogurt
covered almonds were distributed in packaging that did not list
almonds in the ingredients. Subsequent investigation indicates it
was an isolated incidence caused by a temporary breakdown in the
packaging processes.

Consumers who have purchased this product or received it as a gift
are urged to contact the company at 1-888-811-2379 Mon-Fri, 9:00 -
5:00, EST for return instructions and full refund.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Cd254A


CATHEDRAL ENERGY: "Price" Suit Goes from Colorado to S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Price v. Cathedral Energy Services
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00744, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston). The Southern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-03612 to the
proceeding.

Cathedral Energy Services through their operating divisions
provides oilfield services to oil and natural gas exploration and
development companies. The company is based in the United States
and operates as a subsidiary of Cathedral Energy Services Income
Trust.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R Itkin, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751 0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0030

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Barrett Roaldi, Esq.
          David Bryce Jordan, Esq.
          Michelle Lynn Gomez, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC-DENVER
          1900 16th Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 629 6200
          E-mail: djordan@littler.com


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in "Ford" Suit Awaits Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that the settlement
of an employee class action lawsuit in California remains pending.

On January 27, 2014, former store employee Franchesca Ford filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San
Francisco County Superior Court, California (the "Ford
Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-
situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the
Company in California who were employed during the period January
27, 2010 to the present. She alleges violations of California
state wage and hour laws governing vacation pay, meal and rest
period pay, wages due upon termination, and waiting time
penalties, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to California state court.

On May 22, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the
plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as
well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of
complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement
payment. The settlement awaits the Court's approval.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Accord in Ford-Rodriguez Case Awaits Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that the settlement
of an employee class action in San Diego, California, remains
pending for final court approval.

On March 24, 2014, Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California, San Diego
Division. The plaintiffs claim to represent other similarly-
situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background
checks with the Company in California and across the United States
from March 24, 2012 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer
Credit Reporting and Investigative Reporting Agencies Act.

On September 23, 2014, the Company reached an agreement to settle
the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in
the plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as
well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of
complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement
payment.

On July 7, 2015, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.

"We currently believe that the final resolution of this action
will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources,"
the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Mediation Held in "Wright" Case
--------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that parties have
agreed to stay discovery in a class action lawsuit filed former
store employee Wiley Wright pending mediation.

On October 17, 2014, former store employee Wiley Wright filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of New York, claiming to
represent other similarly-situated salaried exempt current and
former employees of the Company in the state of New York during
the period October 17, 2008, as well as similarly-situated
salaried exempt current and former employees throughout the
remainder of the United States during the period October 17, 2011
to the present. The lawsuit alleges that current and former
Assistant Managers and Senior Assistant Managers were unlawfully
classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more
than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff
seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

On December 12, 2014, plaintiff moved for conditional
certification of the putative class of employees; the Company
filed its response to this motion on January 19, 2015. On July 16,
2015, the Court granted conditional certification of a collective
group that included only the Assistant Managers and Senior
Assistant Managers who worked in the four New York stores where
plaintiff worked during his employment with the Company, while
permitting plaintiff to obtain further discovery from the Company
relating to his original motion.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be
given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently
believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources. We are currently
attempting to schedule mediation of this case in November 2015.
The parties have agreed to stay discovery until the completion of
mediation," the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid Pending in "Sinohui" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that a motion for
class certification is pending in the case filed by former store
General Manager Richard Sinohui.

On October 10, 2014, Sinohui filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California,
Riverside County (the "Sinohui Litigation"), claiming to represent
other similarly-situated current and former General Managers of
the Company in California during the period October 10, 2010 to
the present. The lawsuit alleges current and former California
General Managers were unlawfully classified as exempt from
overtime protections and worked more than 40 hours a week without
overtime premium pay, paid rest periods and paid meal periods, in
violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the
California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff seeks an
unspecified amount in damages.

On December 5, 2012, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiff petitioned
the court to remand the Sinohui Litigation to California state
court.

On January 9, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Second, Third, Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action.
The court has not ruled on this motion. On February 26, 2015, the
Court overruled the plaintiff's motion to remand.

On October 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Class
Certification. The Company's response to this motion was due
October 30, 2015. The Company's investigation is ongoing.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be
given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently
believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Defending Class Suits Over Apollo Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that continues to
defend the consolidated class action lawsuit related to a merger
deal with a unit of Apollo.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had
entered into a merger agreement with Q Merger Sub Inc., a Kansas
corporation ("Merger Sub") controlled by Apollo, four putative
shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of the
Company against the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and
Merger Sub, in connection with the Merger Agreement and the
transactions contemplated thereby.

The first purported class action, styled Hilary Coyne v. Richard
M. Frank et al. (the "Coyne Action"), was filed on January 21,
2014. The second, styled John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et
al. (the "Solak Action"), was filed on January 22, 2014. The
third, styled Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the
"Dixon Action"), was filed on January 24, 2014, and additionally
names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and the AP VIII
Queso Holdings, L.P. The fourth, styled Louisiana Municipal Public
Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al. (the "LMPERS
Action"), was filed on January 31, 2014, and additionally names as
defendants, Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso
Holdings, L.P. (collectively, Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions
shall be referred to as the "Shareholder Actions").

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to an
inadequate tender price, the adoption on January 15, 2014 of the
Rights Agreement, and certain provisions in the Merger Agreement
that allegedly made it less likely that the Board would be able to
consider alternative acquisition proposals. The Coyne, Dixon and
LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was advised by a
conflicted financial advisor. The Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions
further allege that the Board was subject to material conflicts of
interest in approving the Merger Agreement and that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties in allowing allegedly conflicted
members of management to negotiate the transaction. The Dixon and
LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board breached its
fiduciary duties in approving the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together with the exhibits and
annexes thereto, as it may be amended or supplemented, the
"Statement") filed with the SEC on January 22, 2014, which
allegedly contained material misrepresentations and omissions.

Each of the Shareholder Actions allege that Apollo aided and
abetted the Board's breaches of fiduciary duties. The Solak and
Dixon Actions allege that CEC also aided and abetted such
breaches, and the Solak and LMPERS Actions further allege that
Parent and the Merger Sub aided and abetted such actions. The
LMPERS Action further alleges that Apollo Management VIII, L.P.
and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. aided and abetted such actions.
The Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of
the transactions, damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs,
and other unspecified relief.

On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an
amended complaint (the "Coyne Amended Complaint"), and on January
30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed an amended
complaint (the "Solak Amended Complaint") (together, the "Amended
Complaints"). The Amended Complaints incorporated all of the
allegations in the original complaints, added allegations that the
Board-approved Statement omitted certain material information, in
further violation of the Board's fiduciary duties, and requested
an order directing the Board to disclose such allegedly-omitted
material information. The Solak Amended Complaint also added
allegations that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in
allowing an allegedly conflicted financial advisor and management
to lead the sales process.

On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were
consolidated into one action. On July 21, 2015 a consolidated
class action petition was filed as the operative consolidated
complaint by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust that continued to
assert claims against CEC and its former directors; added The
Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant; and removed
all Apollo entities as defendants ("Consolidated Class Action
Petition"). The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders in connection with their consideration and
approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things,
conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate
tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger
Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding
the transaction. The Consolidated Class Action Petition also
alleges that two members of the Company's board who also served as
the senior managers of the Company had material conflicts of
interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's
breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the
bank. The Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other
things, to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes the Consolidated Class Action Petition is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. "While no
assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the
consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final
resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources," the Company said.


CEDAR FAIR: $4.75MM Settlement in "Ortegon" Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Fair, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that a California court
has granted final approval of the $4.75 million settlement of the
case, Ortegon, et al vs. Cedar Fair, L.P., Cedar Fair Management
Company, et al.

The Partnership and Cedar Fair Management, Inc. are defendants in
a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for Santa Clara County on October 3, 2013 by Frank
Ortegon-Ramirez seeking damages and injunctive relief for claims
related to certain employment and pay practices at our parks in
California, including those related to certain check-out, time
reporting, discharge and pay statement practices.  The defendants
filed an answer on November 21, 2013 denying the allegations in
the complaint and requesting a dismissal of all claims.

On November 12, 2014, the Partnership participated in a mediation
relating to the claims alleged in the lawsuit.  Following this
mediation, the Partnership negotiated a $4.75 million settlement
with the named Plaintiff on a class wide basis which was subject
to final court approval.

On September 28, 2015, the court granted final approval of the
proposed settlement.  The Partnership believes the liability
recorded as of September 27, 2015 is adequate and does not expect
the terms of the court approved settlement to materially affect
its financial results in future periods.


CELLADON CORPORATION: Expects Consolidation of 3 Shareholder Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Celladon Corporation expects the court to consolidate three
putative securities class actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff
to represent the putative class, 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.

In July 2015, following the Company's announcements of the
negative CUPID 2 data and the suspension of further research and
development activities and the subsequent declines of the price of
the Company's common stock, three putative securities class action
complaints (captioned Fialkov v. Celladon Corporation, Case No.
15-cv-1458-AJB-DHB, Lorusso v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-
cv-1501-L-JLB and Jacobs v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-
1529-AJB-MDD ) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California against the Company and certain of
the Company's current and former officers. The complaints
generally allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the clinical trial
program for MYDICAR, thereby artificially inflating the price of
the Company's common stock. The complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees. The
Company expects the court to consolidate the three putative
securities class actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff to
represent the putative class. The Company then expects the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint.

It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations
made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters
and also naming the Company and/or the Company's officers and
directors as defendants. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses and intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the
Company is not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate
outcome or possible losses relating to these claims.


CELGENE CORPORATION: No Discovery Yet in IUB Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit
filed by the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft
Workers Local 1 Health Fund, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.  Dates for the completion of fact and expert discovery have
not been set.

On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that we
violated various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair
competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply
contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories ("Barr"
who at one time held an ANDA for THALOMID(R)) allegedly could not
secure its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical
ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of our
THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Lannett Company, and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories so that those
companies could conduct the bioequivalence testing needed to
submit ANDAs to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of
these products; and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent
infringement lawsuits against Barr and Natco Pharma Limited in
order to allegedly delay those companies from obtaining approval
for proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB,
on behalf of itself and a putative class of third party payors, is
seeking injunctive relief and damages.

"On February 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint," the Company said.

On March 3, 2015, the City of Providence ("Providence") filed a
similar putative class action making similar allegations. Both IUB
and Providence, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
third party payors, are seeking injunctive relief and damages.
Providence agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's
complaint as well.

"On October 30, 2015, the court denied our motion to dismiss on
all grounds," the Company said.

The Court entered an Order on July 6, 2015 scheduling the
production of certain discovery for the case through October 1,
2015. A status conference was scheduled for January 5, 2016. Dates
for the completion of fact and expert discovery have not been set.

"We intend to vigorously defend against IUB's claims," the Company
said.


CELGENE CORPORATION: MOU Reached in Suits Over Receptos Purchase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a memorandum of
agreement has been reached by parties to the class action lawsuits
challenging the company's acquisition of Receptos, Inc.

"On July 20, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, Scott v.
Receptos, Inc., related to our acquisition of Receptos, was
commenced by the filing of a complaint in the Court of Chancery
for the State of Delaware, Case No. 11316, against Receptos,
members of the Receptos Board, Celgene and Celgene's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Strix Corporation, which is a party to the acquisition
agreement," the Company said.

Four other complaints, Cacioppo v. Hasnain and Rosenberg v.
Receptos, Inc. (Cases Nos. 11324 and 11325) filed on July 23, and
Kadin v. Receptos, Inc., filed on July 27 (Case No. 11337), and
Rockaway v. Hasnain (Case No. 11346) filed on July 28, 2015 raise
similar putative class claims in the Court of Chancery for the
State of Delaware against some or all of Receptos, members of the
Receptos Board, Celgene, and Strix Corporation. These complaints
generally allege breaches of fiduciary duty by members of the
Receptos Board in connection with the Merger Agreement.

In the Scott, Rosenberg and Kadin actions, the plaintiffs also
allege that Celgene and Strix Corporation aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. On August 17, 2015, all
parties to these actions entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), which sets forth the parties' agreement in
principle for a settlement of the actions. The MOU contemplates
that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of
settlement providing for a global release of claims relating to
the acquisition as set forth in the MOU. The claims will not be
released until such stipulation of settlement is approved by the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

"There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve
such settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. The settlement did not affect the consideration
received by Receptos' stockholders in connection with the
acquisition. As part of the settlement, Receptos agreed to make
certain additional disclosures related to the acquisition," the
Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Wants to Send "Guglielmo" Case to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2015, that

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by
requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the
State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions.
(Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al;
Case No 2:15-CV-03117).

On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the
Complaint, requesting the Court to compel arbitration against opt-
in Plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements. The Plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary
payments.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based upon the
current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: MOU Reached in Hourly Employee's Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2015, that a
memorandum of understanding has been reached in a class suit by a
restaurant hourly employee following the parties' voluntary
mediation.

On April 11, 2013, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer
County, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code, by requiring
employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820).  A similar
lawsuit covering a different time period was also filed in Placer
County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al;
Case No. SCV27073).

By stipulation the parties agreed to transfer the Reed and Sikora
cases to Los Angeles County.  Both cases (Case Nos. SCV0032820 and
SCV27073) were subsequently coordinated together in Los Angeles
County by order of the Judicial Council.

On November 15, 2013, the Company filed a motion to enforce
judgment and to preclude the prosecution of certain claims under
the California Private Attorney General Act and California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

On March 11, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion in Case
No. SCV0032820. The parties participated in voluntary mediation on
June 25, 2015 and have executed a memorandum of understanding with
respect to the terms of settlement, which is subject to Court
approval and is intended to be a full and final resolution of the
actions.

"Based on the current status of this matter, we have reserved an
immaterial amount in anticipation of settlement," the Company
said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defending Employee Suit in Orange County
------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated continues to defend an
employee class action lawsuit which was transferred to the Orange
County court in California, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 29,
2015.

On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims. (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278).  By
stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-
00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court.

On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially
transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the
Orange County Superior Court.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the Plaintiff and other purported
class members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Arbitration Ruling in "Garcia" Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
A state appellate court upheld a trial court order sending an
employee class action lawsuit to individual mediation, The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2015.

On January 14, 2015, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to permit
required meal and rest breaks, and to provide accurate wage
statements, among other claims. (Garcia v. The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated, et al; Case No 37-2015-00001408).

On February 19, 2015, the Company filed an ex parte application to
stay the litigation pending a hearing on the Company's motion to
compel arbitration.  The Court granted the Company's application,
stayed the litigation, and held a hearing on the motion to compel
arbitration in July 2015.

On August 12, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to
compel individual arbitration.  On October 9, 2015, the Plaintiff
filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the California Court
of Appeal seeking a review and stay of the Court's decision to
compel arbitration on an individual basis.  On October 15, 2015
the Court of Appeal denied the Plaintiff's Petition.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments," the Company said.


CHEMIX ENERGY: "McGarry" Action Seeks Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Shane McGarry and Gilbert Cantu, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Chemix Energy Services,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00496 (S.D. Tex., December 11,
2015), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest and costs, equitable relief and attorney's
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Shane McGarry and Gilbert Cantu worked for Defendant helping mix
chemicals, testing bolts and valves, maintaining and servicing oil
and gas production facilities, overseeing the testing and
monitoring of wells, pumps, storage facilities and other pressure
control equipment. They claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours
per week without overtime compensation.

Chemix Energy Services, LLC is a Texas corporation that provides
services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940


CHERYL & CO: Recalls Ornaments With Cookies and Confections
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cheryl & Co., of Westerville, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall
of about 25,000 Cheryl's Jingle Bell ornaments with cookies and
confections. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The decorative cutouts on the ornament have sharp metal edges that
pose a laceration hazard to consumers.

This recall involves Cheryl's Jingle Bell ornaments that were sold
with 64 cookies and confections. The round aluminum ornaments
measure approximately 4 inches in diameter, have four snowflake
cutouts and were sold in a set of eight units per box (two each of
red, green, gold and silver).

QVC has received 140 reports of consumers who received finger cuts
while handling the ornaments, including four consumers who
required stitches.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/UC97rK

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at QVC
televised shopping programs and online at QVC.com from November
2015 to December 2015 for about $55.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ornaments and
return them to QVC for a full refund. Consumers are urged to use
caution while handling the product. QVC will mail all known
customers instructions for returning the product.


CHINA XD: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
China Xd Plastics Company 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 a
court has held a hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit, but has not yet issued a ruling.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  These actions, which allege
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the United States
securities laws, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and
are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and
Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-5359
(GBD), respectively.  On November 21, 2014, the Court consolidated
the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs.

On February 17, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on behalf of a class of all persons other
than the defendants who purchased the common stock of China XD
Plastics Company Limited between March 25, 2014 and July 10, 2014,
inclusive.  Specifically, the lead plaintiffs allege that the
Company and two of its officers made false or misleading
statements and/or omitted material facts in the Company's Form 10-
K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and the Company's Form 10-Q
for the first quarter ended March 31, 2014. They also assert that
the individual defendants are liable because they allegedly
controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions were made.  The lead
plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

On April 3, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
actions in their entirety.  The Court held a hearing on the
Company's motion to dismiss on October 22, 2015, but has not yet
issued a ruling.  Management continues to believe that the
lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against them.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: "Rocco" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
Ralph P. Rocco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., Patrick J. Mahaffy
and Erle T. Mast, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-02697 (D. Colo.,
December 14, 2015), seeks damages, equitable and injunctive or
other relief in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendant allegedly failed to fully and accurately disclose
adverse material information regarding the Company to investors
thus resulting in the drop in the share prices.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing cancer treatments in the United
States, Europe and other international markets. Mahaffy is a co-
founder and President, CEO and a director of Clovis. Erle T. Mast
is Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
      Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      885 Arapahoe Avenue
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Tel: (303) 861-3003
      Fax: (303) 484-4886
      E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com
              rusty@shuman1awfirm.com

           - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Marc Gorrie, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100
      Fax: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             mgorrie@pomlaw.com

           - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 377-1181
      Fax: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


COMEAUX'S INC: Recalls Pork Products Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------
Comeaux's Inc., a Breaux Bridge, La. establishment, is recalling
approximately 14 pounds of pork products that may be adulterated
with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The smoked pork tasso was packaged on Dec. 22, 2015. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- 1-lb. vacuum-sealed packages containing diced "CAJUN
      HICKORY SMOKED PORK TASSO."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
20513" inside the USDA mark of inspection and package code number
"42358". These items were shipped to retail locations in
Louisiana.

The problem was discovered during routine FSIS testing. There have
been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption
of these products.

Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older
adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women
and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk
groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection
spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the
infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery
or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious
and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.
Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like
symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should
seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating
the contaminated food.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Stacey Thibodeaux, Office Manager, at (337) 332-0720.


CONFORMIS INC: Denies Liability in IPO Stock Purchasers Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ConforMIS, 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 class action
lawsuit was filed in September 2015 against the Company and
certain of the Company's officers on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock in connection with the IPO or
on the open market between July 1, 2015 and August 28, 2015
alleging that statements made were false and misleading because
the Company's manufacturing processes were flawed and, as a result
of such flaws, a number of the Company's knee replacement product
systems were defective. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

The Company believe it has valid defenses to the claims in the
lawsuit, will deny liability and intends to defend itself
vigorously. The Company is presently unable to predict the outcome
of the lawsuit or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any, related to the lawsuit.


COST PLUS: Recalls Tovin Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cost Plus Management Services Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced
a voluntary recall of about 1,880 Tovin Chairs. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The legs on the chair can bend or break, posing a fall hazard to
the user.

This recall involves upholstered Tovin chairs sold in a black and
white print. The chairs are 32-inches tall by 23-inches wide, and
have a wooden frame with clear floor glides. SKU number 507667 is
printed on a UPC sticker affixed to the underside of the chair.

Cost Plus World Market has received five reports of the chair legs
bending or breaking. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/m72zDV

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sols at
Cost Plus World Market and World Market stores nationwide and
online at www.worldmarket.com from July 2015 through October 2015
for about $240.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chair and
return it to any Cost Plus World Market or World Market store for
a full refund.


CR BARD: "Rouse" Suit Consolidated in IVC Filters Liability MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Rouse v. C. R. Bard Incorporated, et al., Case
No. 5:15-cv-04569, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division).  The Arizona
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02227-DGC to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
2:15-md-02641-DGC.

The Plaintiff brings the case for alleged serious and life-
threatening injuries suffered as a result of a surgically
implanted medical device, known as the Bard Denali Filter system,
which previously caused and continues to cause ongoing physical,
emotional, and mental damages.

CR Bard is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Murray Hill,
New Jersey.  CR Bard develops, manufactures, and markets medical
technologies for use in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology,
and surgical specialties.  Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is an
Arizona corporation headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.  Bard PV
designed, manufactured, prepared, assembled, distributed,
marketed, and sold medical supplies and devices, including the
Denali(R) Vena Cava Filter systems -- Femoral, Jugular/Subclavian
delivery kit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Park, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALEX C. PARK
          4675 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 100
          Santa Clara, CA 95051
          Telephone: (408) 246-1515
          Facsimile: (408) 246-4105
          E-mail: alexcpark@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven James Boranian, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 2nd St., 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
          E-mail: sboranian@reedsmith.com


CREATIVE CO-OP: Recalls Monogrammed Mugs Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Creative Co-Op, Inc., of Memphis, Tenn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 14,000 Monogrammed Coffee Mugs. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The coffee mugs are mislabeled as microwave safe. If microwaved,
the metallic paint accents on the coffee mugs can spark, posing a
fire hazard.

This recall involves white ceramic 16-ounce coffee mugs with gold-
painted monograms and accent rims. The mugs have a textured design
resembling a golf ball, and a "rope" style handle.
"Microwave/Dishwasher Safe" is printed in a black panel on the
bottom of the coffee mugs.

The firm has received one report of a coffee mug sparking during
microwaving. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/9FiCuw

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Altar'd State stores nationwide from October 2015 through December
2015 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled coffee mugs
and contact Altar'd State for instructions on returning the
product for a full refund.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Deal Reached in Class Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that the
Company has reached a settlement in the pending class action
claims in three Canadian provinces relating to the original SRAM
class action case that was resolved in the United States in 2010.
As with the case in the United States, the Company is confident
that it has not engaged in any antitrust activity, however given
that it was the last remaining defendant and the cost of continued
litigation would far exceed the cost of a nominal settlement, the
Company agreed to settle the case and court approval of that
settlement is in progress.  The settlement did not have a material
impact on the Company's Condensed Consolidated financial
statements.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Deal Reached in Suit Over Spansion Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that
Spansion, Inc. and Cypress have entered into a memorandum of
understanding in a class action lawsuit that challenges the
companies' merger deal.

On March 12, 2015, the Company completed the merger with Spansion,
a designer, manufacturer and developer of embedded systems
semiconductors, for a total purchase consideration of
approximately $2.8 billion.

After the announcement of the Merger in December 2014, two
separate putative class action complaints (Walter Jeter v.
Spansion Inc., et al. (No. 114CV274635) and Shiva Y. Stein v.
Spansion Inc., el. al. (No. 114CV274924)) were filed in Santa
Clara County Superior Court, alleging claims of breach of
fiduciary duty against the Spansion's board of directors and
naming Cypress as a defendant for aiding and abetting the alleged
breach of fiduciary duty.  While Cypress believes these lawsuits
to be meritless, Spansion and Cypress entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs, the terms of which required
additional disclosures by the Company and payment of nominal
attorneys' fees to the class counsel.  Final resolution of these
litigations will require court approval of a final settlement
agreement.


DARSHEN PATEL: "Mays" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mays, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Darshen Patel, Defendant, Case
No. 4:15-cv-00233-HLM-WEJ (N.D. Ga., Rome Division, December 10,
2015), seeks unpaid wages, unpaid overtime and equitable relief
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as maintenance personnel for Motel 6 of Dalton
Georgia, an establishment owned by the Defendant. He claims to
have rendered in excess of 40 hours weekly without overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Hugh Kemp, Esq.
      L. HUGH KEMP, P.C.
      100 North Salvage St., Suite B
      Dalton GA 30720
      Tel: (706) 226-2222
      Fax: (706) 226-2223


DASHED INC: "Billingslea" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Billingslea, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dashed, Inc. and Philip Dumontet,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 15-3779E (Mass., December 14,
2015), seeks recovery of wages and other benefits as a result of
their misclassification as independent contractors, including
unpaid wages, expenses, minimum wages, overtime, tips, deductions
and benefits and non-discretionary treble damages and attorney
fees under Mass. Gen. Law. c. 149, Sec. 150.

Dashed, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation with a principal place
of business at 56 Roland Street #308 Boston MA with Philip
Dumontet as president, treasurer, secretary and sole director. It
is a delivery service that facilitates the delivery of food from
restaurants to consumers.

Billingslea worked as a delivery driver for the Defendants. She
claims to have been forced to bear the out-of-pocket expenses,
subjected to unlawful deductions from her pay and denied prompt
payment of minimum wages and overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Bace, Esq.
      BACE LAW GROUP, LLC
      PO Box 9316
      Boston, MA 02114
      Tel: (508) 922-8328
      Email: mjb@bacelaw.com

           - and -

      John R. Bita III, Esq.
      35 India Street, 3rd Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 538-5407
      Email: jrb@bitalaw.com


DATADIRECT NETWORKS: "Molina" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Molina, individually and on the behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Datadirect Networks, Inc. and Does 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 15CV288863 (Cal. Super., Sta. Clara County,
December 10, 2015), seeks award of damages, applicable civil
penalties, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and
interests in violation of the California.

Plaintiff worked as a lead generation specialist for Defendants, a
reseller of data-storage hardware for cloud-based computing. He
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven P. Cohn, Esq.
      Sean Bothamley, Esq.
      ADVOCACY CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT LAW
      2084 Alameda Way
      San Jose, CA 95126
      Tel: (408) 557-0300
      Fax: (408) 557-0309


DESTINATION MATERNITY CORP: "Long" Suit Goes to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Long v. Destination Maternity
Corporation et al., Case No. 37-02015-00032887-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-02836-WQH-RBB to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges violations of Labor Code including unpaid
overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period
premiums, unpaid minimum wages, and final wages not timely paid.

Maternity Corporation designs and retails maternity apparel in the
United States. As of May 2, 2015, it operated 1,868 retail
locations, including 557 stores primarily under the Motherhood
Maternity, A Pea in the Pod, and Destination Maternity trade
names; and 1,311 leased department locations, as well as 128
international franchised locations comprising 24 Destination
Maternity branded stores and 104 shop-in-shop locations. The
company's Motherhood Maternity brand serves the value-priced
portion of the maternity apparel business with stores located in
regional malls, strip and power centers, and central business
districts; and A Pea in the Pod brand serves the medium-priced a

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexis Gabrielson, Esq.
          Kathryn Nazarian, Esq.
          Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 830 0600
          Facsimile: (714) 830 0700
          E-mail: agabrielson@morganlewis.com
                  knazarian@morganlewis.com
                  rhendricks@morganlewis.com


DIGITEK COMPUTER: "Viciedo" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Louis Viciedo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Digitek Computer Products, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-03073-JLG-NMK (S.D. Ohio, December 10,
Eastern Division 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec 201, et seq. and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Viciedo worked for Defendant as an Account Manager and claim to
work in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.

Defendant is a wholesale distributor of IT supplies with corporate
headquarters located at 44258 Mercure Circle in Dulles, Virginia
20166. Defendant also maintains facilities in Nevada, Illinois,
Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, and the Philippines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Beggs, Esq.
      BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA
      1675 Old Henderson Road
      Columbus, Ohio 43220
      Tel: (614) 457-7800
      Fax: (614) 448-9408
      Email: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com

           - and -

      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      KIMBLE LAW, LLC
      1675 Old Henderson Road
      Columbus, Ohio 43220
      Tel: (614) 983-0361
      Fax: (614) 448-9408
      Email: Andrew@KimbleLawOffice.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Boast" Suit Alleges Illegal Online Gaming
----------------------------------------------------------
Leah Boast, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Draftkings, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:15-cv-00164-DMB-JMV (D.N.M. December 14, 2015), seeks to recover
punitive damages, declaratory, retrospective and prospective
injunctive relief including enjoining Defendants from continuing
illegal gambling operations in violation of New Mexico Statutes
Annotated 1978, Sections 30-19-1 to 15.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan L. Williams, Esq.
      BELL, HUGHES & COLEMAN, PC
      610 7th St. NW
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Tel: (505) 242-7979 ext. 280
      Fax: (866) 782-8820
      Email: bwilliams@898-bell.com

           - and -

      W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
      Christopher Hood, Esq.
      Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 326-3336
      Fax: (205) 326-3332
      Email: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
             chood@hgdlawfirm.com
             taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

           - and -

      James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Tel: (404) 996-0869
      Fax: (205) 326-3332
      Email: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com


EGS FINANCIAL CARE: "Burns" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Burns, Cynthia Coons Annigian, Michael Rudesal and Susan
Keller, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. EGS Financial Care, Inc., (formerly known as NCO
Financial Systems, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-6173 (W.D.
Mo., December 15, 2015), seeks straight time and overtime
compensation with corresponding liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and further legal and equitable relief pursuant
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

EGS Financial Care, Inc., formerly known as NCO Financial Systems,
Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation, maintaining its principal
place of business in Horsham, Pennsylvania. They are into business
process outsourcing services including accounts receivable
management for other businesses.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as remote home-based agents.
They claim overtime for services rendered for off-the-clock
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Kistler, Esq.
      Michael F. Brady, Esq.
      Sara T. Ballew, Esq.
      BRADY & ASSOCIATES
      10901 Lowell Ave., Ste. 280
      Overland Park, KS 66210
      Tel: (913) 696-0925
      Fax: (913) 696-0468
      Email: mkistler@mbradylaw.com
             brady@mbradylaw.com
             sballew@mbradylaw.com


ELIZABETH WILLIAMS: Faces Tenant Suit Over Poor Living Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Garza, Plaintiff, v. Elizabeth Ann Williams and Does
1-30, Defendants, Case No. RG15796017 (Cal. Super., December 9,
2015), seeks general and special damages including property damage
and loss, punitive, statutory, compensatory and exemplary damages,
recovery of incidental expenses, past, present and future,
interest on the amount of losses and attorney's fees.

Plaintiff brings the cause of action on Plaintiffs own behalf, on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the
People of the State of California.

Garza rents a residential unit owned by Williams which she
complains of defective conditions that were not being attended to
by the landlord. Garza is currently facing eviction from the said
property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, California 94612
      Tel: (510) 834-3300
      Fax: (510) 834-3377
      Email: andrew@awolfflaw.com
             chris@awolfflaw.com


EMERSON ELECTRIC: "Rockwood" Suit Hits Defective Filters
--------------------------------------------------------
Rockwood Retirement Communities, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Insinkerator and Emerson
Electric Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00346 (E.D. Wash.,
December 11, 2015), seeks actual, general, special, incidental,
statutory, punitive and consequential damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest on such monetary relief, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Rockwood Retirement Communities is a retirement
community located in Spokane, Washington. It purchased dispensers
for installation and use in its retirement communities and that
the F-201R filter cartridge on the dispenser had failed.

InSinkErator is a Wisconsin corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business in Racine, Wisconsin. It develops,
designs, manufacturers and markets Dispensers and Filter
Cartridges.

Emerson Electric Company is a Missouri corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business located in
St. Louis, Missouri. It owns InSinkErator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Tel: (610) 642-8500
      Fax: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: jgs@chimicles.com
              jbk@chimicles.com

           - and -

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Tel: (973) 623-3000
      Fax: (973) 623-0858
      Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com


EVERI HOLDINGS: Court Has Not Ruled on Class Certification Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Everi 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 a court has not
ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
lawsuit filed by Ozetta Hardy.

Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil
action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity
that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and
Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes
County, Alabama. On June 3, 2010, Everi Games and other
manufacturers were added as defendants. The plaintiffs, who claim
to have been patrons of White Hall, allege that Everi Games
participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state
law by supplying to White Hall purportedly unlawful electronic
bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek
recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played
by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the filing of the
complaint under Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs
requested that the court certify the action as a class action.

On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern
Division. The court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

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

The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter. Given the
inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is
unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome.


FANDUEL INC: "Williams" Suit Alleges Illegal Gambling
-----------------------------------------------------
Ryan Williams and Hillary Williams, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fanduel, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-153-GNS (W.D. Ky., December 15, 2015),
seeks damages, restitution, injunctive, declaratory, retrospective
and prospective relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest in
violation of Kentucky Revised Statutes
Sec. 528.010 on unlawful gambling or wagering transactions.

The class action complaint arises out of an alleged illegal
gambling website, Daily Fantasy Sports, an online game that allows
paying participants to engage in virtual athletic drafting with
data tied to actual player statistics that allows game
simulations. Fanduel allegedly accepts wagers for such activities
using such a scheme and entices participants to play by offering
cash winnings.

Fanduel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th Floor, New York,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Coleman, Esq.
      HUGHES & COLEMAN
      2333 Alexandria Drive, Suite 118
      Lexington, KY 40504
      Tel: 859-260-1722
      Email: BColeman@hughesandcoleman.com

            - and -

      W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
      Christopher Hood, Esq.
      Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 326-3336
      Fax: (205) 326-3332
      Email: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
             chood@hgdlawfirm.com
             taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

            - and -

      Lee L. Coleman, Esq.
      HUGHES & COLEMAN
      446 James Robertson Pkwy, Suite 100
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 255-9100
      Email: LColeman@hughesandcoleman.com

            - and -

      James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Tel: (404) 996-0869
      Fax: (205) 326-3332
      Email: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com


FIRST SOLAR: Petition for Interlocutory Appeal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc.'s petition for interlocutory appeal remains
pending, 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 March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of our current and former directors and
officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the
"Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The
action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively, "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015,
and plaintiffs filed a cross motion for partial summary judgment
on the same day. On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court
granted defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, and
certified an issue for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was
denied.

On August 20, 2015, First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory
appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Upon the filing of
this petition, the Arizona District Court entered a stay until the
Court of Appeals decides whether to take the appeal and, if it
does, until the appeal is decided. The petition remains pending
before the Court of Appeals.


FTS INTERNATIONAL: "Wharton" Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wharton, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FTS International Services,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00946-A (N.D. Tex., Fort Worth
Division, December 11, 2015), seeks collection of unpaid wages and
benefits pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101-2109 et seq.

Wharton was terminated as result of a mass layoff ordered by
Defendant without the required statutory notification of 30 days.

FTS International Services, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company based in Fort Worth, Texas engaged in the oil and gas
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      Udyogi Hangawatte, Esq.
      711W Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 523-0001
      Fax: (713) 523-1116
      Email: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
             uhangawatte@kennedyhodges.com


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Complete
------------------------------------------------------------------
Galectin 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 the parties in
the shareholder class actions presented oral argument regarding
the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 3, 2015.

Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court") against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014.

By order entered August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court
consolidated the three cases, relieved the defendants of any
obligation to respond to the complaints then on file, and provided
that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended complaint to
be filed following appointment of a lead plaintiff(s) pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

By order dated January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted
the defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(the "Court").

On March 24, 2015, the Court appointed Glyn Hotz as the lead
plaintiff ("Plaintiff"). Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class
Action Complaint (the "Complaint") on May 8, 2015. The Complaint
asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
October 25, 2013 and July 28, 2014. The Complaint alleges that the
Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Class
Action Individual Defendants") violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
10b-5 through allegedly false or misleading statements in certain
SEC filings, press releases and other public statements. The
Complaint further alleges that the Class Action Individual
Defendants and one of the Company's shareholders face liability
for the alleged Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations pursuant
to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees.

The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint on June 26, 2015. The parties presented oral
argument regarding the motion to dismiss on November 3, 2015. As
of the date of this filing, the motion to dismiss remains pending.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Quintero" Suit Over Towing Capacity
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Quintero, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Motors Company, a
Delaware Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 5:15-cv-02530 (C.D. Cal., December 11, 2015), seeks an
injunction requiring Defendants to issue a recall of all affected
vehicles, restitution, actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs
resulting from Breach of Express Warranty and Negligent
Misrepresentation in violation of California Business and
Professions Code 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301, Sec. 17200 and 17500 et seq.
and California Civil Code Sec. 1750, et seq.

Plaintiffs allege General Motors of understating the towing
capacity of their vehicles as advertised. Plaintiff purchased a
2014 GMC Sierra 1500 Crew Cab 5.3L V8 pickup truck.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
      Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
      BOUCHER LLP
      21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
      Tel: (818) 340-5400
      Fax: (818) 340-5401
      Email: ray@boucher.la
             weitz@boucher.la

           - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
      Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 222-2434
      Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
             mvalladares@forthepeople.com
             pbarthle@fortherpeople.com

           - and -

      Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
      Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
      Mariana Aroditis, Esq.
      KIESEL LAW
      8648 Wilshire Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 854-4444
      Fax: (310) 854-0812
      Email: kiesel@kiesel-law.com
             koncius@kiesel-law.com
             aroditis@kiesel-law.com


GERON CORPORATION: Calif. Securities Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation continues to defend a consolidated securities
class action in California, the Company disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

"On March 14, 2014, a purported class action securities lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, or the California District Court, naming
as defendants us and certain of our officers," the Company said.
"The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements
made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients
with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or polycythemia vera, or
PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that we failed to
disclose facts related to the occurrence of persistent low-grade
liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities observed in our Phase 2
trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients and the potential risk of
chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat.
The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees."

"On March 28, 2014, a second purported class action securities
lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on
June 6, 2014, a third securities lawsuit, not styled as a class
action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District
Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers."

These lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as
the purported class action securities lawsuit that commenced on
March 14, 2014, also allege violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both
of the purported class action securities lawsuits filed in the
California District Court, or the Class Action Lawsuits, and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the
purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court
ordered the lead plaintiff in the Class Action Lawsuits to file
its consolidated amended complaint, which was filed on September
19, 2014.

"On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the securities
lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California
District Court. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District
Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the
California District Court, which was thereafter consolidated with
the Class Action Lawsuits. On November 18, 2014, we filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action
Lawsuits.

"On April 10, 2015, the California District Court granted our
motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss
with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements
made by us. On May 22, 2015, we filed our answer to the
consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits."


GFI GROUP: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Delaware Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
GFI 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 a settlement has
been reached in the consolidated Delaware class action.

Overview of Putative Class Actions

Following the announcement of the CME Merger, nine putative class
action complaints challenging the CME Merger were filed on behalf
of purported stockholders of GFI (one of which also purported to
be brought derivatively on behalf of GFI), two in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, six in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and one in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints were captioned Coyne v. GFI Group Inc., et al.,
Index No. 652704/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed September 4, 2014),
Suprina v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., Index No. 652668/2014 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., filed August 29, 2014), Brown v. GFI Group Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 10082-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 3, 2014),
Hughes v. CME Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10103-VCL
(Del. Ch., filed September 8, 2014), Al Ammary v. Gooch, et al.,
Civil Action No. 10125-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 11, 2014),
Giardalas v. GFI Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 10132-VCL (Del.
Ch., filed September 15, 2014), City of Lakeland Employees'
Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del.
Ch., filed September 16, 2014), Michocki v. Gooch., et al., Civil
Action No. 10166-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 25, 2014) and
Szarek v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-8228 (S.D.N.Y.,
filed October 14, 2014). On September 26, 2014, the Court of
Chancery granted voluntary dismissal of the Giardalas action.

On October 6, 2014, a consolidation order was entered by Vice
Chancellor Laster, consolidating the Delaware cases into a case
captioned In re GFI Group Inc. Stockholder Litigation (the
"Consolidated Delaware Action"). The consolidation order
designated the complaint filed in City of Lakeland Employees'
Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del.
Ch.) as the operative complaint in the Consolidated Delaware
Action.

The complaints in both jurisdictions named as Defendants various
combinations of the Company, GFI Holdco Ltd. ("IDB Buyer"), the
members of the Company's board of directors, GFI managing director
Nick Brown, CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore
Acquisition LLC, Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition
LLC, JPI and New JPI Inc. ("New JPI"). The complaints generally
alleged, among other things, that the members of the Company's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders during merger negotiations by entering into
the CME Merger Agreement and approving the CME Merger, and that
the Company, CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore
Acquisition LLC, IDB Buyer, Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah
Acquisition LLC, JPI, and New JPI aided and abetted such breaches
of fiduciary duties.  The complaints further alleged, among other
things, (i) that the merger consideration provided for in the CME
Merger Agreement undervalued the Company, (ii) that the sales
process leading up to the CME Merger was flawed due to the members
of the Company's board of directors' and Jefferies' conflicts of
interest, and (iii) that certain provisions of the CME Merger
Agreement inappropriately favored CME and precluded or impeded
third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals.

The complaints sought, among other relief: (i) certification of
the class, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining the CME Merger, (iii)
a declaration that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties and that certain provisions of the
CME Merger Agreement are unlawful, (iv) a directive to the members
of the Company's board of directors to execute their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of the
Company's stockholders, (v) rescission of the CME Merger to the
extent already implemented, (vi) granting of rescissory damages
and an accounting of all of the damages suffered as a result of
the alleged wrongdoing, (vii) and reimbursement of fees and costs.
The Coyne and Suprina Plaintiffs in New York also demanded a jury
trial.

In addition to the above cases, two later filed putative class
actions, Gross v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-9438
(S.D.N.Y., filed November 26, 2014), alleging violations of the
federal securities laws, and Quaker Investment Trust v. GFI Group,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 11427-VCL (Del. Ch., filed August
25, 2015), asserting breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims in connection with BGC's
tender offer for shares of GFI and the proposed Back-End Mergers
between BGC and GFI, are discussed.

Coyne and Suprina Actions

Certain Defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay
the Coyne and Suprina actions in favor of the Consolidated
Delaware Action. A hearing was held on December 15, 2014 on (i)
the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay the Coyne and Suprina
actions; (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion by order to show cause for
consolidation and appointment of a leadership structure; and (iii)
Plaintiff Suprina's motion by order to show cause to compel and
expedite discovery. In an order filed on January 30, 2015, the
Court ordered the Suprina and Coyne cases consolidated. In another
order filed that same day, the Court denied Plaintiff Suprina's
motion to compel and expedite discovery.  On March 26, 2015, the
Court issued a decision and order granting the Defendants' motions
to dismiss the Coyne and Suprina actions on forum non conveniens
grounds and in favor of the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The
decision and order were entered in the office of the Clerk of the
County of New York on March 27, 2015.  The Court's judgment
dismissing the Coyne and Suprina complaints was entered in the
office of the Clerk of the County of New York on April 29, 2015.

Consolidated Delaware Action

Following expedited discovery in the Consolidated Delaware Action,
on December 29, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction seeking to enjoin enforcement of Article V of the
Support Agreement and preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on
the CME Merger until (i) certain additional disclosures were made
and (ii) the Company's stockholders were provided the opportunity
to vote on the CME Merger, the JPI Merger and the IDB Transaction.

On February 20, 2015, Plaintiffs informed the Court that an
expedited merits hearing was not necessary.

By agreement of the parties, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on July 13, 2015.  The amended complaint asserts causes of action
against Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, Ms. Cassoni, and CME, but not
Messrs. Brown, Fanzilli, and Magee, the Company, IDB Buyer,
Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, Cheetah
Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI, or New JPI.
Plaintiffs allege Messrs. Gooch and Heffron breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by, among other things, (i)
placing their interests ahead of stockholders' interests, (ii)
rejecting BGC's offer to acquire the Company for $6.20 per share,
(iii) entering into certain employment and non-competition
agreements with BGC, (iv) delaying Board meetings to discuss
recommendations made by the Special Committee concerning BGC's
offer, (v) disparaging BGC, and (vi) issuing false and misleading
statements to stockholders.  Plaintiffs allege Ms. Cassoni favored
the interests of Messrs. Gooch and Heffron over stockholders'
interests and that CME aided and abetted the individual
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.

Preliminary Settlement of Consolidated Delaware Action

On August 24, 2015, GFI, Michael Gooch and Colin Heffron,
directors of GFI and former executive officers of GFI; JPI; CME
and certain of its affiliates; the former members of the GFI
Special Committee; BGC; and certain other former officers and
affiliates of GFI entered into a MOU with regard to a preliminary
settlement of the Consolidated Delaware Action (the "Settlement").
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 $10,750 for the class of GFI
stockholders in the Consolidated Delaware Action. The Settlement
also provides for 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, with funds to be paid to
the settlement fund after such date.  The Settlement, once
approved, will resolve fully and finally all of the claims
asserted or that could have been asserted in the Consolidated
Delaware Action, including those relating to the actions of the
former GFI officers, former GFI Board of Directors and former GFI
Special Committee in connection with the BGC tender offer and
acquisition of GFI, as described more fully in the Settlement.
Any claims excluded from the Settlement are indemnified by Messrs.
Gooch and Heffron to the extent not covered by insurance.
Defendants believe that the release in the proposed settlement of
the Consolidated Delaware Action, if approved in the form
presented to the Court, would release the claims asserted in the
Quaker action which is discussed below.  The claims asserted in
Quaker are indemnified by Messrs. Gooch and Heffron.  The hearing
for Court approval of the Settlement was scheduled for November
24, 2015.

In connection with the Settlement, also on August 24, 2015,
Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, JPI, BGC and GFI entered into a
separate agreement providing for certain matters relating to the
merger of BGC and GFI and allocating certain responsibilities and
advancing certain payments (the "Settlement Letter").  In
addition, CME has agreed to terminate the restriction prohibiting
Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, JPI and certain other stockholders and
affiliates of GFI from supporting the Back-End Mergers (as defined
in Note 2) or similar transactions until January 30, 2016 (the
"Waiver"), which was set forth in the Support Agreement, dated as
of July 30, 2014, by and among the CME, JPI and affiliated
entities, Messrs. Gooch and Heffron and another former GFI
officer.

Accordingly, the parties to the Settlement Letter agreed that by
December 21, 2015, BGC, GFI, JPI and certain affiliates shall
enter into the the Back-End Mergers as required in the Tender
Offer Agreement. The Company and BGC expect the Back-End Mergers
to be completed no later than January 29, 2016. In consideration
of the Waiver and JPI's agreement to complete the Back-End Mergers
in early 2016, BGC agreed to advance to JPI $10,750 of the
previously agreed upon and disclosed merger consideration to which
JPI is entitled in the Back-End Merger, which JPI has contributed
to the settlement fund.

The Settlement Letter also includes the following agreements that
require Mr. Gooch and/or Mr. Heffron to provide indemnification,
to the extent not otherwise covered by insurance, to GFI and BGC
as follows: (i) by Mr. Gooch with respect to liabilities and
expenses in connection with the Gross case;  (ii) by Messrs. Gooch
and Heffron with respect to liabilities and expenses  in the
Consolidated Delaware Action; (iii) by Messrs. Gooch and Heffron
with respect to liabilities and expenses arising from any claims
that could have been asserted in the Consolidated Delaware Action
by GFI stockholders who opt out of or are not bound by the
Settlement; (iv) by Messrs. Gooch and Heffron with respect to
liabilities and expenses arising from claims related to (A)
alleged breaches  of fiduciary duty by the GFI board of directors
prior to February 27, 2015, (B) alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
by the JPI board of directors, Mr. Gooch or Mr. Heffron with
respect to the Settlement Letter, (C) the transactions
contemplated by the CME Merger Agreement, the Tender Offer
Agreement, and the Settlement Letter, and any related disclosures,
or (D) any alleged tort, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty or other wrongdoing by GFI, JPI, or their respective officers
and directors with respect to the course of dealing between GFI
and BGC between July 29, 2014 and February 27, 2015; (v) by
Messrs. Gooch and Heffron relating to amounts incurred in
connection with an insurance buyout agreement; and (vi) by Messrs.
Gooch and Heffron for any breach of the covenants or
representation and warranties of the Settlement Letter by JPI,
Messrs. Gooch or Heffron and for any enforcement of the Settlement
Letter.

In addition, the Settlement Letter also provides for payment of
the plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and costs in the
Consolidated Delaware Action first from insurance proceeds, with
any excess to be paid by Messrs. Gooch and Heffron.

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 non-
competition and distributable earnings bonus award agreements with
BGC (the "DE Agreements"), which they entered into in connection
with the tender offer, so long as they are eligible for payments
under their respective DE Agreements.

On October 6, 2015, BGC Partners, L.P. advanced the $10,750 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 a breach by either
of Messrs. Gooch or Heffron of their respective DE Agreements.


GFI GROUP: Moved to Dismiss or Stay "Quaker" Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
GFI 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 Defendants have
moved to dismiss or stay the class action lawsuit filed by Quaker
Investment Trust.

On August 25, 2015, Quaker Investment Trust, a purported
stockholder of GFI, filed the putative class action complaint in
the Quaker case in Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The
complaint names as defendants GFI, certain current and former
members of the GFI board of directors, and BGC.  The complaint
asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty against BGC
and the individual Defendants, and for aiding and abetting breach
of fiduciary duty against GFI, in connection with, among other
things, actions taken by GFI's board of directors in connection
with BGC's tender offer for shares of GFI and the proposed Back-
End Mergers between BGC and GFI.  The complaint alleges that the
terms of the Back-End Mergers favor BGC at the expense of GFI's
minority stockholders and that Gooch and Heffron will unfairly
receive consideration different from the minority stockholders.
The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief,
including an injunction against the Back-End Mergers, and damages.

On September 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  On
September 25, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the
action.  Defendants believe that the release in the proposed
settlement of the Consolidated Delaware Action, if approved in the
form presented to the Court, would release the claims asserted in
the Quaker action.  The claims asserted in Quaker are indemnified
by Messrs. Gooch and Heffron.  Defendants further believe that he
claims against them are without merit and intend to defend the
litigation vigorously.


GFI GROUP: Moved to Dismiss "Gross" Shareholder Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GFI 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 Defendants have
moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case, Gross
v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-9438 (S.D.N.Y., filed
November 26, 2014).

On November 26, 2014, the Gross putative class action complaint
alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in
the NY Court. The complaint named GFI, Colin Heffron, Michael
Gooch and Nick Brown as Defendants.  The complaint sought, among
other relief: (i) certification of the class, (ii) compensatory
damages for Defendants' purported wrongdoing and (iii)
reimbursement of costs and expenses. On February 20, 2015, the NY
Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approved his selection of co-lead counsel on behalf
of the putative class.

On May 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint having
previously obtained the NY Court's permission to do so.  The
amended complaint named GFI and Messrs. Gooch and Heffron -- but
not Mr. Brown -- as Defendants.  Plaintiff filed his second
amended complaint on July 8, 2015.  Like Plaintiff's first amended
complaint, the second amended complaint alleges certain violations
of the federal securities laws against GFI and Messrs. Gooch and
Heffron. On September 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  The NY Court scheduled argument for
December 4, 2015. Defendants believe that the claims asserted
against them are without merit and intend to defend the litigation
vigorously.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Simpson" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Simpson v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01850, 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-13778-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 based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  GSK designed, manufactured or
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:

          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          William L. Bross, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 380-8085
          E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
                  wlbross@hgdlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

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


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Reynolds" Suit Goes from N.D. Alabama to Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Reynolds v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01951, 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-14133-FDS to the proceeding.

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

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable
-- 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan W. Gathings, Esq.
          JONATHAN W. GATHINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 112
          Birmingham, Alabama 35216
          Telephone: (205) 324 4418
          Facsimile: (205) 324 5240
          E-mail: jonathan@jonathanwgathings.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          CSC LAWYERS INCORPORATING SVC INC
          150 South Perry Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104


GODADDY.COM LLC: "Ventures" Suit Hits Substandard Software Pack
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ventures Edge Legal, PLLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02291-GMS (D. Ariz., November 12, 2015), seeks
punitive damages pursuant to the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act Sec.
44-1522, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and reasonable
attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff bought a Microsoft Office 365 Business Premium Plan from
the Defendant and claims that it lacks some of the
advertized/published components.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
      2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Tel: (602) 274-1100
      Fax: (602) 274-1199
      Email: afriedman@bffb.com

           - and -

      David A. Rothstein, Esq.
      Lorenz Michel Prss, Esq.
      Jared A. Levy, Esq.
      Christopher M. Drury, Esq.
      DIMOND KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.A.
      Offices at Grand Bay Plaza
      2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH-2B
      Miami, FL 33133
      Tel: (305) 374-1920
      Fax: (305) 374-1961
      Email: Drothstein@dkrpa.com
             Lpruss@dkrpa.com
             Jlevy@dkrpa.com
             Cdrury@dkrpa.com


GOTHIC GROUNDS: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Rest Period Premium Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Odilon Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. Gothic Grounds Management, Inc., a California
corporation; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC604184 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, December 14, 2015),
seeks rest period premium wages, statutory penalties for failure
to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties for
failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of
employment, injunctive other equitable relief and reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 226(e)
and 2699(g)(1).

Defendants operate at 28546 Constellation Road, Valencia, CA 91355
where Plaintiff worked as a foreman.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 432-0000
      Fax: (310) 432-0001
      Email: ilavi@.lelawfirm.com
             arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com


GRAMERCY TAVERN: "Siddiky" Action Seeks Minimum Wages, Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------
Uzzol Siddiky and Kawsar A. Maruf, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
Union Square Hospitality Group, LLC, Gramercy Tavern Corp and GT
Operating Company LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-09705
(S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2015), seeks recovery of unpaid minimum
wages with an additional equal amount in liquidated damages,
retained gratuities and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs worked as bussers for the Defendant. They claim
receiving sub-minimum wage rates and allege Defendant for
illegally withholding their tips due.

Union Square Hospitality Group, LLC is a New York limited
liability company, located at 24 Union Square East, New York, New
York 10003. It owns and operates Gramercy Tavern, a restaurant
located at 42 East 20th Street, New York, New York, 10003. GT
Operating Company LLC is a New York limited liability company
based at 24-32 Union Square East, 6th Floor, New York, New York
10003.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeanne Christensen, Esq.
      Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Tel: (212) 257-6800
      Fax: (212) 257-6845
      Email: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com
             trahman@wigdorlaw.com


GRAYSON COUNTY GLASS: "Jones" Suit Goes from N.D to E.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jones v. Grayson County Glass Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02166, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
(Sherman). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:15-cv-00849-RC to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and other Class Members
for the overtime hours they worked.

Grayson County Glass is based in Sherman Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
          1801 North Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749 1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  forester@l-b-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael B Gerstle, Esq.
          GERSTLE MINISSALE & SNELSON LLP
          4849 Greenville Ave., Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 368 6440
          Facsimile: (214) 308 2026
          E-mail: michael.gerstle@gmsattorneys.com

               - and -

          Brandy K Chambers, Esq.
          GRABLE MARTIN & FULTON
          1708 Morningside Dr.
          Garland, TX 75042
          Telephone: (214) 315 5673
          E-mail: bchambers@gchub.com


HAWKINS INC: East Grand Forks Suit Hits Aluminum Sulfate Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Water, Light, Power and Building Commission of the City of East
Grand Forks, Minnesota, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hawkins, Inc., Frank A. Reichl,
General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance
Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund,
Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S
Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC, Thatcher Group, Inc., Kemira
Chemicals, Inc., and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-
04350-ADM-LIB (D. Minn. December 11, 2015), seeks permanent
enjoinment, damages, monetary relief, treble damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney fees in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. and Sections 4
and 6 of the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C.

Water, Light, Power and Building Commission of the City of East
Grand Forks, Minnesota is an agency of the State of Minnesota with
its principal place of business at 600 DeMers Ave., East Grand
Forks, Minnesota 56721. It purchased alum for its waterworks.

Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum
sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum
sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive
prices.

Hawkins, Inc. is a publicly held Minnesota corporation with its
principal place of business at 2381 Rosegate, Roseville,
Minnesota. Its water treatment segment provides chemicals,
equipment, and solutions for potable water, municipal and
industrial wastewater, industrial process water, and non-
residential swimming pool water.

Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General
Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of
Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road,
Parsippany, New Jersey.

General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the
laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300,
155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario.

General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability
company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place
of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey.

GenTek Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek manufactured and
supplied water treatment chemicals throughout the United States.
It owned and controlled Defendants General Chemical Performance
Products LLC and General Chemical Corporation.

Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under
the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals
and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United
States and Europe.

Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade
Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province
of Ontario.

GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Ohio corporation
with its principal place of business at 340 Mathers Road, Ambler,
Pennsylvania. GEO Specialty manufactures, markets, and supplies
specialty chemicals, including water treatment chemicals.

Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a
subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

C&S Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business at 4180 Providence Road,
Marietta, Georgia. C&S Chemicals specializes in the production of
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Sodium Aluminate and currently
operates six manufacturing facilities located in Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina, Illinois, and Minnesota.

USALCO, LLC is a privately held Maryland corporation with its
principal place of business at 2601 Cannery Avenue, Baltimore,
Maryland. USALCO manufactures and distributes aluminum-based
chemical commodities to the industrial and municipal markets in
the North America.

Thatcher Group, Inc. is a privately held Nevada corporation with
its principal place of business at 1905 Fortune Road, Salt Lake
City, Utah. Thatcher Group manufactures and distributes a complete
line of products for industrial and municipal water and wastewater
treatment.

Kemira Chemicals, Inc. is a publicly held Georgia corporation with
its principal place of business at 1000 Parkwood Circle, Suite
500, Atlanta, Georgia. It manufactures, formulates and supplies
specialty and process chemicals for paper, water treatment,
mineral slurries and industrial chemical industries in North
America and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
      Brian D. Clark, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      Suite 2200 100 Washington Avenue South
      Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
      Tel. (612) 339-6900
      Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             cnnauen@locklaw.com
             hmsilton@locklaw.com
             erodette@locklaw.com
             bdclark@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      120 South 6th Street #2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 333-8844
      Fax: (612) 339-6622
      Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
      Alexander R. Safyan, Esq.
      PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW LLP
      44 Montgomery Street
      Suite 2450
      San Francisco, CA 94104-4610
      Tel: (415) 433-9000
      Fax: (415 433-9008
      Email: bsimon@pswlaw.com
             asafyan@pswlaw.com

         - and -

      E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
      Megan D. Yelle, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 256-3200
      Fax: (612) 338-4878
      Email: drake@nka.com
             myelle@nka.com

         - and -

      K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 349-8500
      Fax: (612) 339-4181
      Email: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com


HOME OF THE SAGES OF ISRAEL: "Block" Action Hits Charity Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Block and Louis Atlas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Home of the Sages of
Israel, Inc. a/k/a Beth Tomche Torrah Vezikneh Yisroel, Inc. and
Rabbi Samuel Aschkenazi, Samuel Aschkenazy, Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-09724 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2015), seeks reimbursement,
compensatory, consequential, incidental damages and statutory
damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to New York General
Business Law Sec. 349 et seq., injunctive relief to cease and
desist from soliciting contributions and attorney fees.

Plaintiffs made contributions to the Defendant thinking that these
were made as charitable contributions. The Defendant actively
solicits for the said cause. However, it was discovered that the
Defendants engaged in commercial full-care nursing facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leland L. Greene, Esq.
      1565 Franklin Ave. Second Floor
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Tel: (516) 746-3800
      Fax: (516) 222-6577
      Email: LLGreeneLaw@gmail.com


HOMELAND HOUSEWARES: "De Groen" Suit Hits Defective Blender
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham De Groen, individually, Alexander De Groen, individually,
a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Jacqueline De Groen,
and John Miller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Homeland Housewares, LLC, Capital
Brands, LLC, Alchemy Worldwide, Inc. f/k/a Alchemy Worldwide, LLC
d/b/a Provida Life Sciences LLC, and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. BC603617 (Cal. Super., December 10, 2015), seeks compensatory,
incidental, punitive or consequential damages, restitution and
disgorgement, statutory pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees
in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act Sec.
1750, et seq.

Plaintiffs suffered first and second degree burns on their face,
neck, arms, and torsos when a tall cup attachment of a compact
blender (Magic Bullet) made by the Defendants exploded off of its
base.

Homeland Housewares LLC is a California corporation located in Los
Angeles, California.

Capital Brands, LLC, is a California corporation located in Los
Angeles, California.

Alchemy Worldwide, Inc. is a California corporation with primary
offices located in Sherman Oaks, California.

Defendants are into the manufacture and sales of household
appliances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
      Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
      Leland H. Belew, Esq.
      ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
      155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 986-1400
      Fax: (415) 986-1474
      Email: lori@andrusanderson.com
             iennie@andrusanderson.com
             leland.belew@andrusanderson.com


HUISKEN MEAT: Recalls Beef Products Due to Wood Materials
---------------------------------------------------------
Huisken Meat Company, a Sauk Rapids, Minn. establishment, is
recalling approximately 89,568 pounds of beef products that may be
contaminated with extraneous wood materials, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

The Sam's Choice Black Angus Vidalia Onion items were produced on
various dates between Nov. 19, 2015, and Dec. 9, 2015. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- 2-lb. boxes containing 6 pieces of "Sam's Choice Black
      Angus Beef Patties with 19% Vidalia (R) Onion." with Use By
      dates 05/17/2016; 05/29/2016; and 06/06/2016.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
394A" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped
to retail locations nationwide.

The foreign material originated with an incoming ingredient and
was discovered during production.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Debbie
Green, Customer Service Manager, at (618) 857-4011. Media with
questions about the recall can contact Mike Riley, VP of Sales, at
(618) 857-4062.


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: "Ridler" Suit Hits Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ridler and Lori Ridler, individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hutchinson Technology
Incorporated, Wayne M. Fortun, Richard J. Penn, Martha Goldberg
Aronson, Russell Huffer, Frank P. Russomanno, Philip E. Soran and
Thomas R. Verhage, Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-04356-MJD-TNL (D.
Minn., December 14, 2015), seeks preliminary and permanent
enjoinment of Defendants, damages, equitable relief and attorneys'
fees in violations of Section 14(a), 20(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the
Securities Exchange Act.

Defendants allegedly issued a materially incomplete and misleading
preliminary proxy statement recommending that Hutchinson
shareholders vote in favor of a merger of Hutchinson with Merger
Sub and to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Headway.

Hutchinson Technology Incorporated is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and maintains
its principal executive offices at 40 West Highland Park Drive
N.E., Hutchinson, Minnesota 55350. It makes precision electronic
component. Wayne M. Fortun is Chairman of the Board while Penn,
Aronson, Huffer, Russomanno, Soran and VerHage are members of the
Board of Directors of Hutchinson.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
      James W. Anderson, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tel: (612) 338-4605
      Fax: (612) 338-4692
      Email: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
             janderson@heinsmills.com

           - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: srowley@zlk.com
             sbartone@zlk.com


IKEA NORTH: Recalls LATTJO Tongue Drums and Drumstick Sets
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,000 LATTJO tongue drums and 1,300
LATTJO drumstick sets. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The rubber ball on the drumsticks can detach or be unscrewed,
posing a choking hazard.

The recall includes LATTJO Tongue Drum and LATTJO Drumstick set.

The LATTJO Tongue Drum is a solid birch rectangular-shaped drum
with a turquoise-dot print on the front and two solid red circles
on top. The drum measures about 8 inches long by 2-3/4 inches wide
by 2-3/4 inches deep. The drum comes with a seven inch mallet with
a turquoise painted handle and black rubber ball on the end. IKEA
and LATTJO are printed on a label on the
bottom of the drum.

The LATTJO Drumstick set includes two solid birch drumsticks, two
brushes and two mallet-type drumsticks with black rubber balls on
the ends. The set was sold in a turquoise polyester roll-up pouch
with a red and white striped fabric panel in the center. The pouch
measures about 15 inches long by 10 inches wide. IKEA and LATTJO
was printed on a label attached to the pouch.

IKEA has received six reports of the rubber ball on the end of the
drumsticks detaching or being unscrewed. These reports were from
staff in IKEA stores in Germany, Denmark, Spain and the
Netherlands. No incidents or injuries have been reported in the
United States.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at IKEA
stores nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from November
2015 through December 2015 for about $10 for the LATTJO tongue
drum and $15 for the LATTJO drumstick set.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled drum and drumstick
sets away from children and return them to IKEA for a full refund.


INSIGHT GLOBAL: "Rosenbaum" Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rosenbaum v. Insight Global, Inc.,
Case No. 37-02015-000374548-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of District of California
(San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
02837-L-JMA to the proceeding.

Insight Global is an information technology (IT) staffing company
that provides employment solutions to Fortune 500 corporations in
the United States and Canada. The company offers long-term, short-
term, temporary-to-permanent, and placement staffing services; and
managed services, including IT outsourcing, recruitment processing
outsourcing, enhanced staffing solutions, consultative services,
project and program management, offshore capabilities, and offsite
facilities (within the U.S.). It serves clients in a range of
industries, including aerospace and defense, energy, banking and
finance, communications, healthcare, insurance, retail,
telecommunications, and technology. The company is based in
Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah L Raymond, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH L RAYMOND
          445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 300
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (858) 481 9559
          Facsimile: (858) 724 0747
          E-mail: draymondlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Matthew Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER & ANDERSON, LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 277 7235
          Facsimile: (415) 277 7238
          E-mail: helland@nka.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anna Kim, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 S. Grand Avenue, 222nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 612 2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612 2501
          E-mail: anna.kim@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Keri L. Engelman, Esq.
          Paul C Evans, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963 5100
          Facsimile: (215) 963 5001
          E-mail: kengelman@morganlewis.com
                  pevans@morganlewis.com


J&B IMPORTERS: Recalls Folding Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
J&B Importers, Inc., of Miami, Fla., announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,600 Origin8 folding bicycles. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The frame on the folding bicycles can break, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves three models, the F1, F3 and F7.  The F1
model is a single speed folding bike which came in matte black and
can be identified by the "F1" on the top tube. The F3 model is a
three speed folding bike which came in white and can be identified
by "F3" on the top tube. The F7 model is a seven speed folding
bike which came in battleship gray and can be identified by "F7"
on the top tube. The serial number is located on the bottom tube,
near the bike pedals. Serial number ranges included in the recall
are as follows:

F1 Model
  Serial number range:
  --------------------
  B0470373-B0470459
  B181460001-B181460100
  B13223229 - B13223374

F3 Model
  Serial number range:
  --------------------
  B181460101 - B181460200
  B0470460-B0470580
  B130170001-B130170147
  B181404945 - B181405079

F7 Model
  Serial number range:
  --------------------
  B181460201 - B181460320
  B0470581-B0470746
  B131070148-B130170279
  B13223375 - B13223510
  B181405080 - B181405255

Origin8 has received 13 reports of welds on the frame cracking or
failing. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/9d6jrC

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Independent bicycles dealers nationwide between August 2012 and
October 2015 for between $370 and $480.

Consumers should stop using the recalled bicycles immediately and
return them to the place where purchased for a free replacement
bicycle.


K.A.M. FOOD STORE: "Braxton" Suit Alleges Labor Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Kareem Braxton and Yahkeel Lynch, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. K.A.M. Food Store,
Inc., Khalid Dolah, Amin Dolah, and Mahmoud Hassan Dolah, jointly
and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-07145-DLI-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., December 15, 2015), seeks an injunction against
Defendants, award of compensatory, liquidated and/or punitive
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et
seq. and the New York Labor Law Sec. 190 and 650 et seq.

K.A.M. Food Store, Inc. is an active New York Corporation doing
business under the trade name Met Food with its principal place of
business at 739 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11216 where
the Braxton worked as grocery stock clerk, deli counter person,
and general inventory employee. Lynch worked as a grocery and
dairy stock employee.

The Dolahs own and operate the store.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 385-9700
      Email: pelton@peltonlaw.com
             graham@peltonlaw.com


KAYEM FOODS: Recalls Chicken Sausage Products Due to Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kayem Foods Inc., a Chelsea, Mass. establishment, is recalling
approximately 22,182 pounds of chicken sausage products due to
misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products bear the
incorrect nutritional labeling information and are encased in pork
casings, which are not declared on the label and may elicit
allergic reactions in those allergic to pork proteins.

The chicken sausage items were produced on Nov. 4, 2015. The
following product is subject to recall:

  --- 12-oz. vacuum-packed packages containing "al fresco SWEET
      APPLE CHICKEN SAUSAGE" bearing identification code "308
      BW12 USE/FRZ BY FEB 7, 2016."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. P-
7839" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped
to retail locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the firm received consumer
complaints that the product listed nutritional information for a
different product, "al fresco Apple Maple Breakfast" sausages.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Brenda
Navaroli, Customer Service Manager, at 1-(800) 426-6100. Media
with questions about the recall can contact Molly Kravitz, Public
Relations Manager, at (617) 521-5431.


KNOLLWOOD SERVICE: "Haddad" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------

Hazem Haddad, Isaac Adams and Solomon Kofi Owusu, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Knollwood Service Center Inc., Central Park Food Corp., Morad Al
Jamal and Dakheal Al Jamal, Defendants, Case No. 7:15-cv-09667-CS
(S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2015), seeks recovery of unpaid overtime
pay, liquidated damages, attorney fees, interest and costs, and
all other relief available under the New York State Labor Law,
Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked as gas station and convenience store
cashier/attendant. They regularly worked more than 40 hours per
work week and did not receive overtime compensation.

Knollwood Service Center Inc. is a domestic business corporation
operating a Shell-branded gasoline filling station and convenience
store located at 433 Knollwood Road, White Plains, County of
Westchester, New York 10603.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ira S. Newman, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF IRA S. NEWMAN
      98 Cutter Mill Road, Suite 441-South
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 487-7375
      Email: inewman@mindspring.com


KTM NORTH: Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
KTM North America Inc., of Amherst, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 550 KTM Competition/Closed Course Off-Road
Motorcycles. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Under extreme riding conditions, fuel can escape from the tank
breather assembly. This poses a risk of fire and injury to the
rider.

This recall involves model year 2015 and 2016 KTM brand Freeride
250R motorcycles with 250cc and 2-cycle engines. The recalled KTM
motorcycles are orange and black with the KTM logo on both sides
of the shrouds covering the fuel tank. The engine size is printed
on both sides of the rear fender below the rear of the seat.

Model year 2015 motorcycles have the letter F in the 10th position
of the vehicle identification number (VIN). The VIN is located on
the right side of the steering head.

Model year 2016 motorcycles have the letter G in the 10th position
of the vehicle identification number (VIN). The VIN is located on
the right side of the steering head.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured by KTM Motorrad AG, of
Austria and sold at Authorized KTM dealers nationwide from August
2014 to December 2014 for about $7,900 for the 2015 model year,
from June 2015 to July 2015 for about $8,000 for the 2016 model
year.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the recalled motorcycles
and contact an authorized KTM dealer to schedule a free repair.
KTM is contacting consumers who purchased the recalled product
directly.


KTM NORTH: Recalls Motocross Motorcycles Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
KTM North American Inc., of Amherst, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,800 Competition Off-road Motocross Motorcycles.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The molded fuel hoses could leak fuel at the radius or the ends of
the hose, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves model year 2015 KTM SX-F Factory Edition and
2016 SX-F motocross motorcycles with 250cc to 450cc, 4-cycle
engines.

Recalled KTM motorcycles are orange and black with the KTM logo on
both sides of the shrouds covering the fuel tank. The engine size
and "SX-F" are on both sides of the rear fender below the rear of
the seat.

Model year 2015 motorcycles will have the letter F in the 10th
position of the vehicle identification number (VIN). The VIN is
located on the right side of the steering head.

Model year 2016 motorcycles will have the letter G in the 10th
position of the vehicle identification number (VIN). The VIN is
located on the right side of the steering head.
Incidents/Injuries

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/f00aCx

The recalled products were manufactured in Austria and sold at KTM
authorized dealers nationwide from December 2014 through April
2015 for between $9,000 and $10,200 for model year 2015
Motorcycles and from May 2015 through September 2015 for between
$8,400 and $9,300 for model year 2016 Motorcycles.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the recalled motorcycles
and contact an authorized KTM dealer to schedule a free repair.
KTM is contacting consumers directly.


KTM NORTH: Recalls Motocross Motorcycles Due to Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
KTM North America Inc., of Amherst, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,700 Competition off-road motocross motorcycles.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The front wheel spoke assembly can fail, causing the operator to
lose control of the motorcycle and crash.

This recall involves model year 2016 Husqvarna TC and FC and KTM
SX and SX-F motocross competition motorcycles with 250cc to 450cc,
4-cycle engines, and 125cc to 250cc, 2-cycle engines.

Recalled Husqvarna motorcycles are blue, white and yellow and have
the Husqvarna logo on both sides of the shroud covering the fuel
tank. The model name and engine size are on both sides of the rear
fender below the rear of the seat.

Recalled KTM motorcycles are orange, black and white with the KTM
logo on both sides of the shroud covering the fuel tank. The model
name and engine size are printed on both sides of the rear fender
below the rear of the seat.

Model year 2016 motorcycles will have the letter G in the 10th
position of the vehicle identification number (VIN). The VIN is
located on the right side of the steering head.

The firm has received two reports of crashes as a result of a
wheel spoke failure, including one report of a shoulder injury and
three broken ribs.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/zYw6V0

The recalled products were manufactured by KTM Motorrad AG, of
Austria and sold at KTM authorized dealers nationwide from March
2015 through October 2015 for between $6,800 and $9,400.
Husqvarna Motorcycles authorized dealers nationwide from March
2015 through October 2015 for between $6,900 and $9,400.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the recalled motorcycles
and contact an authorized KTM/Husqvarna Motorcycles dealer to
schedule a free repair. KTM/Husqvarna Motorcycles is contacting
known consumers directly.


LA PLACITA DGO: "Peralta" Action Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monica Peralta, individually and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. La Placita DGO, Inc. and
Margarita Pena, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11240
(N.D. Ill., Eastern Division, December 14, 2015), seeks recovery
of unpaid minimum wages, statutory damages resulting from
Defendants failure to provide proper wage statements pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 Sec. 105/1 et seq.

La Placita DGO, Inc. operates a restaurant located at 2423 W 51st
St. Chicago, IL 60632 owned by Margarita Pena. Peralta washed
dishes and prepared food at the restaurant and claims to have
rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime
compensation and alleges Defendant of not maintaining proper time-
keeping facilities and records.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: (312) 878-1302
      Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Shareholder-Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
LeapFrog Enterprises, 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 a federal
securities class action, the court has directed the plaintiff to
file a further amended complaint.

A consolidated securities class action captioned In re LeapFrog
Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-CV-00347-
EMC, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against LeapFrog and two of its
officers, John Barbour and Raymond L. Arthur (the "Class Action").
The consolidated complaint, filed on June 24, 2015, alleges that
defendants violated Section 10(b) the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by
making materially false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial projections, financial results, and
development of new products between May 5, 2014 and June 11, 2015.
The complaint also alleges that defendants are liable as control-
person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint
seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper. The foregoing is a summary of the allegations in
the complaint and is subject to the text of the complaint, which
is on file with the Court. Based on a review of the allegations,
the Company and the individual defendants believe that the
plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against the claims. A hearing on the Company's
motion to dismiss was held on October 8, 2015. At the hearing on
the defendants' motions to dismiss, the Court stated that it
perceived significant problems with the plaintiff's allegations
and directed the plaintiff to file a further amended complaint
that pleads more particularized facts. The amended complaint was
due on or before November 23, 2015.


LOUISIANA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Lack of Public Defenders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Gazette reports that as the scales of the American
criminal justice system continue to tilt against the interests of
defendants, developments in Louisiana's Orleans Parish threaten to
pull us back to the days before Gideon v. Wainwright, the 1963
Supreme Court case that established the constitutional right of
indigent defendants to court-appointed counsel.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Louisiana ACLU have
filed a class-action suit against the Orleans Parish Public
Defenders' Office and the Louisiana Public Defender Board over the
parish's practice of placing defendants on waiting lists to
receive legal counsel due to a shortage of public defenders.

"You're helpless," said Brandon Buskey, staff attorney with the
ACLU's Criminal Reform Project.  "Your legal defense erodes along
with your constitutional rights.  Specifically, named plaintiffs
Douglas Brown, Leroy Shaw Jr. and Darwin Yarls Jr. assert that
their Sixth Amendment right to counsel has been violated.  The
plaintiffs cannot afford to hire attorneys and so rely upon the
public defender's office for legal representation.

"With every hour without an attorney, you may lose invaluable
opportunities to build your defense," explained Mr. Buskey.  "You
may also be forced into a crippling choice between waiting months
for counsel or doing bail and plea negotiations yourself.  The
damage to your case can be irreparable."

The public defender's office initiated the waiting list because it
lacks the money to pay its attorneys.  Throughout Louisiana,
public defender's offices are funded by an unreliable system.  "In
Orleans Parish, as in the rest of Louisiana, funding for public
defenders is . . .prone to crippling shortages," said Marjorie
Esman, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana.  "To pay for
public defense, the state relies on the fines and fees collected
from the public for traffic tickets and other convictions -- a
system that makes public defenders dependent on excessive policing
and draconian sentencing that work against the people they
defend."

Further, Brandon Buskey, argues, "By relying on a 'user-funded'
scheme to fund public defense, the state of Louisiana has put the
Sixth Amendment in peril," he said.  "Repeated staff shortages,
waiting lists, and other public defense crises have shown that
conviction fees can't provide steady or adequate funds to public
defender offices.  The state must meet its constitutional
obligation to its people and invest in public defense."

Mr. Buskey is correct to emphasize the constitutional significance
of this case.  Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, and for all of
us, it comes at a time when the rights of criminal defendants are
not valued.  The right to a trial by jury is now itself more a
legal fiction than an operating principle.  Instead, defendants
are hustled through a process that holds out the choice either to
plead to a lesser offense or face the threat of maximum sentences
in a system that is stacked against them.  That system begins with
the public defender, who is almost always a young, overworked and
underpaid attorney who has little time for any one client.  Such
attorneys naturally advise their clients to accept the state's
plea bargain with the result that many innocent men and women end
up behind bars.


MAGNUM HUNTER: Securities Cases in New York and Texas Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnum Hunter Resources 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
securities class action cases filed in the Southern District of
New York and in the Southern District of Texas have since been
dismissed.

On April 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two
of whom, at that time, also served as directors, and one of whom
continues to serve as a director.

On April 24, 2013, Horace Carvalho, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, filed a similar class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of Texas, against the Company and certain of its officers.

Several substantially similar putative class actions were filed in
the Southern District of New York and in the Southern District of
Texas. All such cases are collectively referred to as the
Securities Cases. The cases filed in the Southern District of
Texas have since been dismissed.

The cases filed in the Southern District of New York were
consolidated and have since been dismissed.

The plaintiffs in the Securities Cases had filed a consolidated
amended complaint alleging that the Company made certain false or
misleading statements in its filings with the SEC, including
statements related to the Company's internal and financial
controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based compensation
expense, the late filing of the Company's 2012 Form 10-K, the
dismissal of Magnum Hunter's previous independent registered
accounting firm, the Company's characterization of the auditors'
position with respect to the dismissal, and other matters
identified in the Company's April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as amended.
The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act based on alleged false statements
made regarding these issues throughout the alleged class period,
as well as claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act based on alleged false statements and omissions regarding the
Company's internal controls made in connection with a public
offering that Magnum Hunter completed on May 14, 2012. The
consolidated amended complaint demanded that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs, including
damages allegedly caused by the decline in the Company's stock
price between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013.

In January 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Securities Cases. On June 23, 2014, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Cases and, accordingly, the Securities
Cases have now been dismissed. The plaintiffs subsequently
appealed the decision dismissing the Securities Cases to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
entered a Summary Order unanimously affirming the Southern
District of New York's dismissal of the Securities Cases in favor
of the Company and the individual defendants. It is possible that
additional investor lawsuits could be filed over these events.


MANHATTAN HOTEL: Customer Sustained 2nd Degree Burns, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mariana Mero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Manhattan Hotel Management LLC, New York
Hotel Development Group LLC and Roman Mavashev, Defendants, Case
No. BC603617 (Cal. Super., December 10, 2015), seeks compensatory,
incidental, punitive or consequential damages, restitution and
disgorgement, statutory pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs suffered first and second degree burns on their face,
neck, arms, and torsos when a tall cup attachment of a compact
blender made by the Defendants exploded off of its base.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T Brown, Esq.
      Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      Email: Jtb@jtblawgroup.com
             Nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


MANNKIND: New York City Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Dirk Perrefort, writing for newstimes, reports that local drug
manufacturer MannKind said it found a licensing partner for its
metered dose inhaler on Jan. 21, a day after a New York City law
firm disclosed a class action lawsuit against the company.

Matt Pfeffer, the company's CEO, said in a statement it reached an
the agreement with Seattle-based Receptor Life Sciences -- a newly
formed firm -- for the development, manufacture and
commercialization of "multiple inhaled therapeutic products."

The agreement, which includes up to $102 million in milestone
payments but no up-front cash, comes after Sanofi pulled out of
its marketing contract for Afrezza, the inhalable form of insulin
that is MannKind's only FDA-approved drug.

"We are pleased that Receptor Life Sciences has selected our
formulation and delivery technology to advance its portfolio of
innovative inhaled products," Mr. Pfeffer said.  "This
collaboration demonstrates the fundamental value of our platform
technology while the risk-sharing structure of the transaction
allows us to diversify our product opportunities without losing
focus on our lead program."

Despite high hopes for Afrezza, sales have been lackluster since
the product's launch in February and are not expected to surpass
$10 million for 2015.  While some of the blame for the slow sales
has fallen on Sanofi and what some analysts said were weak efforts
to seek insurance reimbursements for the drug, a group of lawyers
are questioning whether the company's board was up front with
investors about Afrezza's problems.


MASTERS AUTO CORP: "Vasquez" Action Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Vasquez, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
v. Masters Auto Corp., Road Masters Auto Group Inc. Pick A Car
Inc., Farzin Pourad, Dayan Pourad And Matthew Ashirov, Defendants,
Case No. CV15-7126 (E.D.N.Y, December 14, 2015), seeks recovery of
unpaid overtime and minimum wages and spread of hours premium,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 201 et seq.

Masters Auto Corp. is domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of New York, with a principal place of business at
165-25 Hillside Ave Jamaica, New York 11432.

Road Masters Auto Group Inc. Pick A Car Inc. is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of New York, with a
principal place of business located at 187-17 Jamaica Ave. Hollis,
New York 11423.

Pick A Car Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of New York with a principal place of business
located at 187-17 Jamaica Ave., Hollis, NY 11423 and an address
for service of process located at 17202 Hillside Ave., Jamaica,
New York 11432.

Vasquez worked as a car washer for the Defendants and claims to
have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime
premium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: "Mogle" Suit Seeks to Block Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sally Mogle, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mattson Technology, Inc., Kenneth
Kannappan, Kenneth Smith, Fusen Chen, Scott Peterson, Richard
Dyck, Scott Kramer, Tom St. Dennis, Beijing E-Town Dragon
Semiconductor Industry Investment Center and Dragon Acquisition
Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 11807 (Del. Ch., December 14,
2015), seeks preliminary and permanent enjoinment, rescissory
damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and other and further
relief in breach of fiduciary duties.

Mattson will be acquired by Beijing E-Town Dragon Semiconductor
Industry Investment Center and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Dragon
Acquisition Sub, Inc. Plaintiff owns Mattson common stock.

Mattson is a Delaware corporation and with principal office at
47131 Bayside Parkway, Freemont, California 94538. The Company is
a technology company that focuses on designing, manufacturing, and
marketing semiconductor wafer processing equipment used in the
fabrication of integrated circuits. Kenneth Kannappan, Kenneth
Smith, Fusen Chen, Scott Peterson, Richard Dyck, Scott Kramer and
Tom St. Dennis and members of its board of directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310


MAYTAG CORP: "Corzine" Suit Goes from Superior Court to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Corzine v. Maytag Corporation et
al., Case No. 115cv288083, was removed from Superior Court County
of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-05764-BLF to the proceeding.

Maytag, a Delaware corporation, provides home appliances in the
United States and internationally. The company offers front-load
and top-load washers, dryers, traditional washers and dryers,
laundry pedestals, and accessories; refrigerators; cooking
products, including cooking ranges, wall ovens, cooktops, hoods,
and microwaves; and dishwashers, compactors, and kitchen cleaning
products. It also provides laundry accessories, kitchen
accessories, and refrigerator water filters; and air filters,
central heating and cooling products, irons, and vacuums. In
addition, the company offers parts and repair services. The
company provides its products through outlet stores and dealers.
The Company is based in Benton Harbor, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Graham Bruce LippSmith, Esq.
          Jaclyn Louise Anderson, Esq.
          Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
          Scott James Thomson, Esq.
          Frank A. Perez, Esq.
          KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
          500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1310
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 254 4800
          Facsimile: (213) 254 4801
          E-mail: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com
                  janderson@klwtlaw.com
                  kskasdan@kasdansimonds.com
                  SThomson@kasdansimonds.com
                  fperez@klwtlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Clement L. Glynn, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Eldredge, Esq.
          GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
          One Walnut Creek Center
          100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 210 2800
          Facsimile: (925) 945 1975
          E-mail: cglynn@glynnfinley.com
                  jeldredge@glynnfinley.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. Unthank, Esq.
          Michael N. Mulvania, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 Seventeenth, Ste. 4500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 244 1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244 1879
          E-mail: unthank@wtotrial.com


MDL 2179: New Class Gets 72.8% Allocation of Settlement Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana allocated
$902,083,250 as 72.8% of the Aggregate Payments to the New Class
and $337,666,750 as 28.2% of the Aggregate Payments to the Old
Class with respect to the Halliburton and Transocean settlements
in the case captioned, IN RE: OIL SPILL by the OIL RIG "DEEPWATER
HORIZON" in the GULF OF MEXICO on APRIL 20, 2010 This document
relates to: No. 12-970, 15-4143, 15-4146, 15-4654, MDL No. 2179
(E.D. La.).

Class counsel for plaintiffs, together with Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc., Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Deepwater,
Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. and Transocean
Holdings LLC submitted for the court's approval two separate, but
identical in numerous important respects, settlement agreements.
Both proposed settlements provide for payments to an identically
defined "New Class," which the Notice of the Transocean settlement
describes as "a new punitive damages settlement class".

According to Judge Wilkinson, the New Class is restricted to those
who were on the front lines of damage clearly caused by the
subject explosion, oil spill and cleanup efforts. Their property
was oiled or otherwise exposed to the contaminating aftermath of
the Deepwater Horizon incident. Their livelihoods and way of life
were directly impacted.

Judge Wilkinson said the Halliburton and Transocean Settlement
Agreements are not limited to resolving the punitive damages
claims of this New Class. Instead, they extend to settlement of
certain "Assigned Claims." Material to this Assigned Claims
component of their own agreements, the proposed Halliburton and
Transocean Settlement Agreements specifically refer to the
separate Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages
Settlement (DHEPDS) -- the BP Settlement which resolved all claims
of a broadly defined class -- the Old Class -- against BP
Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company.
The BP Settlement included an assignment from BP to the Old Class
of certain claims possessed and/or asserted by BP against
Halliburton and Transocean -- Assigned Claims.

To settle these two general kinds of claims, the Halliburton and
Transocean Settlement Agreements provide for Aggregate Payments to
be made to claimants.  The Aggregate Payments are:

     $211,750,000 from Transocean, and
   $1,028,000,000 from Halliburton, for a total of
   --------------
   $1,239,750,000

The Halliburton and Transocean Settlement Agreements both provide
that the court shall appoint an "Allocation Neutral" who will
allocate the Aggregate Payments between the New Class and the Old
Class with finality, subject to the terms of the Halliburton and
Transocean Settlement Agreements.

The Allocation Neutral's function does not extend beyond the
limited task specified in the Halliburton and Transocean
Settlement Agreements: a simple designation of two amounts from
the total $1,239,750,000 Aggregate Payments, (a) one to the Old
Class, and (b) another to the New Class. The Allocation Neutral's
function does not include determining what particular claimants or
categories of claimants in either class may receive what
particular payments from the lump sums allocated to each of the
two classes or how those particular amounts paid to specific
claimants will be calculated. Instead, "[a] Claims Administrator
appointed by the Court shall develop a Distribution Model for the
Court-supervised Claims Program."

By order dated September 29, 2015, Judge Barbier granted the
parties' request and appointed Magistrate Judge Joseph C.
Wilkinson, Jr. to serve as Allocation Neutral.

In his Neutral Allocation and Reasons dated December 10, 2015
available at http://is.gd/ipDUgifrom Leagle.com, Judge Wilkinson,
Jr. found that the counter-argument of the Old Class and what
appears to be its characterization of BP as a "victim" of the
conduct of Halliburton and Transocean are strained and
unpersuasive given Judge Barbier's clear findings.

"In my view, there is nothing inequitable about applying the
doctrine of unclean hands to the Assigned Claims, all of which
emanate from BP, the assignor and adjudicated principal
wrongdoer," he said. "The Old Class has obtained handsome payment
of its compensatory damages claims through the uncapped BP
Settlement, in which the Old Class expressly released its own
claims for punitive damages against BP and obtained an extremely
lenient damages causation standard."

Plaintiff is represented by James P. Roy, Domengeaux, Esq. --
jimmyd@wrightroy.com --  WRIGHT, ROY & EDWARDS & Stephen J.
Herman, Esq. -- sherman@hhkc.com -- HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR,
LLP

Defendants are represented by Francis Xavier Neuner, Jr., Esq. --
fneuner@neunerpate.com -- Ben Louis Mayeaux, Esq. --
bmayeux@neunerpate.com -- Jed M. Mestayer, Esq. --
jmestayer@neunerpate.com -- NEUNERPATE


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: "Greulich" Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Greulich v. Medical Informatics
Engineering, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01750, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Indiana [LIVE]
USDC Northern Indiana (South Bend). The Northern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00595-RLM-CAN to the proceeding.

Medical Informatics Engineering provides Web-based software
solutions for physician practices and enterprises operating on-
site employee health clinics. Its solutions include WebChartNow,
pre-configured version of WebChart that enables solo or small
practices to create a WebChartNow account over the Internet;
WebChart EHR, a Web-based longitudinal patient record to meet the
specific workflow requirements and documentation preferences of
each practice and each individual clinician; and WebChart
Enterprise Health, a suite of electronic health record solutions
for employee health clinics, occupational health applications, and
corporate health and wellness programs. The company is based Fort
Wayne, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carin Marcussen, Esq.
          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone:(405) 235 -1560

               - and -

          Thomas Joseph O'Reardon II, Esq.
          Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Grimaldi, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMIGH
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250 1800
          Facsimile: (213) 481 0621


MENASHA CORP: "Linares" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Meal Period Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Linares, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Menasha
Corporation, an unknown business entity; Menasha Packaging
Company, LLC, an unknown business entity; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC603619 (Cal. Super., December
10, 2015), seeks recovery of unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period
premiums, unpaid minimum wages and damages resulting from late
final wages, late wages and non-issuance of proper wage
statements, unfair competition and unfair business practices in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Menasha is into logistics and supply chain services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, California91203
      Tel: (818) 265-1020
      Fax: (818) 265-1021


MERCK & CO: "Reinhold" Action Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Reinhold, Glenn Miller, James Cuffe, Robert Zawacki,
Ronald Cortiana, Lawrence Colao, John Alvarez, Helena Milik,
Leslie Soyak, Dan Steinberg, Landreth Bute, Richard Radd, Anthony
Abate, Geovanni Posadas, Jerome Bridgeforth, Phyllis A. Brantley,
Robert Robertson, Wayne A. Wanson, Javiel Cruz, Scott Gerba,
Andrew Aitken, Suzette I. Daniels-Calland, Michael R. Jones,
Blakney Jerry, Michael Chaillet and Antwan Alexander each on
behalf of himself or herself as individuals and additionally on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp, Defendants, Case
No. 2:15-cv-08580-ES-MAH (D.N.J., December 12, 2015), seeks unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and an equal amount as liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New Jersey Wage and Hour Law Sec. 34:1 1-56a, et
seq. and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, 34:19-1, et
seq.

Plaintiffs are Research Chemical Operators at the Pilot Plant at
Defendants' Rahway, New Jersey location. They claim to begin work
roughly 45 minutes prior to the beginning of their regular shifts,
thus resulting in an excess of 40 hours per work week. They did
not receive any overtime compensation.

Merck is a domestic business corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New Jersey located at 2000
Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033. Defendant Merck
& Co., Inc. is located at One Merck Drive, PO Box 100, Whitehouse
Station, NJ 08889 0100. Merck, Sharp & Dohme is located in One
Merck Drive, White House Station, NJ, 08889.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Matthew Pettigrew, Jr., Esq.
      MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN
      123 S. Broad Street, Suite 2020
      Philadelphia, PA 19109
      Tel: (215) 875-3100


MERCK & CO: To Settle Investors' Vioxx Class Action for $830MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Lord, Esq. -- sara.lord@agg.com -- of Arnall Golden Gregory
LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business, report that in 2004,
Merck pulled its painkiller, Vioxx, from the market after a study
linked the drug to increased risks for heart attack and strokes.

On January 15, 2016, Merck announced that it had agreed to pay
$830 million to settle a federal class action lawsuit in New
Jersey filed by investors who claimed that the company had made
misleading statements about the drug's safety.  The plaintiff-
shareholders had bought stock in the company between May 21, 1999
and Oct. 29, 2004.  In 2011, the court ruled they could proceed
under the federal securities laws based on their claims that Merck
misled them about a 2000 study that reported that Vioxx caused
five times more heart attacks than another painkiller, naproxen.

The settlement still must be approved by the court.  Consistent
with the company's position in the other Vioxx lawsuits it has
settled, the settlement expressly does not constitute an admission
by Merck or any of the individual defendants of any liability or
wrongdoing.  In its public statement announcing the settlement,
the company also noted that it still faces individual securities
lawsuits related to Vioxx from individual investors who opted out
of the class action, when it was certified in 2013.

Vioxx, which was marketed from mid-1999 until it was withdrawn in
September 2004, accounted for more than $11 billion in sales for
Merck. Since the drug was withdrawn, however, the company has
faced a flood of lawsuits and costly settlements.  In 2007, Merck
paid $4.85 billion to settle thousands of patients' product
liability lawsuits claiming Vioxx had caused injuries and deaths,
as well as another $1.9 billion to cover legal costs.  In 2011,
Merck paid $950 million to resolve government allegations, and
agreed to plead guilty to a criminal misdemeanor charge related to
the illegal marketing of Vioxx.  That settlement included a $321.6
million criminal fine and $628.3 million to resolve civil claims
that it sold Vioxx for unapproved uses and made false statements
about its safety.  In 2012, Merck paid an additional $220 million
to settle a consumer class action over the drug.


MIA HOSPITALITY: "Perez" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Iris I. Perez and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. MIA Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Fairfield Inn and Suites a/k/a
Fairfield Inn Miami Airport and Natalia Fernandez, individually
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-24540-JLK (S.D. Fla., Miami Division,
December 10, 2015), seeks actual damages in the amount of unpaid
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly,
with interest, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs of suit in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.

Perez worked as a housekeeper and averaged 50.5 hours weekly with
lunch time of 2.5 hours in a week period deducted. She allegedly
did not receive overtime compensation in excess of 40 hours
weekly.

MIA Hospitality, LLC is a Florida corporation with its main place
of business in Dade County, Florida. It operates under the names
Fairfield Inn and Suites and Fairfield Inn Miami Airport with
Natalia Fernandez as manager.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (305) 446-1500
      Fax: (305) 446-1502
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MICHAEL STORES: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Melody McAnally, Esq., of Butler Snow LLP, in an article for
JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that the arts and crafts retail
chain Michael Stores Inc. ("Michaels") received a late holiday
gift in the form of a dismissal of a data breach class action
lawsuit.  On December 28, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted Michaels' motion to dismiss.
This is at least the second data breach class action lawsuit
dismissed against Michaels.

On January 25, 2014, Michaels notified its customers of fraudulent
activity on some credit cards from May 8, 2013 to January 27,
2014; 3 months later it confirmed a data breach from malware that
accessed customers' credit and debit card information estimated at
affecting 2.6 million cards.

The named plaintiff alleged actual harm including monetary losses
arising from unauthorized bank account withdrawals, fraudulent
card payments and/or related bank fees.  The named plaintiff only
experienced one attempted fraudulent charge before she cancelled
her credit card, but did not allege she suffered any unreimbursed
charges (there was no allegation the named plaintiff was required
to pay the one fraudulent charge).

The plaintiff also alleged potential future harm arising out of
costs associated with identity theft and the increased risk of
identity theft.

The court dismissed (without prejudice) the lawsuit for
plaintiff's lack of Article III standing.  Key to the court's
ruling is that the named plaintiff did not allege that she
suffered any unreimbursed charges, i.e., actual harm.  This is the
same ruling for which similar data breach class actions have been
dismissed against P.F. Chang's, Zappos, among many others.

The court also ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege an injury
that is "certainly impending" or based on a "substantial risk that
the harm will occur," citing the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (Allegations of future harm
can establish Article III standing only "if the threatened injury
is 'certainly impending,' or there is a 'substantial risk' that
the harm will occur.")

This opinion follows a long list of opinions ruling that
plaintiffs in data breach cases do not have standing to sue under
Article III unless they can show actual harm or "certainly
impending" harm or that "a substantial risk that harm will occur"
from the data breach.

[1] On July 14, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois dismissed a substantially similar data breach
class action lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to plead
the required element of actual monetary damages. Moyer v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., No. 14C561, slip op. (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2014).


MIDWEST TECHNICAL INSTITUTE: "Lee" Action Seeks Unpaid OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Midwest Technical Institute, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-24496-JAL (C.D. Ill., Springfield
Division, December 10, 2015), seeks recovery of overtime pay,
interest, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per work week during
his employment as admissions representative, sometimes averaging
up to 60 hours per week and did not receive overtime compensation.

Midwest Technical Institute, Inc. is a school offering vocational
training in mechanical trade and applied health career fields.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq.
      JAC A. COTIGUALA & ASSOCIATES
      431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Tel: (312) 939-2100


M&V CONCRETE: "Padilla" Action Seeks Back Wages & Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMERSON OMAR PADILLA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. M&V Concrete Contracting Corp.,
and Vitor Silva, individually, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-7115
(E.D.N.Y., December 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid back wages
at the applicable overtime rate, unpaid minimum wage, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

Padilla was employed as a general laborer or construction worker
by the Defendants. He claims to have rendered in excess of 50
hours per work week without overtime compensation.

M&V Concrete is a domestic corporation organized and existing
pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, maintaining a place
of business was at 60 Ridgewood Avenue, Selden, New York 11784.
It is engaged in the concrete contracting or construction business
and is owned by Vitos Silva.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose G. Santiago, Esq.
      THE SANTIAGO LAW FIRM, P.C.
      356 Middle Country Road, Suite 311
      Coram, New York 11727
      Tel: (631) 240-4355

           - and -

      Peter A. Romero, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO
      503 Route 111
      Hauppauge, NY 11788
      Tel: (631) 257-5588


NETO'S SAUSAGE: Recalls Beef, Pork, and Chicken Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Neto's Sausage Co., Inc, a Santa Clara, Calif., establishment, is
recalling approximately 7,687 pounds of beef, pork, and chicken
products that were produced and labeled with the federal mark of
inspection without the benefit of FSIS inspection, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The sausage items were produced on Dec. 28, 2014 to Dec. 28, 2015.
The following products are subject to recall:

  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of "Neto's
      Sausage Hot Italian Sausage"
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of "Neto's
      Sausage Herb-N-Cheese Coil"
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of "Neto's
      Sausage Lingui‡a Coil"
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of "Neto's
      Sausage Smoked Bratwurst"
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of "Neto's
      Sausage Bratwurst with Cheddar and Jalapeno"
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of "Neto's
      Sausage Holiday Sausage Coil"
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of "Neto's
      Sausage Pork Links"
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of "Neto's
      Sausage Pork Links with Apples and Cinnamon"
  --- Approximately 10 oz. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Brazilian Smoked Calabreza"
  --- Approximately 10 oz. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Italian Sausage with Herbs"
  --- Approximately 10 oz. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Lingui‡a"
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of "Neto's
      Sausage Lingui‡a Hot"
  --- Approximately 10 oz. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Polish Kielbasa"
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of "Neto's
      Sausage Italian Sausage with Herbs"
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of "Neto's
      Sausage Calabrese Brand Italian Sausage"
  --- Approximately 10 oz. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Andouille Sausage "
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Spanish Chorizo Sausage"
  --- Approximately 10 oz. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Calabrese Italian Sausage "
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Lingui‡a Sausage"
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Garlic & Basil Chicken Sausage"
  --- Approximately 10 oz. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Jalape¤o-Cilantro Chicken Sausage "
  --- Approximately 1-lb. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Spanish Chorzo Sausage"
  --- Approximately 12 oz. packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Morcella"
  --- Approximately 1-lb packages containing pieces of vacuumed
      packed "Neto's Sausage Hot Dogs"
  --- Approximately 1.25-lb packages containing pieces of
      vacuumed packed "Neto's Sausage Linguica"

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
9027" and "EST 6086" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These
items were distributed in house, to a local distributor and online
nationwide.

The problem was discovered during routine FSIS in-commerce
surveillance activities.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased
these products are urged not to consume them. These products
should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and Media with questions about the recall can contact
Neto's Sausage President, Ed Costa, at (408) 296-0818.


NEW DIAMOND CAFE: "Abdelsalam" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Aly Abdelsalam, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. New Diamond Cafe LLC and Ji Soo Choe,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-24496-JAL (S.D.N.Y., December 14,
2015), seeks compensatory, punitive and liquidated damages, back
pay and attorney's fees over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Plaintiff worked as a griller for the Defendant. He claims to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime
compensation. Defendant allegedly failed to reimburse Plaintiff
his uniform purchase, provide spread-of-hours payments and wage
notices and proper paystubs. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant of
assault and battery.

New Diamond Cafe LLC operates Danny's Gourmet, a restaurant
located at 226 West 47th St., New York, NY 10036. It is owned by
Ji Soo Choe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
      SERRINS FISHER LLP
      233 Broadway, Suite 2340
      New York, NY 10279
      Tel: (212) 571-0700
      Fax: (212) 233-3801


NEW YORK: CA Vacates Order Declaring Section 518 Unconstitutional
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston of the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, vacated a district court judgment that declared New York
General Business Law Section 518 unconstitutional and that
permanently enjoined the state from enforcing the law against
Plaintiffs in the case captioned, EXPRESSIONS HAIR DESIGN, LINDA
FIACCO, THE BROOKLYN FARMACY & SODA FOUNTAIN, INC., PETER FREEMAN,
BUNDA STARR CORP., DONNA PABST, FIVE POINTS ACADEMY, STEVE MILLES,
PATIO.COM LLC, DAVID ROSS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ERIC T.
SCHNEIDERMAN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the
State of New York, CYRUS R. VANCE, JR., in his official capacity
as District Attorney of New York County, CHARLES J. HYNES, in his
official capacity as District Attorney of Kings County,
Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 13-4533, 13-4537 (2d Cir.).

Section 518 provides that "[n]o seller in any sales transaction
may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use a credit card
in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means."

Plaintiffs filed the action in the Southern District of New York
on June 4, 2013. Their July 15, 2013 amended complaint contains
three claims (all brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983), which
allege, respectively, that Section 518 violates the First
Amendment's free-speech guarantee, is void for vagueness under the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and is preempted
by the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that
Section 518 is both unconstitutional and preempted, as well as an
injunction against its enforcement.

In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they would like
to charge credit-card customers more than cash customers to
account for the credit-card companies' swipe fees. Specifically,
they would like to impose a credit-card surcharge, as opposed to
offering a cash discount.

On June 17, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction
preventing Defendants from enforcing Section 518 against them, and
New York moved to dismiss on ripeness and standing grounds, as
well as for failure to state a claim.

Judge Jed S. Rakoff agreed with Plaintiffs on both counts, and
eventually entered a final judgment declaring Section 518
unconstitutional and permanently enjoining New York from enforcing
the law against Plaintiffs.

On appeal, Defendants argued that the district court erred in
holding that Section 518 violates the First Amendment and the Due
Process Clause.

A copy of the Appeals Court's December 11, 2015, decision is
available at http://is.gd/Fku2kRfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Deepak Gupta, Esq. --
deepak@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA BECK PLLC & Gary Friedman, Esq.
-- gfreidman@gss-law.com -- FRIEDMAN LAW GROUP, LLP


NEW YORK ROAD: Faces $11MM Class Action Over Qualification Lottery
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Bekiempis, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
New York City Marathon organizers might have run afoul of the law,
a whopping $11 million lawsuit claims.

New York Road Runners, which claims to organize "the world's
biggest and most popular" marathon, flouts state law with its
qualification lottery, according to the suit, filed on Jan. 20 in
Manhattan federal court.

The suit was filed by two Utah residents -- who both
unsuccessfully paid into the lottery -- and seeks to become class
action.

There are several non-drawing ways to run the marathon, such as
meeting NYRR time standards in other long-distance contests, as
well as volunteer opportunities.  The lottery, which has cost up
to $11 per person, addresses the overflow of applicants for a
limited number of slots.

The drawing isn't just a lottery in name but a lottery under the
eyes of state law, the lawsuit claims, because it features all the
statutory elements: entry fees, a chance to win and a prize.

New York state's constitution, however, outlaws any "lottery or
sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling, book-making, or any other
kind of gambling, except lotteries operated by the state."

In addition, NYRR lotteries are incredibly stacked against
participants, given that "from 2010 to 2015, fewer than 18 percent
of the Lottery entrants qualified via the Lottery to run the in
the Marathon," the suit contends.

Lawyers for the disgruntled marathon applicants -- and other race
hopefuls that might comprise a class action -- are seeking "double
the amount of the fee(s) each paid to enter the drawing(s) plus
double costs of suit."

Because there are some 80,000 contest participants per year, that
could come to a whopping $10,560,000 damages for runners who paid
for the 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 lotteries.

They also seek an injunction against NYRR to keep the group from
running another lottery.

The lottery for 2016's marathon starts on Jan. 21 and ends
Feb. 21.  In 2015, running the marathon cost from $216 to $347,
depending on residency and NYRR membership, the suit states.

NYRR declined to comment, saying in a statement: "We have just
learned of the lawsuit and it would be premature to comment on
pending litigation."


NEW YORK STYLE: Recalls Pork Sausage Products Due to Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Style Sausage Co., a Sunnyvale, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 4,040 pounds of pork sausage products due
to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today. The products are
encased in sheep casings, which are not declared on the product
label and may elicit allergic reactions in those allergic to sheep
proteins.

The pork sausage item was produced on various dates between July
1, 2015 and Jan.7, 2016. The following product is subject to
recall:

  --- 5-lb. and 10-lb. bulk boxes containing packages of "Golden
      Gate Meat Company Ernesto's Pork Sausage."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
9027" inside the USDA mark of inspection. This item was produced
for a single distributor in California for institutional use.

The problem was discovered when a customer observed pork sausage
labels that did not declare sheep casings on the finished product
label. The establishment then notified FSIS.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers or members of the media with questions about the recall
can contact Pasquale Bitonti, New York Style Sausage Co. Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer, at (408) 745-7675.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/F6PJhH


NORTHEAST SERVICE INTERIORS: "Prado" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Prado, individually and onbehalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Northeast Service Interiors LLC, and Frank
Caliendo, an individual, Case No. 15-7139 (E.D.N.Y., December 15,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorneys'
fees pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. and the New
York Labor Law Sec. 198(1-a) and 663(1).

Plaintiff worked as a demolition truck driver and claims to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek with overtime
compensation.

Northeast Service Interiors LLC, is a corporation organized under
the laws of New York with a principal executive office at 5610
Nurge Avenue, Maspeth, NY 11378 and owned by Frank Caliendo.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Tel: (718) 263-9591


NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: "French" Suit Hits Autodialer Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Ronald French, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Doordash, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-11208 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division
December 14, 2015), seeks injunction, damages as well as costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq.

Northwest Collectors Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
pursuant to the laws of the State of Illinois that is primarily
engaged in the business of debt collection services. It allegedly
made collection calls to the Plaintiff's cellular phone using an
automatic dialer without his consent and the Plaintiff was charged
accordingly for those calls.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Marco, Esq.
      SMITHMARCO, P.C.
      20 South Clark Street, Suite 2120
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 546-6539
      Fax: (888) 418-1277
      E-Mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com

           - and -

      Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICE, LLC
      155 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 729-5288
      Fax: (312) 729-5289
      Email: aburke@burkelawllc.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Recalls Executive Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Office Depot Inc., of Boca Raton, Fla., announced a voluntary
recall of about 300,000 Crawley II Executive Chairs. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The seat plate weld can break, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

This recall involves Crawley II executive chairs. The black, high-
back, adjustable chairs have a black base with five wheels. The
affected chairs have Office Depot SKU number 493822 or OfficeMax
item number 23324118 and "US REG. No. PA 25917(CN)" printed on a
label located on the underside of the seat cushion.

Office Depot has received eight reports of the seat plate weld
cracking or breaking. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/9rqUgu

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Office Depot and OfficeMax retail stores nationwide and online
from October 2012 through September 2015 for about $140.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chair and
contact Office Depot to receive a free replacement seat plate that
consumers can install at home.


ORBITAL ATK: Deal Pending in Merger Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Orbital ATK, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 4, 2015, that the settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit related to a 2014 merger
transaction remains pending.  A memorandum of understanding that
contemplates the settlement was reached by the parties early in
2015.

Orbital ATK, Inc. on February 9, 2015, completed a tax-free spin-
off of and distribution of its Sporting Group to its stockholders
(the "Distribution") as a new public company called Vista Outdoor
Inc. ("Vista Outdoor"). Immediately following the Distribution,
the Company combined with Orbital Sciences Corporation ("Orbital")
through the merger of a Company subsidiary with Orbital (the
"Merger").

Putative class action and derivative lawsuits challenging the
Merger were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in May 2014, naming Orbital, the Company and Orbital's
directors.  On November 14, 2014, the lawsuits were consolidated
by the court under the caption In Re Orbital Corporation
Stockholder Litigation (the "Consolidated Lawsuit").  The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the directors of
Orbital breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger, and alleged that the Company aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duty.

On January 16, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of this matter.
If the court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the
Consolidated Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.  Under the
terms of the MOU, the parties agreed to settle the Consolidated
Lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims relating to the
Merger, subject to court approval.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, Orbital and the Company agreed
to make available additional information to Orbital's stockholders
in connection with the Merger vote, and the defendants agreed to
negotiate regarding an appropriate amount of fees to be paid to
plaintiffs' counsel by Orbital or its successor.


PEET'S COFFEE: "Slattery" Suit Hits Under Filled Coffee
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Slattery and Amy Joseph, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Peet's Coffee & Tea,
LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and Peet's Operating
Company, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Defendants, Case No.
201517942 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Chancery Division, December 10,
2015), seeks enjoinment from making false representations and
omissions concerning the volume of Press Pot coffee, damages
sustained and attorneys' fees and costs including interest.

Peet's Coffee & Tea, LLC, is a Washington limited liability
company, with its principal place of business at 1400 Park Avenue,
Emeryville, California. Peet's Operating Company, Inc., is a
Virginia corporation with its principal place of business located
at 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville, California. They jointly operate
coffee shops all over the U.S.

Plaintiffs allege the Defendant for under filling their actual
coffee served as compared to their published menu.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
      Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P .C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 440-0020
      Fax: (312) 440-4180
      Email: amy@attorneyzim.com
             matt@attorneyzim.com
             maebetty@attorneyzim.com
             nick@attorneyzim.com

           - and -

      Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
      Charles T. Spagnola, Esq.
      Eliot F. Krieger, Esq.
      SULLIVAN, KRIEGER, TRUONG, SPAGNOLA & KLAUSNER, LLP
      444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1700
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Tel: (562) 597-7070
      Email: adam@sullivankrieger.com
             charles@sullivankrieger.com
             eliot@sullivankrieger.com


PERSONNEL SUPPLY: "Gabbidon" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gabbidon and Edward Robertson, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Personnel
Supply Co. Inc., d/b/a North Shore Ambulance & Oxygen Services,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 711421/2015 (N.Y. Sup., November 3,
2015), seeks unpaid wages, unpaid overtime and pre- and post-
judgment interest, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs are ambulance washers for the Defendant. They claim
that they were not compensated for all work performed during meal
breaks and work performed before the start of their shift as well
as work rendered on holidays.

Plaintiffs operate auxiliary services for hospitals with
facilities located at 110-18 Corona Ave, Corona, NY 11368.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      1613 Northern Boulevard
      Roslyn, N.Y. 11576
      Tel: (516) 625-0105 Ext. 18


PFIZER INC: Some Effector Personal Injury Cases Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2015, that a number of plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their actions alleging personal injury
related to the Effexor product.

"A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have
been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal
and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the
purported ingestion of Effexor," the Company said. Among other
types of actions, the Effexor personal injury litigation includes
actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result of the
purported ingestion of Effexor by women during pregnancy.
Plaintiffs in these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and
punitive damages.

In August 2013, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred
for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District
Litigation (In re Effexor (Venlafaxine Hydrochloride) Products
Liability Litigation MDL-2458) in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


PFIZER INC: End-Payer Effexor XR Claims Facing Dismissal Bids
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2015, that motions to dismiss remain
pending as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims in the
antitrust actions related to Effexor XR.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain
of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation
of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to
represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its
territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic
Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the
time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a
litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble
damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the
putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims.

In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final
judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those
asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which
plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the
end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims.


PFIZER INC: Says Plaintiffs Drop Zoloft Personal Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2015, that a number of plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their actions alleging personal injury
related to Zoloft.

"A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have
been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal
and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the
purported ingestion of Zoloft," the Company said. Among other
types of actions, the Zoloft personal injury litigation includes
actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result of the
purported ingestion of Zoloft by women during pregnancy.
Plaintiffs in these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and
punitive damages and the disgorgement of profits resulting from
the sale of Zoloft.

In April 2012, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Zoloft Products Liability Litigation MDL-2342) in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


PFIZER INC: Appeal by Lipitor Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to
Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among
others, Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the
actions, Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of
Ranbaxy. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent
nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons
or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of
the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from
March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly
unlawful conduct (the Class Period).

The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in
violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the
2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled
certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted
Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various
markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the
actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for
Lipitor.

Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during
the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed
against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among
others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that
are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief
sought in the purported class actions. These various actions have
been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District
Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with
prejudice the claims by direct purchasers. In October and November
2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of
all other MDL plaintiffs. All plaintiffs have appealed the
District Court's orders dismissing their claims with prejudice to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In
addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the order
denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend
their complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, Pfizer said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2015.  No further updates
were provided in the Form 10-Q report.

Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action
in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among
others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the
State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are
substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought
in the purported class actions.

The Company also disclosed that a number of individual and multi-
plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us in various federal
and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2
diabetes as a result of the purported ingestion of Lipitor.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February
2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-
trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor
(Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina.


PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Cases Ongoing in Ontario
----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2015, that class action lawsuits
related to Chantix/Champix continue to proceed on a national basis
in Ontario.

"Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed
against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto
Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary,
and the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on
behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who
have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the
purchase of Champix," the Company said. Each of these actions
asserts claims under Canadian product liability law, including
with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and, on behalf
of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive
damages.

In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the
Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as
consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who
ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31,
2010 and who experienced at least one of a number of specified
neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled
to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian
legislation as the result of their relationship with a class
member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert
claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against
Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer
should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are
common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and
British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action,
which is proceeding on a national basis.


PFIZER INC: Still Defending Celebrex Purchaser Cases in E.D. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend class action lawsuits filed by direct purchasers of
Celebrex.  In July 2015, a direct purchaser putative class action
was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against
Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex.
The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state
classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased
from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed
patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or
generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege
delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal
antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and
various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining
and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham
litigation, and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through
settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of
the actions seeks treble damages on behalf of the putative class
for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014.

In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint
motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payer cases,
and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015. In October
2014 and March 2015, we filed motions to dismiss the direct
purchasers' and end-payers' amended complaints, respectively.  In
July 2015, another direct purchaser putative class action was
filed in the Eastern District of Virginia.


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Settlement Approved in Fleisher and SPRR Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, 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 judge
in the Fleisher and SPRR Litigations has entered an order
approving of the settlement in those cases.

On November 18, 2011, Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the
"Fleisher Litigation"), on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed suit against Phoenix Life in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (C.A.
No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) challenging
cost of insurance ("COI") rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix
Life in 2010 and 2011 in certain universal life insurance
policies. The complaint sought damages for breach of contract. The
class certified by the court was limited to holders of Phoenix
Life policies issued in New York subject to New York law and
subject to Phoenix Life's 2011 COI rate adjustment.

PHL Variable has been named as a defendant in six actions
challenging its COI rate adjustments in certain universal life
insurance policies implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life
adjustments. Phoenix Life and PHL Variable are referred to as the
"Phoenix Life Companies." Five cases have been brought against PHL
Variable, while one case has been brought against both PHL
Variable and Phoenix Life. These six cases, only one of which is
styled as a class action, have been brought by (1) Tiger Capital
LLC (C.A. No. 1:12-cv- 02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.,
complaint filed on March 14, 2012; the "Tiger Capital
Litigation"); (2-5) U.S. Bank National Association, as securities
intermediary for Lima Acquisition LP ((2: C.A. No. 1:12-cv-06811-
CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on November 16,
2011; 3: C.A. No. 1:13-cv-01580-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.,
complaint filed on March 8, 2013; collectively, the "U.S. Bank
N.Y. Litigations"); (4: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE; U.S. Dist. Ct;
D. Conn., complaint originally filed on March 6, 2013, in the
District of Delaware and transferred by order dated April 22,
2014, to the District of Connecticut; and 5: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-
01398-WWE, U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint filed on September
23, 2014, and amended on October 16, 2014, to add Phoenix Life as
a defendant, and consolidated with No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE
(collectively the "U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations")); and (6) SPRR
LLC (C.A. No. 1:14-cv-8714-CM; U.S. Dist. Ct.; S.D.N.Y., complaint
filed on October 31, 2014; the "SPRR Litigation"). SPRR LLC filed
suit against PHL Variable, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, challenging COI rate adjustments implemented
by PHL Variable in 2011.

The Tiger Capital Litigation, the two U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations
and the SPRR Litigation were assigned or reassigned to the same
judge as the Fleisher Litigation. The plaintiff in the Tiger
Capital Litigation sought damages for breach of contract and
declaratory relief. The plaintiff in the U.S. Bank N.Y.
Litigations and U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations sought damages and
attorneys' fees for breach of contract and other common law and
statutory claims. The plaintiff in the SPRR Litigation sought
damages for breach of contract for a nationwide class of
policyholders.

The Phoenix Life Companies reached an agreement as of April 30,
2015, memorialized in a formal settlement agreement executed on
May 29, 2015, with SPRR, LLC, Martin Fleisher, as trustee of the
Michael Moss Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, and Jonathan
Berck, as trustee of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Insurance Trust
(collectively, the SPRR Litigation and the Fleisher Litigation
plaintiffs referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), to resolve the
Fleisher Litigation and SPRR Litigation (the "Settlement").

A motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement was filed with
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on May 29, 2015 and on June 3, 2015 the court granted
preliminary approval of the Settlement and ordered notice be given
to class members. The proposed Settlement class consists of all
policyholders that were subject to the 2010 and 2011 COI rate
adjustments (collectively, the "Settlement Class"), including the
policies within the above-named COI cases. The Phoenix Life
Companies agreed to pay a total of $48.5 million, as reduced for
any opt-outs, in connection with the Settlement. The Phoenix Life
Companies agreed not to impose additional increases to COI rates
on policies participating in the Settlement Class through the end
of 2020, and not to challenge the validity of policies
participating in the Settlement Class for lack of insurable
interest or misrepresentations in the policy applications. Under
the Settlement, policyholders who are members of the Settlement
Class, including those which have filed individual actions
relating to COI rate adjustments, were eligible to opt out of the
Settlement and separately litigate their claims. The opt-out
period expired on July 17, 2015 and opt-out notices have been
received by the Phoenix Life Companies, including from U.S. Bank,
a party to four COI cases. On September 9, 2015, the judge in the
Fleisher and SPRR Litigations entered an order approving of the
Settlement.

On June 3, 2015, the parties to the Tiger Capital Litigation
advised the court of a settlement of the Tiger Capital Litigation,
which includes Tiger Capital, LLC's participation in the class
Settlement. The settlement of the Tiger Capital Litigation was on
a basis that will not have a material impact on the Company's
financial statements. The Tiger Capital Litigation was closed by
the court on October 21, 2015.

On September 28, 2015, the Plaintiff in the U.S. Bank N.Y.
Litigations and PHL Variable filed a joint stipulation of
dismissal of the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations with prejudice
pursuant to an agreement to settle. The U.S. Bank Conn.
Litigations are proceeding, and the Plaintiff seeks damages and
attorney's fees for breach of contract and other common law and
statutory claims.


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Nassau Re Merger Challenged in Conn. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
related to a merger agreement with Nassau Reinsurance Group
Holdings L.P., Phoenix 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 September 28, 2015, The Phoenix Companies, Inc. ("Phoenix")
entered into a definitive merger agreement to be acquired by
Nassau Reinsurance Group Holdings L.P. ("Nassau"). On October 26,
2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported
shareholder of Phoenix in the Superior Court of the State of
Connecticut challenging the proposed merger transaction. The
lawsuit alleges that the individual members of Phoenix's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Phoenix
shareholders by agreeing to the proposed merger transaction for
inadequate consideration and through an allegedly flawed sales
process, and that the defendant companies -- Phoenix, Nassau and
Davero Merger Sub Corp. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Nassau) --
aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The plaintiff in the
action, which is styled Thomas White v. The Phoenix Companies,
Inc., et. al., No. HHD-CV15--6063180-S (Conn. Super. Ct.,
Hartford), seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the
merger and, in the event the merger is completed, rescission
and/or damages as a result of the alleged violations of law, as
well as fees and costs. Although it is not possible to predict the
outcome of this litigation matter with certainty, Phoenix and the
Phoenix Board believe that the claims asserted in this lawsuit are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Recalls Swingasan(R) Chairs and Stands
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
in Pier 1 Imports of Fort Worth, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 260,000 in the U.S. (in addition, about 16,000
were sold in Canada) Swingasan(R) chairs and stands. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The suspension hardware on the chair and stand can break, or the
stand can become unstable during use, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves the Pier 1 Imports Swingasan chairs and
stands. The chairs and stands were sold separately. The chair
hangs from a steel stand and is made of a wrought iron frame
covered with woven plastic wicker. It was sold in various colors
and designs. The stands are made of steel and were sold in four
colors.

The product description and dimensions in inches included in this
recall are:


  Description          Height     Depth     Width
  -----------          ------     -----     -----
  Swingasan Hanging    42"        22.50     33.50
  Chair - Mocha
  Swingasan Hanging    42"        22.50     33.50
  Chair - Daisy
  Swingasan Hanging    42"        22.5"     33.5"
  Chair - Light Brown
  Swingasan Hanging    42"        22.5"     33.5"
  Chair - White
  Swingasan Hanging    42"        22.5"     33.5"
  Chair - Circles
  Swingasan Hanging    42"        22.5"     33.5"
  Chair - Peacock
  Swingasan Hanging    42"        22.5"     33.5"
  Chair - Dream
  Catcher
  Swingasan Hanging    42"        22.5"     33.5"
  Chair - Gray
  Willow Swingasan     47"        27"       30"
  Hanging Chair-
  Rainbow
  Willow Swingasan     47"        27"       30"
  Hanging Chair-
  Cinnamon
  Willow Swingasan     47"        27"       30"
  Hanging Chair-
  White
  Willow Swingasan     47"        27"       30"
  Hanging Chair-
  Light Brown
  Willow Swingasan     47"        27"       30"
  Hanging Chair-
  Latte
  Willow Swingasan     47"        27"       30"
  Hanging Chair-
  Mocha
  Swingasan Podasan    46.25"     25"       31"
  Hanging Chair-
  Orange
  Swingasan Podasan    47.25"     25"       31"
  Hanging Chair-
  Mocha
  Swingasan Stand-     82.5"      34.5"     41.5"
  Mocha
  Swingasan Stand-     82.5"      34.5"     41.5"
  White
  Swingasan Stand-     82.5"      34.5"     41.5"
  Light Brown
  Swingasan Stand-     82.5"      34.5"     41.5"
  Gray

Pier 1 Imports has received 101 reports of incidents with the
chairs and stands.  This includes 93 reports of the chair with
stand becoming unstable during use and tipping over, resulting in
23 injuries. There have been eight reports of the suspension
hardware failing, including four reports of injuries.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xjSd7h

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Pier
1 Imports stores nationwide and online at www.Pier1.com from
January 2010 through August 2015 for between $200 and $400 for the
hanging chair and stand.

Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and stands and
contact Pier 1 Imports for a free repair kit or return the chair
and stand to a Pier 1 Imports store for a full refund. There is no
repair kit for the Podasan Mocha and Orange Swingasan chairs.
Consumers should stop using these chairs immediately and contact
Pier 1 Imports for a full refund.


PL SLATON: "Morales Vega" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin German Morales Vega, individually and behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PL Slaton, Inc., a Michigan
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01272-RJJ-PJG (W.D.
Mich., December 10, 2015), seeks recovery of unpaid overtime
wages, along with an equal amount as liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff rendered general labor for the Defendant which included
stacking and organizing products delivered to Defendant's
warehouse. He worked between 50 hours and 96 hours per work week
without compensation for hours rendered in excess of 40 per week.

PL Slaton, Inc. is a Michigan Corporation whose principal place of
business is located in the city of Grand Rapids, County of Kent,
Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Town Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Email: mturner@sommerspc.com
             jyoung@sommerspc.com

           - and -

      Robert A. Alvarez, Esq.
      AVANTI LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C.
      600 28th Street S.W.
      Wyoming, MI 49509
      Email: ralvarez@avantilaw.com


PLY GEM: $1.6-Mil. Liability in Vinyl Clad Settlement Outstanding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem 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 October 3, 2015, that approximately $1.6
million of the liability related to the Vinyl Clad Settlement
Agreement is outstanding as of October 3.

In John Gulbankian v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a
purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"),
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, alleged damages as a result of the defective design and
manufacture of certain MW vinyl clad windows. In Eric Hartshorn
and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Hartshorn"), a
purported class action filed in July 2012 in the Court,
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, alleged damages as a result of the defective design and
manufacture of certain MW vinyl clad windows. On April 22, 2014,
plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, making similar claims
against all MW vinyl clad windows.

MW entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April
18, 2014 to settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a
nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The
Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement
applies to any and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from
January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash
payment for eligible consumers submitting qualified claims
showing, among other requirements, certain damage to their MW
vinyl clad windows. The period for submitting qualified claims is
the later of: (i) May 28, 2016, or (ii) the last day of the
warranty period for the applicable window.

On December 29, 2014, the Court granted final approval of this
settlement, as well as MW's payment of attorneys' fees and costs
to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $2.5 million, issuing a
Final Approval Order, Final Judgment, and Order of Dismissal with
Prejudice (the "Final Approval Order").

A notice of appeal of the Final Approval Order (the "Appeal") was
given by certain objectors to the settlement, and on May 6, 2015,
MW entered into a settlement agreement with, among others, the
objectors to fully and finally resolve their claims, including the
dismissal of Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al.,
another lawsuit seeking class certification with respect to MW's
vinyl clad windows, making the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement
final and binding on the parties.

The Company and MW deny all liability in the settlements and with
respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is
aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation, and therefore agreed to
settle these matters.

As a result of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement, the Company
recognized a $5.0 million expense during the nine months ended
September 27, 2014 within selling, general, and administrative
expenses in the Company's condensed consolidated statement of
operations and comprehensive income (loss) in the Company's
Windows and Doors segment. It is possible that the Company may
incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the
Company currently expects that the total net cost will not exceed
$5.0 million.

As of October 3, 2015, approximately $1.6 million of this
liability is currently outstanding with $0.6 million as a current
liability within accrued expenses and $0.9 million as a noncurrent
liability within other long-term liabilities in the Company's
condensed consolidated balance sheet.


PLY GEM: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem 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 October 3, 2015, that plaintiffs in the
class action by Anthony Pagliaroni have filed a petition for
interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification.

In Anthony Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and
Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in
January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the
defective design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and
railing, which was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC
("Deceuninck") and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE").
The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive
damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The
damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. The
hearing regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
held on March 10, 2015.

The Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
September 22, 2015, and on October, 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a
petition for interlocutory appeal of the denial of class
certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' petition for
appeal.

Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has
agreed to indemnify MHE for certain liabilities related to this
claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as
amended, between Deceuninck and MHE. MHE's ability to seek
indemnification from Deceuninck is, however, limited by the terms
and limits of the indemnity as well as the strength of
Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change in the
future.


PLY GEM: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint in Securities Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff have filed an amended complaint in the case, In re Ply
Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, 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 October 3,
2015.

In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported
federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's IPO.
It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the
defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging
that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was negligently
prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements
of material fact and omitting material information which was
required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief,
including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as
lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13,
2015 the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint,
on April 14, 2015 the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to that
motion to dismiss, and on May 14, 2015 the defendants filed their
reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss.

On September 29, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss, but ruled that plaintiff could file an amended complaint.
On November 6, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified.

Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013,
entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to
reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses
reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its
representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter.
Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013,
between the Company and each of the directors and officers named
in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of
such directors and officers. The Company believes the purported
federal securities class action is without merit and will
vigorously defend against the lawsuit.


PNC BANK: "Muhammad" Suit Goes from Circuit Court to S.D. W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Muhammad v. PNC Bank, N.A., Case
No. 15-C-1653, was removed from Kanawha County Circuit, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
(Charleston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
16190 to the proceeding.

PNC Bank provides various banking services to individuals, small
businesses, corporations, and government entities in the United
States. It offers checking; online and mobile banking; savings;
mortgages, loans, and lines of credit; credit cards; investments
and wealth management; insurance; and account services. The
company also provides online business, checking, savings and
liquidity, business loans and credit, making and collecting
payments, merchant, account, cards, and employee benefits services
to small business customers. The bank is based in Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          Tony Lee Clackler II, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-1386
          Telephone: (304) 345 6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342 1110
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
                  tclackler@baileyglasser.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew L. Ward, Esq.
          W. Henry Jernigan Jr., Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL
          P. O. Box 2185
          Huntington, WV 25701
          Telephone: (304) 529 6181
          Facsimile: (304) 522 4312
          E-mail: matthew.ward@dinsmore.com
                  henry.jernigan@dinslaw.com


PRIMARY STRUCTURES: "Samonte" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Ed Samonte, on his own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Primary Structures Inc., of Clearwater and Marina
Cantina, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-02844-JDW-TGW (M.D.Fla., Tampa
Division, December 11, 2015), seeks recovery of overtime pay,
interest, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act Sec. 201-216.

Plaintiff rendered manual construction-related labor and alleges
that he routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week and claims
that he was not paid the entirety of this overtime pay.

Defendant is a construction company based in Pinellas County,
Florida and has an ongoing building project in Clearwater Beach.

The Plaintiff is represented by

      W. John Gadd, Esq.
      Bank of America Building
      2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Tel. (727)524-6300
      Email: wjg@mazgadd.com


PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: "Tuff" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Tuff and Marcus Crawford individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs,
v. Professional Transportation, Inc., and Ronald D. Romain,
individually and as president and secretary of Professional
Transportation, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-RLY-WGH
(S.D. Ind., December 15, 2015), seeks recovery of minimum wages
and overtime compensation with corresponding liquidated damages,
attorney fees and costs and all other relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq.

Freddie Tuff is a former Assistant Branch Manager for Professional
Transportation, Inc. at its Macon, Georgia branch.

Professional Transportation, Inc. is an Indiana corporation with
its headquarters located at Evansville, Indiana. It provides
ground transportation for crews of the Class 1 railroads.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Cassell, Esq.
      ERON LAW, P.A.
      229 E. William, Suite 100
      Wichita, KS 67202
      Tel: (316) 262-5500
      Fax: (316) 262-5559
      Email: jhcassell@eronlaw.net


QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalls BMX Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Quality Bicycle Products Inc. (QBP), of Bloomington, Minn.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 in the U.S. Stolen
series BMX bicycles. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bicycles fail to meet the federal bicycle standard. The
bicycle's front wheel can detach due to improperly fitting
retention washers, posing a fall hazard to the rider.

This recall involves Stolen series BMX bicycles, including Stolen
Agent 16CB and 16FW, Stolen Compact, Stolen Casino and Stolen
Stereo models. "Stolen" and the model name are printed on the
frame of the bicycles. The Agent 16-inch bikes were sold in dark
blue, the Compact 20-inch bikes were sold in neon orange and satin
white, the Casino 20-inch bikes were sold in phosphate raw (gray),
highlight yellow and electric red, and the Stereo 20-inch bikes
were sold in satin black and electric green.

The firm has received one report of an incident. No injuries have
been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at BMX
bicycle/product dealers, Stolen series BMX distributors and
specialty bicycle retailers nationwide and online at www.QBP.com
and other BMX bicycle/product websites from September 2015 through
October 2015 for between $230 and $350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled BMX bicycles
and return them to the store where purchased for a free inspection
and free replacement wheel retention washers.


REACHLOCAL INC: Class Action by Former Clients in Early Stage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reachlocal, 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 lawsuit filed by
one of the Company's former clients is at an early stage.

On May 2, 2014, a lawsuit, purporting to be a class action, was
filed by one of the Company's former clients in the United States
District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint alleges breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law. The
complaint seeks monetary damages, restitution and attorneys' fees.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2014, which was
denied on December 4, 2014.

While the case is at an early stage, the Company believes that the
case is substantively and procedurally without merit. The
Company's insurance carrier is providing defense under a
reservation of rights.


ROSEBURG FOREST: "Lankford" Action Seeks Unpaid OT, Meal Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Lankford, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated and on behalf of aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act,
Plaintiff, v. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO., an unknown entity; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC603618 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles County, December 10, 2015), seeks recovery of
unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid minimum wages
and damages resulting from late final wages, late wages and non-
issuance of proper wage statements, unfair competition and unfair
business practices in violation of the California Labor Code.

Defendant manufactures wood products and is based in Roseburg,
Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 230-7502
      Fax: (818) 230-7259

           - and -

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 265-1020
      Fax: (818) 265-1021


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Class Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that class action
plaintiffs have taken an appeal from the dismissal of their case.

Purported class action complaints were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29,
2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action
(Corban v. Sarepta, et al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the court
on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to file a
consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, sought to bring claims
on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired securities of the Company between July 10, 2013 and
November 11, 2013.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that Sarepta and
certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws in
connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen, the Company's
lead therapeutic candidate for DMD, and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount. Pursuant to the court's June 23, 2014 order,
Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on August 18, 2014, and argument on the motion was held
on March 12, 2015. On March 31, 2015, the Court dismissed
plaintiffs' amended complaint.

On April 30, 2015, plaintiffs in the Corban suit filed a motion
for leave seeking to file a further amended complaint, which the
Company opposed.  Following a hearing on August 12, 2015, the
Court denied this motion, and on September 22, 2015, the Court
dismissed the case.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit. No dates have been set for briefing or oral
argument.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss "Kader" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that oral argument
on the motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by William Kader has not
been scheduled.

A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on December 3, 2014 by William Kader,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Sarepta Therapeutics Inc., Christopher Garabedian, and Sandesh
Mahatme (Kader v. Sarepta et.al 1:14-cv-14318), asserting
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company, Christopher
Garabedian and Sandesh Mahatme. Plaintiffs' amended complaint,
filed on March 20, 2015, alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period
of April 21, 2014 through October 27, 2014, regarding the
sufficiency of the Company's data for submission of an NDA for
eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA accepting the NDA based
on that data. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and fees.

The Company received service of the complaint on January 5, 2015.
Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 11, 2015,
pursuant to the scheduling order entered on February 20, 2015,
which plaintiffs have opposed.  Oral argument on the motion to
dismiss has not been scheduled.


SASAC: "Brooke" Suit Goes from S.D. Fla. to E.D. Louisiana MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brooke v. The State-Owned Assets
Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-24348, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New
Orleans). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-
cv-06631-EEF-JCW to the proceeding.

Defendants in the case are Beijing New Building Materials (Group)
Co., Ltd.; Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co.;
China National Building Material Co., Ltd.; China National
Building Materials Group Corporation; Taian Taishan Plasterboard
Co., Ltd.; Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd.; and The State-Owned Assets
Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly breached
their statutory duties, including but not limited to those imposed
under the International Building Code and other State and local
Building Codes, to Plaintiffs and Class Members by failing to warn
about the problematic nature of the drywall. The Defendants
specifically violated the ASTMC C 1396/C 1396M-069, and its
predecessor(s).

The SASAC supervises Chinese state-owned assets of enterprises
engaged in drywall production, including Taishan. SASAC oversees
150 large central state-owned assets and enterprises, including
CNBM Group. SASAC owns 100% of CNBM Group.

Taishan is a foreign corporation doing business in several States,
including but not limited to, Alabama, Arizona, California,
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri,
Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

TTP is a foreign corporation doing business in several States,
including but not limited to, Alabama, Arizona, California,
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri,
Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The Brooke case is being consolidated with MDL 2047 in re:
Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation. The
Court modified Pretrial Order No. 1 through Pretrial Order No. 1A
to reflect that the stay in effect shall not impede counsel's
obligation to timely enter their appearance on behalf of their
client(s) upon effectuation of service on their client. The
purpose of the stay on motion practice was to allow counsel to
focus on organization and coordination. The case has now reached
the stage where an organizational structure is in
place and the MDL Court has coordinated with the state courts.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Eldon E. Fallon, United States
District Judge; The lead case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick S. Montoya, Esq.
          COLSON, HICKS & EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle, PH
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476 7400
          E-mail: patrick@colson.com

               - and -

          Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq.
          COLSON, HICKS, EIDSON, COLSON
          MATTHEWS, MARTINEZ, GONZALES
          KALBAC & KANE
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476 7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476 7444
          E-mail: Ervin@colson.com

               - and -

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Fred S. Longer, Esq.
          Matthew C. Gaughan, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: 215-592 1500
          Facsimile: 215-592 4663
          E-mail: Alevin@lfsblaw.com


SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Recalls Classroom Stools Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
School Specialty Inc., of Greenville, Wis., announced a voluntary
recall of about 6,000 (About 1,350 were recalled in June 2015. In
addition, about 800 were sold in Canada) Classroom Select NeoRok
Stools. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The stool can break during use, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves new and previously recalled 18-inch tall and
20-inch tall Classroom Select NeoRok Stools with a tilting and
rocking feature, for use by children in the classroom. The stools
have a round black rubber seat insert with a solid color plastic
seat and black rimmed base. The Classroom Select logo is printed
on one side of the base and the NeoRok name is printed on the
other side of the base. The stools were sold in 12 colors:
Cardinal (red), Claret (maroon), Ebony (black), Imperial (blue),
Lilac (purple), Marine (navy blue), Nickel (silver), Paprika
(orange), Periwinkle (light blue), Pistachio (green), Saffron
(yellow) and Slate (gray). Recalled 18-inch stools are item number
1496340 and recalled 20-inch stools are item number 1496342.

School Specialty has received a total of nine reports of stools
breaking during use, including one report involving a concussion.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/qYuve7

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Classroom Direct catalogs, School Specialty Furniture and
Equipment catalogs, School Specialty Education Essentials
catalogs, School Specialty Early Childhood catalogs, and on
www.schoolspecialty.com from May 2015 through November 2015 for
between $105 and $115.

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.


SEARS ROEBUCK: "Azimpour" Suit Hits Discount Price Confusion
------------------------------------------------------------
Saeid Azimpour, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-02798-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., December 11, 2015), seeks
damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs in violation of Unfair Competition Law,
California False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
Consumer Protection Laws.

The Defendant allegedly inflated the original price of its
products and applied a discount resulting in false sale. Azimpour
purchased a Cannon firm-density standard pillow at one of
Defendant's retail locations for $9.99 at a purported advertised
discount of 50% off its regular purchase price of $19.99.

Sears, Roebuck & Company is a New York corporation with its
principal executive offices in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 233-4565
      Fax: (619) 233-0508
      Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
             jpettigrew@scott-scott.com

  - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Tel: (212) 223-6444
      Fax: (212) 223-6334
      Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

  - and -

      Erin G. Comite, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street
      P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Tel: (860) 537-5537
      Fax: (860) 537-4432
      Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com

  - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER LAW GROUP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 756-6994
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      Email: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

  - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 253-6307

  - and -

      E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
      P.O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
      Tel: (205) 908-4906
      Fax: (866) 747-3905
      Email: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net


SEASONAL SPECIALTIES: Recalls Music and Lighting System
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Seasonal Specialties LLC, of Eden Prairie, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,000 Synchronized music and lighting
system. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The product can get overloaded and overheat, posing a fire hazard.

The Philips HarmonizeTM Synchronized Music and Lighting System
Model is an electrical control box for decorative lighting (e.g.
Christmas lights). When plugged into the control box, the lights
flash to the beat of the music being played on the Harmonize
control box. The product is sold with one 50-light decorative
light string. The green control box is approximately 7.5" x 6.5" x
2.5", and is green in color with a gray tinted cover over the
controls with a red digital readout under the cover. The model
number MU1402 can be found on a white label wrapped around the
plug cord wire, near the plug.

The firm received two reports of the control unit overheating,
melting or smoking. No injuries have been reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/icYE9F

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Menards store in Ill., Ind., Iowa, Kan., Mich., Minn., Mo., Neb.,
N.D., Ohio, S.D. and Wis. from August 2015 through November 2015
for about $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product, unplug it and
contact Seasonal Specialties for a prepaid label to return the
lighting system for a full refund.


SICKKIDS: Koskike Issues Statement of Claim in "Motherisk" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP and Sutts, Strosberg LLP have issued a Statement
of Claim on behalf of representative plaintiff, Yvonne Marchand,
in a proposed class action against The Hospital for Sick Children
("SickKids") due to flawed hair-strand drug and alcohol testing
conducted by its Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory ("Motherisk")
between 2005 and 2015. The claim also names Dr. Gideon Koren, the
founder and laboratory director of Motherisk, and Joey Gareri, the
laboratory manager at Motherisk, as individual defendants in the
lawsuit.  The claim alleges that SickKids, Koren, and Gareri were
negligent by, among other things, failing to meet internationally
recognized forensic standards with Motherisk's hair-testing and by
failing to provide proper oversight to ensure the quality,
proficiency and accreditation of its tests.  The plaintiff brings
the lawsuit on behalf of:

   -- all persons who tested positive from a hair-strand drug
and/or alcohol test administered by Motherisk between January 2005
and April 2015 (the proposed "Class"); and

   -- all parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, siblings
and spouses of Class members within the meaning of the Family Law
Act (the proposed "Family Class").

The plaintiff seeks $200 million in damages for negligence and
$250 million in punitive damages.

On December 17, 2015, following an extensive investigation as the
appointed "Independent Reviewer", The Honourable Susan E. Lang
released her findings in a report, which found many alarming
issues, including:

The hair-strand drug and alcohol testing used by Motherisk between
2005 and 2015 was "inadequate and unreliable for use in child
protection and criminal proceedings".

Between 2005 and 2015, Motherisk "operated in a manner that did
not meet internationally recognized forensic standards".
SickKids "did not provide meaningful oversight" over Motherisk.
The use of Motherisk hair-testing evidence in child protection and
criminal proceedings "has serious implications for the fairness of
those proceedings".

"There is nothing more precious than the parent-child
relationship," says Kirk Baert, co-lead counsel at Koskie Minsky
LLP, "the loss of a child because of false-positive test results
grossly violates the rights of thousands of families and
fundamentally altered the paths of their lives.  "A Notice of
Action was issued in this case on December 22, 2015.  On that same
day, the Province of Ontario was notified of the plaintiff's
intention to name it as a defendant in the lawsuit.  The Province
will be added to the claim in the coming weeks once the notice
period expires pursuant to the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.


SOLAZYME INC: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Solazyme, 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
intends to defend itself vigorously against a securities class
action litigation.

In June 2015, a securities class action complaint entitled Norfolk
County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al. was filed
against the Company, its CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler
Painter, certain of its current and former directors, and the
underwriters of its March 2014 equity and debt offerings, Goldman,
Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1934, as well as
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the
Company's securities (i) between February 27, 2014 and November 5,
2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public
equity and debt offerings in March 2014. The complaint alleges
that investors were misled by statements made during that period
about the construction progress, development, and production
capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil
owned by the Company's joint venture, Solazyme Bunge Produtos
Renovaveis Ltda.  The Company believes the complaint lacks merit,
and intends to defend itself vigorously.


SOLERA HOLDINGS: Court Declined to Enjoin Special Meeting
---------------------------------------------------------
Solera 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 a court has
declined to consider a class action plaintiff's motion seeking to
enjoin a special meeting.

On September 13, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Summertime Holding
Corp., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Summertime
Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger
Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the
Company surviving the Merger as an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by
affiliates of Vista Equity Partners Fund V, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership (the "Sponsor" or "Vista"). The board of
directors of the Company (the "Board"), following the receipt of
the unanimous recommendation of a special committee of independent
directors of the Board, unanimously approved the Merger Agreement.

"On September 21, 2015, an alleged stockholder of the Company
filed an action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
on behalf of a putative class of the Company's stockholders
against us and our directors, Vista, Parent and Merger Sub," the
Company said.  "The complaint alleges, among other things, that
our directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
Merger Agreement at an inadequate price and following an
inadequate sale process, and that we, Vista, Parent and Merger Sub
aided and abetted these alleged breaches of duty. The complainant
seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed
transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as
an award of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs in the action.
On October 13, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim."

"On October 21, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that added allegations contending that the disclosure contained in
the preliminary version of our proxy statement related to the
Merger misstated or failed to disclose certain allegedly material
information to our stockholders.

"On October 22, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the holding of our
shareholder meeting based upon his claim that our public
disclosures were inadequate. On November 5, 2015, the Court denied
the motion for expedited proceedings, and declined to consider
plaintiff's motion seeking to enjoin the special meeting. The
defendants deny any wrongdoing in connection with the merger and
plan to defend vigorously against the claims set forth in the
amended complaint and any injunction motion."

Solera convened a special meeting of stockholders on Dec. 8, 2015,
at which time shareholders voted to proceed with the merger
transaction.


SOUTHERN CONSTRUCTION: "Cumberland" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Cumberland and Gerald F. Moran, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southern
Construction Group, LLC, Defendant, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00900-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss., Northern Division, December 15, 2015),
seeks damages in the amount of their respective unpaid
compensation and benefits, prejudgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, equitable relief including, but not limited to,
any declaratory relief and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Moran was hired by the Defendant as drill foreman and mechanical
welder while Cumberland worked as a fuser. They claim to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime
compensation.

Southern Construction Group, LLC is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Mississippi. It is into
the installation of underground utility lines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Michael Huggins, Esq.
      TURNER ONDERDONK KIMBROUGH HOWELL HUGGINS AND BRADLEY PA.
      1359 Dauphin Street
      Mobile, AL 36604-2140
      Tel: (251) 432-2855
      Email: dmh@tokhmobile.com


SPRING SOHO: "Bello" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage & OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Vicente Bello and Aurelio Tecocoatzi, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Spring Soho Inc.,
P.M.W. Inc., Spring Natural Corp., Rustam L. Schoenholt, Zaire N.
Schoenholt and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No.
162683/2015 (N.Y. Sup., December 14, 2015), seeks to recover
wages, including unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation
pursuant to New York Labor Laws Sec. 190 and 196-d.

Bello worked for Defendants as a line cook while Tecocoatzi worked
as a busboy and waiter for the Defendants. Both claim to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week without proper overtime
compensation.

The Defendants operate a restaurant at 62 Spring Street, New York,
New York 10012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550


STATE FARM FIRE: "Burdess" Suit Moved to Nebraska Dist. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Burdess et al. v. State Farm Fire
and Casualty Company, Case No. CI 15-00241, was removed from
Washington County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska (8 Omaha). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-00454-FG3 to the proceeding.

State Farm Fire and Casualty provides insurance solutions for
homeowners, boat owners, and commercial lines in the United
States. The company offers insurance cover for boats, motors, and
boat trailers, as well as cover for boat equipment against loss
and damage from sinking, fire, storms, theft, capsizing,
stranding, collision, and explosion. Its insurance products also
cover the equipment permanently attached to the boat, anchors,
oars, electric trolling motors, extra fuel tanks, tools,
detachable canopies, seat cushions, life preservers, skis and
their tow ropes, and dinghies. The company Bloomington, Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric R. Chandler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ERIC R. CHANDLER
          319 South 17th Street, Suite 522
          Omaha, NE 68102
          Telephone: (402) 933 6858
          Facsimile: (402) 929 7939
          E-mail: ericchandlerlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          M. Austin Mehr, Esq.
          Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq.
          MEHR, FAIRBANKS LAW FIRM
          201 West Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 225 3731
          Facsimile: (859) 225 3830
          E-mail: edp@austinmehr.com
                  amehr@austinmehr.com
                  pgf@austinmehr.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark C. Laughlin, Esq.
          Robert W. Futhey, Esq.
          FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM
          Energy Plaza
          409 South 17th Street, Suite 500
          Omaha, NE 68102
          Telephone: (402) 341 6000
          Facsimile: (402) 341 8290
          E-mail: mlaughlin@fraserstryker.com
                  rfuthey@fraserstryker.com


STEELCASE INC: Recalls Swivel Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Steelcase Inc., of Grand Rapids, Mich., announced a voluntary
recall of about 17,000 "Rocky" model swivel chairs. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The screws connecting the seat and back to the base of the chair
can detach, posing a fall hazard to the user.

This recall involves 12 models of Steelcase "Rocky" style swivel
chairs manufactured between 2005 and 2015. The molded
polypropylene chairs were sold in black and white with the option
of an upholstered seat and back, seat only or no upholstery. The
chairs have a foldable seat, molded-in arms and either a four-star
wheel base or a five-star wheel base. Model numbers can be found
on the underside of the seat.

  Model Number   Style
  ------------   -----
  112101         Four-star Nesting Upholstered Seat
  112201S        Four-star Nesting Upholstered Seat
  112201         Four-star Nesting Upholstered Seat and Back
  112301         Five-star Non-Upholstered
  112401S        Five-star Upholstered Back
  112401         Five-star Upholstered Seat and Back
  112301ST       Five-star Stool Non-Upholstered
  112401SST      Five-star Stool Upholstered Seat
  112401ST       Five-star Stool Upholstered Seat and Back
  112301J        Jury Base Non-Upholstered
  112401SJ       Jury Base Upholstered Seat
  112401J        Jury Base Upholstered Seat and Back

The firm has received 311 reports of incidents, including one
report of an injury.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States from 2005
to 2011 and Mexico from 2011-2015 and sold at Steelcase
independently owned dealers nationwide from August 2005 to June
2015 for between $500 and $1,550.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
contact Steelcase to arrange for a free repair.


SUNRUN INC: "Fausto" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Fausto, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sunrun, Inc. and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-15-549359 (Cal. Super.,
December 10, 2015), seeks recovery of unpaid wages, overtime
premium, damages resulting from missed meal and break periods,
injunctive relief and restitution in violation of California Code
of Regulations, California Business and Professions Code Sec.
17200, et seq., California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1021.5,
and various provisions of the California Labor Code.

Fausto was employed by SunRun as a solar consultant, classified as
an independent contractor and/or direct seller.

Defendant is a California-based company into solar energy systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R Bainer, Esq.
      Sonny Hoang, Esq.
      SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES APC
      1970 Broadway Ninth Floor
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 891-9800
      Fax: (510) 891-7030
      Email: mbainer@scalaw.com
             shoang@scalaw.com


SWAGGIN WAGON: "Hart" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Scott W. Hart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Swaggin Wagon, Inc. and Brad Parson and
Rickey Stanley, Defendants, Case No. 7:15-cv-00225 (W.D. Tex.,
Midland Odessa Division, December 13, 2015), seeks declaratory
relief, unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorney's
fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
216(b).

Plaintiff worked as a frac-sand coordinator and claims not paid
being the mandatory overtime premium in excess of 40 hours per
work week.

Swaggin Wagon, Inc is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Oklahoma with Brad Parson and Rickey Stanley as chief
administrative officers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Loren, Esq.
      LOREN LAW GROUP
      100 South Pine Island Rd - Suite 132
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (954)585-4878
      Fax: (954)585-4886
      E-Mail: JLoren@Lorenlaw.com


SYNGENTA AG: "Welsh" Suit Goes from Circuit Court to E.D. Ky.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Welsh v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. et
al., Case No. 15-CI-288, was removed from Mason Circuit Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kentucky
(Covington). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
00208-DLB-JGW to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have caused damages to
US corn farmers including Plaintiffs. The Defendants conduct in
marketing, distributing, and selling unapproved corn seed
allegedly violated the legal standard of the marketplace.

Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company
produces herbicides, insectides, and fungicides, and seeds for
field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in
Basil, Switzerland.

Gavilon Grain doing business as, Peavey Company engages in
distribution of grain, feed ingredients, fertilizers, and energy
products. The company was formerly known as F.H. Peavey & Company.
The company was founded in 1874 and is based in Omaha, Nebraska.

Archer Daniels Midland 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 Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew P. George, Esq.
          1160 East Main
          Box 36
          Lebanon, OH 45036
          Telephone: (513) 228 4137
          Facsimile: (513) 228 4138

The Defendants are represented by:

          John L. Tate, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON, PLLC - LOUISVILLE
          400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 587 3400
          Facsimile: (502) 587 6391
          E-mail: jtate@stites.com

               - and -

          Chad R. Ziepfel, Esq.
          Ryan Christian Edward, Esq.
          TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP
          Firstar Tower
          425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 381 2838
          Facsimile: (513) 581 0205
          E-mail: cziepfel@taftlaw.com
                  edwardsr@taftlaw.com

               - and -

          Carl Norman Frazier, Esq.
          Christopher E. Schaefer, Esq.
          David T. Royse, Esq.
          STOLL KEENON OGDEN, PLLC
          300 W. Vine Street, Suite 2100
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 231 3968
          Facsimile: (859) 253 1093
          E-mail: carl.frazier@skofirm.com
                  christopher.schaefer@skofirm.com
                  david.royse@skofirm.com


SYNGENTA AG: "Richardson" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richardson et al. v. Syngenta AG
et al., Case No. 15-00408, was removed/transferred/reprimanded
from the Jefferson County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02272-JEO to the
proceeding.

Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company
produces herbicides, insectides, and fungicides, and seeds for
field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in
Basil, Switzerland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam P Plant, Esq.
          Robert E Battle, Esq.
          BATTLE & WINN LLP
          2901 2nd Avenue South, Ste 220
          Birmingham, AL 35233
          Telephone: (205) 397 8165
          Facsimile: (205) 397 8179
          E-mail: aplant@battlewinn.com
                  rbattle@battlewinn.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John E Goodman, Esq.
          Meredith Riley Phillips, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
          1819 Fifth Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 521 8000
          Facsimile: (205) 521 8800
          E-mail: jgoodman@babc.com
                  rphillips@babc.com


TACO HUT PLACE: "Lu" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Wen Jian Lu, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taco Hut Place, Inc., Taco Hut
Inc., Bayside Taco Ltd., Yi Hua Lin, Peter Wang, Kuh Bin Wang,
John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-07147
(E.D.N.Y., December 15, 2015), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime
compensation, unpaid spread of hours premium for each day they
worked ten or more hours with corresponding liquidated damages,
damages resulting from failure to provide wage notice at the time
of hiring and failure to provide paystubs, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest; and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. and the New
York Labor Law.

Wen Jian Lu was employed as a delivery worker/kitchen helper for
the Defendants.

Taco Hut Inc. owns and operates a Mexican restaurant located at
32-67 Francis Lewis Boulevard, Bayside, NY 11358. Yi Hua Lin,
Peter Wang and Kuh Bin Wang co-own and manage the restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


TASTE OF MAO: "Chan" Action Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wai Hung Chan, Han Tao Chen, Wai Yip Chan, Zhang Cai He, Hong Min
Peng, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. A Taste Of Mao, Inc., Zhen Qi Xiao, Wen
Ding Li, "John" Shi, "John" Du, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-09723 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2015),
seeks injunction, award of unpaid wages and minimum wages due,
compensatory and liquidated damages, unpaid overtime wages due and
spread of hours premium due, damages for failure to provide wage
notice, as required under the New York Labor Law, liquidated
and/or punitive damages and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and the New York
Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Wai Hung Chan, Hong Min Peng and Wai Yip Chan worked as waiters,
Han Tao Chen a delivery worker and Zhang Cai He as cashier. They
claim not being paid overtime premium in excess of 40 hours per
week, withheld tips and allege not being reimbursed for uniform
maintenance.

A Taste Of Mao, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Manhattan
located at 360 W. 42nd St., New York, New York 10036 by the name
Szechuan Palace with Zhen Qi Xiao, Wen Ding Li, "John" Shi and
"John" Du as co-owners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Action Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
Anton S. Badri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Terraform Global, Inc.,
Sunedison, Inc., Ahmad Chatila, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy
Avenier, Martin Truong, Brian Wuebbels, JP Morgan Securities LLC,
Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US
Capital LLC, ITAU BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities
America, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, Kotak Mahindra, Inc.
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIV586536
(Cal. Super., San Mateo County, December 9, 2015), seeks to
recover damages, equitable and injunctive relief in connection
with the purchases of TerraForm Global's shares under Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The class action arises out of an alleged deliberate effort to
conceal information regarding the Initial Public Offering of
TerraForm. SunEdison, the IPO's sponsor, sustained considerable
financial losses prior to the IPO and whose condition was not made
known to the shareholders. Badri acquired TerraForm Global Class A
common shares pursuant to the Offering Materials and claims to
have lost money in the transaction.

TerraForm Global owns and operates renewable energy generation
assets worldwide. The Company generates electricity through solar,
wind, and hydro-electric projects and serves utility, commercial,
industrial and government customers. TerraForm Global holds wind
and solar projects in South Africa, India and China.

SunEdison develops, manufactures, and sells silicon wafers and is
a major developer and seller of photovoltaic energy solutions. The
company's subsidiary, SunEdison LCC, is one of the world's leading
developers of solar energy projects.

Carlos Domenech Zornoza was, at the time of the offering, Chief
Executive Officer and director of the Company.

Jeremy Avenier was TerraForm Global's Chief Financial Officer.

Ahmad Chatila was, at the time of the offering, Chairman and
director of the company.

Martin Truong served as SunEdison's Vice President, General
Counsel and Secretary since April of 2013.

Brian Wuebbels was a director of the Company.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital, LLC, Itau BBA USA
Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., SG Americas
Securities, LLC and Kotak Mahindra, Inc. were an underwriters for
the IPO Offering..

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Tel: (858) 914-2001
      Fax: (858) 914-2002


TOTAL SYSTEM: JPML Transfers Arizona Case to Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred a class
action lawsuit in Arizona to the District of Massachusetts.

ProPay, Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been
named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant
processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to
the activities of Telexfree, Inc. and its affiliates and
principals. Telexfree is a former merchant customer of ProPay.

With regard to Telexfree, each purported class action lawsuit
generally alleges that Telexfree engaged in an improper multi-tier
marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone
services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action
complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor
defendants, including ProPay, aided and abetted the improper
activities of Telexfree.

Telexfree filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada. The
bankruptcy proceeding was subsequently transferred to the
Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to Telexfree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States
Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May
15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of
Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v.
Telexelectric, LLLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on
June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North
Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No.
2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia
Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG),
filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere,
et al. v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO),
filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (together, the "Actions").

On October 21, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred and consolidated the Actions before the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "Consolidated Action").

Following the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's October
21, 2014 order, four additional cases arising from the alleged
TelexFree scheme were transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts for coordinated or
consolidated proceedings, including (i) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et
al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-04080); (ii) Magalhaes
v. TelexFree, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-12437 (D. Mass.); (iii)
Griffith v. Merrill et al., No. 14-CV-12058 (D. Mass.); Abelgadir
v. Telexelectric, LLP, No. 14-09857 (S.D.N.Y.)

In addition, on September 23, 2015, a putative class action
relating to TelexFree was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona, styled Rita Dos Santos,
Putative Class Representatives and those Similarly Situated v.
TelexElectric, LLLP et al., 2:15-cv-01906-NVW (the "Arizona
Action"). The Arizona Action makes claims similar to those alleged
in the consolidated action pending before the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On September 29, 2015, a group of certain defendants to the
Consolidated Action, including ProPay, filed a "tag along" notice
with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, asking that
the Arizona Action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts
where it can be consolidated or coordinated with the Consolidated
Action.

On October 20, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the Arizona Action to the District of
Massachusetts.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of the putative class
of plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.  On March 31, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint purports to
bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased certain
TelexFree "memberships" and suffered a "net loss" between January
1, 2012 and April 16, 2014. The Consolidated Complaint supersedes
the complaints filed prior to consolidation of the Actions, and
alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by
TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of
providing payment processing services to TelexFree.

On April 30, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which amends
and supersedes the Consolidated Complaint. Like the Consolidated
Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that
ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and
that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing
payment processing services to TelexFree.

Several defendants, including ProPay, moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on June 2, 2015. Briefing on those motions
closed on October 16, 2015. The court held a hearing on the
motions to dismiss on November 2, 2015. At present, pursuant to a
court order, all discovery in the action is stayed pending the
resolution of parallel criminal proceedings against certain former
principals of TelexFree, Inc.


TRANSTAR INDUSTRIES: "Bauer" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Donald Bauer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Transtar Industries, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02602-PAG (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015), seeks
recovery of unpaid overtime wages, actual damages for unpaid
wages, liquidated damages equal in amount to unpaid overtime
compensation, attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements and
additional relief pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a sales representative and
claims not being paid being the mandatory overtime premium in
excess of 40 hours per work week. He also alleges the Defendant
for not keeping time-keeping records.

Transtar Industries, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Ohio with principal place of business in
Walton Hills, Ohio. It distributes transmission-related products,
automotive specialty repair and refinishing products and high
performance parts and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      David J. Steiner, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: 216-696-5000
      Fax: 216-696-7005
      Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             david@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Jury Trial Scheduled for June 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Money Morning reports that when Shannon Liss-Riordan comes
knocking at a corporate giant's door, investors take notice. . .

The labor lawyer's successful track record against leviathans like
American Airlines Group Inc., Starbucks Corp., and FedEx Corp.
(NYSE: FDX) says it all.  Ms. Liss-Riordan represents workers
suing employers over matters like inadequate wages and job
misclassification.

Now she's taking on one of the brightest stars in the sharing
economy -- Uber.  And her intention is to upend Uber's business
model.

If Ms. Liss-Riordan succeeds, it could cost the ride-sharing
company $4.1 billion.

Here's how . . .

The End of Uber's Business Model?

Uber's been a smash hit in one of the hottest tech trends of 2016,
the "sharing economy" -- a person-to-person-based sharing of
access to goods and services.  Uber functions as a ride-sharing
company. In other words, it connects people in need of road
transportation to drivers via a mobile app the company developed.

A key to the company's business model is its classification of
drivers as "independent contractors" rather than employees.  That
means Uber doesn't have to pay out Social Security or Medicare for
its drivers.  It also means the drivers are responsible for almost
all of their own business expenses, including car repairs, gas,
mileage, etc.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, however, argues such a designation is a
"misclassification."

In the official court document filed March 11, 2015, with a
San Francisco federal court, Liss-Riordan outlines the
misclassification as grounds for a class-action lawsuit.  Because
the company dictates certain working conditions, such as the cost
of the fare, it conducts itself more like an "employer," according
to the lawyer.

Thus far, courts have sided with Liss-Riordan. In the March 2015
case, Judge Edward Chen denied Uber's motion for summary judgment.
He ruled that it should be heard in front of a jury.  Then, on
Nov. 20, a U.S. appeals court denied Uber's argument that class-
action certification should not have been granted.

Now the case is headed to jury trial slated for June 20, 2016, in
San Francisco.

Uber stands to lose a lot if Liss-Riordan wins.

To the tune of $4.1 billion annually.


UNIVERSAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE: "Campos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Campos on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Universal Building Maintenance, LLC, a
California limited liability company, Universal Services of
America, LP, a California limited partnership and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC604185 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
County, December 14, 2015), seeks unpaid wages for all hours
worked at minimum wage or overtime rate of pay, including rounded
off time and rest period wages, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate and complete wage statements, waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay former employees all earned and unpaid wages, applicable civil
penalties; injunctive relief and other equitable relief and
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor Code
Sections 226(e), 1194, 2699(g)(1).

Universal Building Maintenance, LLC operate at 639 Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017, 21300 Victory Boulevard, #230
Woodland Hills, CA 91367 and 3000 S. Robertson Boulevard, #150,
Los Angeles, CA 90034.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
      Email: arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com
             jlayi@lelawfirm.com


VIVINT SOLAR: 2nd Amended Complaint in "Stadnick" IPO Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the second
amended complaint in the case captioned, ROBBY SHAWN STADNICK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-
CV-9283, No. 14-CV-9709 (KBF)(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Robby Shawn Stadnick, on behalf of himself and as
representative of a purported class, brought the action against
Vivint Solar, Inc. and Blackstone Group, L.P. and a syndicate of
underwriters for securities law violations in connection with the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) on October 1, 2014.
Pursuant to the IPO, the Company sold 20,600,000 shares of its
common stock at $16 per share, raising net proceeds of $300.8
million.

Plaintiff asserted that Vivint Solar issued a misleading
Registration Statement in connection with its IPO. Plaintiff's
basic contention is that the Company misled the market when it
failed to disclose its true financial picture in its Registration
Statement and instead waited until the post-IPO release of its
third-quarter earnings to adequately clarify its position.

In the motion, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint (SAC) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.

In her Opinion and Order dated December 10, 2015, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/RsFbu0from Leagle.com, Judge Forrest found that
plaintiff failed to adequately allege that any regulatory
developments in Hawaii were material to Vivint Solar's revenues or
income. The SAC did not provide any explanation for the
supposition that the Company growing faster in the rest of the
country than in Hawaii was an adverse development.

Plaintiffs are represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt, Esq. --
nporritt@zlk.com -- Adam M. Apton, Esq. -- aapton@zlk.com -- LEVI
& KORSINSKY LLP

Defendants are represented by Jay B. Kasner, Esq. --
jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Matthew Barkan, Esq. --
matt.barkan@skadden.com -- Scott D. Musoff, Esq. -
scott.musoff@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP


VIZIO INC: "Mason" Suit Hits Illegal Data Gathering
---------------------------------------------------
Donald Mason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vizio Holdings, Inc., Vizio, Inc., Vizio
Inscape Services, LLC, Vizio Inscape Technologies, LLC and
Cognitive Media Networks, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11288
(N.D. Ill., December 25, 2015), seeks enjoinment, compensatory,
exemplary, punitive and statutory penalties and damages, including
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees, in violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2710, Illinois Personal
Information Protection Act, 815 ILCS 530, Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505 and Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1.

Plaintiff purchased a 24-inch Vizio Smart TV, model number E241-
a1. It is connected to the Internet and has been allegedly
collecting and selling viewing data without consent.

Vizio, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California with its headquarters and
principal place of business located at 39 Tesla, Irvine,
California 92618.

Vizio Holdings, Inc., Vizio Inscape Services, LLC, Vizio Inscape
Technologies, LLC and Cognitive Media Networks, Inc. are Delaware
corporations with principal place of business located at 39 Tesla,
Irvine, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      Tyler J. Story, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 346-2222
      Fax: (312) 346-0022
      Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             aek@wexlerwallace.com
             tjs@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Tel: (865) 247-0080
      Fax: (865) 522-0049
      Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

         - and -

      C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
      John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
      CUTTER LAW P.C.
      401 Watt Avenue
      Sacrament, CA 95864
      Tel: (916) 290-9400
      Fax: (916) 588-9330
      Email: bcutter@cutterlaw.com
             jparker@cutterlaw.com


VIZIO INC: "Ogle" Suit Hits Illegal Data Gathering
--------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ogle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vizio Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-
01984-AB-AFM (E.D. Ark., December 10, 2015), seeks monetary
damages, injunctive relief and equitable relief in violation of
the Video Privacy Protection Act 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2710 and the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiff bought a M-Series Vizio Smart TV, model number M421VT.
It is connected to the Internet and has been allegedly collecting
and selling viewing data without consent.

Vizio, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California with its headquarters and
principal place of business located at 39 Tesla, Irvine,
California 92618.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Allen Carney, Esq.
      Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
      David Slade, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES AND PULLIAM PLLC
      2800 Cantrell, Suite 510
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      Fax: (501) 312-8505
      Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
             acarney@cbplaw.com
             dslade@cbplaw.com
             rpulliam@cbplaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Lieff Cabraser Leads Plaintiff Steering Panel
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales
Practices, And Products Liability Litigation, No. 2672 CRB
(JSC)(N.D. Cal.), District Judge Charles R. Breyer on January 21,
2016, entered "PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 7: ORDER APPOINTING PLAINTIFFS'
LEAD COUNSEL, PLAINTIFFS' STEERING COMMITTEE, AND GOVERNMENT
COORDINATING COUNSEL ACTIONS".

The Order relates to all actions except securities fraud cases.  A
copy of the Order is available at http://is.gd/89mSozfrom
Leagle.com.

On December 9, 2015, the Court announced that it intended to
appoint a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC") to conduct and
coordinate the pretrial stage of this multi-district litigation
("MDL") with the defendants' representatives or committee. The
Court subsequently invited individuals to submit applications for
a steering committee or a lead counsel position by January 8, 2016
and allowed parties to respond by January 14, 2016. The Court
received a total of 150 submissions:

     9 individuals applied for a lead counsel position,
   104 applied for a steering committee position, and
    37 applied for a lead counsel and/or a steering committee
       position.

The Court held a hearing on the matter on January 21, 2016.

The Court appoints Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP as Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and as Chair of the
PSC.

The Court notes that Ms. Cabraser has extensive experience with
multi-district litigation and has held leadership positions in 17
different MDLs, including several that involved automobile
defects. She also has the support of a great number of her fellow
counsel in this MDL.  Moreover, the Court has first-hand knowledge
of Ms. Cabraser's leadership abilities, having worked with her in
her role as plaintiffs' liaison counsel and as a member of the PSC
in In re: Bextra and Celebrex Marketing, Sales Practices, and
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1699 (N.D. Cal.).

"That experience left the Court with the confidence that Ms.
Cabraser will effectively represent and guide the plaintiffs
toward a resolution that is in their best interests," Judge Breyer
said.

Ms. Cabraser will chair the PSC.

The Court appoints these attorneys as members of the PSC:

     -- Benjamin L. Bailey of Bailey and Glasser LLP
     -- Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
     -- David Boies of Boies Schiller and Flexner
     -- David Seabold Casey, Jr. of Casey Gerry Schenk
        Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP,
     -- James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody &
        Agnello, P.C.
     -- Roxanne Barton Conlin of Roxanne Conlin and Associates
     -- Jayne Conroy of Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLC,
     -- Paul J. Geller of Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP
     -- Robin L. Greenwald of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
     -- Michael D. Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP
     -- Michael Everett Heygood of Heygood, Orr, Pearson
     -- Adam J. Levitt of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
     -- W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin
        Portis & Miles
     -- Frank Mario Pitre of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP
     -- Joseph F. Rice of Motley Rice LLC
     -- Rosemary M. Rivas of Finkelstein Thompson LLP
     -- Lynn Lincoln Sarko of Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
     -- Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP
     -- J. Gerard Stranch IV of Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings,
     -- Roland K. Tellis of Baron Budd, P.C.
     -- Lesley Elizabeth Weaver of Block & Leviton LLP

The PSC appointments are personal to the individual attorney
appointed. While the Court has considered PSC members' resources
and expects they will draw upon their firms and co-counsel to
assist them with their duties, each member is personally
responsible for his or her duties. The Court may add or replace
members upon request from the PSC, or on its own motion, if and as
circumstances warrant.

On January 15, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation conditionally transferred from the Eastern District of
Michigan to this Court United States v. Volkswagen AG, et al.,
Case No. 16-10006. (Dkt. No. 928.) In light of the United States
Government interests in this MDL, the Court appoints United States
Department of Justice Attorney Joshua H. Van Eaton as coordinating
counsel for the interests of the United States. Mr. Van Eaton's
role will include scheduling meetings, appearing at Court-noticed
conferences, acting on behalf of the Government interests in
settlement discussions (including ensuring that the appropriate
Government decision makers are participating), coordinating
discovery with the PSC and Defendants, and carrying out any other
duty the Court may order. The Government Coordinating Counsel
shall confer with the PSC and Defendants to achieve the greatest
possible efficiencies and effectiveness, including as to the
conduct of discovery and settlement discussions.

To act on behalf of all Defendants, and to ensure effective and
efficient communications between Defendants and Plaintiffs' Lead
Counsel, the PSC, the settlement master, and Government
Coordinating Counsel, the Court directed the Defendants to provide
the Court with the name and firm of the attorney who shall act on
behalf of Defendants as Defendants' Liaison Counsel on or before
January 27, 2016.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin & White, C. Vernon Hartline,
Jr., Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, Casey Erin Lucier,
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J Baker, III, Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin H Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Colin Hampton Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana
Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Elizabeth L.
Deeley, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Harlan Irby Prater, IV, Lightfoot
Franklin & White LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr, Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller, McGuire Woods LLP Gateway
Plaza, Hugh J Bode, Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, J Randolph Bibb,
Jr., Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K.
Toohey, Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey L. Chase, Herzfeld and Rubin,
Jennifer Marino Thibodaux, Gibbons PC, John W. Cowden, Baker,
Sterchi, Cowden & Ric, LLC, John W. Cowden, Baker Sterchi Cowden
and Rice LLC, John L. Hone, Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, John H
Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kerry R Lewis,
Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kurt E. Lindquist, II,
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Larry Martin Roth,
Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Mayer
Brown LLP, Michael D. Begey, Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA,
Michael R McDonald, Gibbons PC, Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Chase
Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC, Ronald G. DeWald, Lipshultz and Hone
Chtd, Russ Ferguson, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP, Ryan
Nelson Clark, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Sara
Anne Ford, LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC, Seth Abram Schaeffer,
McGuireWoods LLP, Thomas R Valen, Gibbons PC, William L. Boesch,
Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, Allison Rachel McLaughlin,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland &
Ellis, Andrew R Levin, Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, PC, Brian
C. Langs, Johnson & Bell LTD, Charles William McIntyre, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP, Christopher Edward Tribe, McGuireWoods LLP
Gateway Plaza, David A. Barry, Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen,
David N. May, Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrove, Gail Ponder
Gaines, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson &
Bell LTD, George Robert Painter, IV, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP,
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, Hugh Brown
McNatt, McNatt, Greene & Peterson, James L. Hollis, Balch &
Bingham, Jimmy B. Wilkins, WATKINS & EAGER, John Nadolenco, Mayer
Brown LLP, Kenneth Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, MEREDITH J. MCKEE, WOMBLE CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Mark A. Weissman, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C.,
Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough,
LLP, Meredith Jane McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Michael
Thad Allen, Day Pitney LLP, Michael B. Gallub, Herzfeld and Rubin,
Michael E. Hale, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Michael L. O'Donnell,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Patricia Rodriguez Britton, Nelson
Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Paul D. Williams, Day Pitney LLP,
Righton Johnson, Robert J Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell LLP,
Stanley Abbott Roberts, McGuireWoods LLP, Stuart A Drake, Kirkland
and Ellis LLP, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, THOMAS R.
FERGUSON, III, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC & William B.
Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Audi AG, Defendant, is represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP,
Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis & Stuart A Drake, Kirkland
and Ellis LLP.

Volkswagen AG, Defendant, is represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP,
Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis & Stuart A Drake, Kirkland
and Ellis LLP.

Audi of America LLC, Defendant, is represented by Cheryl A. Bush,
Bush, Seyferth & Paige, PLLC, Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Mayer Brown
LLP, C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP &
Michael R Williams, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC.

Volkswagen Group of America, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
is represented by P. Arley Harrel, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC
& Kenneth Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP.

Audi of America, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Cheryl A.
Bush, Bush, Seyferth & Paige, PLLC, Matthew H. Marmolejo, Mayer
Brown LLP, Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough, LLP & Michael R Williams, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC.

DR. ING. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Defendant, is represented by Matthew
A. Goldberg, DLA Piper LLP, Matthew A. Holian, DLA Piper LLP &
William F. Kiniry, Jr., DLA Piper LLP.

David Antellocy, Defendant, is represented by Thomas Eric Loeser,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Scott Moen, Defendant, is represented by Peter B. Fredman, Law
Office of Peter Fredman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Bay Ridge Volvo-American, Inc, Defendant, is represented by
Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC.

Audi Aktiengesellschaft, Defendant, is represented by Matthew
Henry Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP.

VW Credit, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Cheryl A. Bush,
Bush, Seyferth & Paige, PLLC.

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Defendant, is represented by
Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP.

Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey business entity,
Defendant, is represented by LARRY M ROTH, LAW OFFICES OF LARRY M
ROTH PA.

Volkswagen of America Group, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Allison Rachel McLaughlin, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP & Patricia
Rodriguez Britton, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP.

Jonathan Jaffe, Defendant, is represented by Robert Stephen Arns,
The Arns Law Firm.

Kathleen Parler, (case no. 15-cv-5952), Defendant, is represented
by William Carlos Parler, Jr, Parler and Wobber LLP.

William C. Parler, Jr., (case no. 15-cv-5952), Defendant, is
represented by William Carlos Parler, Jr, Parler and Wobber LLP.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, is represented by Julia B.
Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.

Volkswagon of America Chattanooga Operation, LLC, Defendant, is
represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Andrew
Brian Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis & Stuart A Drake, Kirkland and
Ellis LLP.

Thornton German Imports, LLC, doing business as Don Thornton
Volkswagen of Tulsa, Defendant, is represented by Colin Hampton
Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, James Michael
Reed, Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson, John T Richer,
Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson, John H Tucker, Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable & Kerry R Lewis, Rhodes Hieronymus
Jones Tucker & Gable.

Michael Horn, Defendant, is represented by David Schertler,
Schertler and Onorato LLP & Lisa Manning, Schertler and Onorato
LLP.

Mark McNabb, Defendant, is represented by Lanny A Breuer,
Covington and Burling LLP, Mark P. Gimbel, Covington and Burling
LLP & Michael Sochynsky, Covington and Burling LLP.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Cari K. Dawson, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Marianne Roach Casserly, Alston
& Bird LLP & Stephanie A. Jones, Alston & Bird LLP.

Andrew M. Knoernschild, Defendant, is represented by Bryan L.
Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Francis J. Rondoni, Chestnut
Cambronne, PA & Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut & Cambronne.

Volkswagen Group of America Incorporated, Defendant, is
represented by Amanda Emily Heitz, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Curtis
James Busby, Bowman & Brooke LLP & Paul Gerard Cereghini, Bowman
and Brooke LLP.

Volkswagen of North Attleboro, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Andrew R Levin, Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, PC & David A.
Barry, Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen.

Mark McNabb, Defendant, is represented by Lanny A Breuer,
Covington and Burling LLP, Mark P. Gimbel, Covington and Burling
LLP & Michael Sochynsky, Covington and Burling LLP.

Paul Beard, Defendant, is represented by Natasha A. Naraghi, Law
Offices of Alexander M. Schack.

John Vodonick, Defendant, is represented by Emil John Vodonick,
The Vodonick Lawfirm & Michael Vance Nudelman, Law Office of
Michael Nudelman.

                           *     *     *

Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that notably absent
from the steering committee was John Quinn of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, whose firm filed its suits alongside Hagens
Berman.

The report says Judge Breyer's decision followed a marathon
hearing on Jan. 21 in which more than 100 lawyers appeared in
person to request a leadership position.  Ms. Cabraser, a veteran
plaintiffs lawyer, was among 150 attorneys vying for roles in the
case.  Roughly 50 sought to serve as lead counsel or to chair the
steering committee.

The contest is one of the largest in class action history, and the
spectacle on Jan. 21 in the ceremonial courtroom in the San
Francisco federal courthouse seemed to have no precedent.  Every
seat in the gallery was packed shoulder-to-shoulder. Lawyers stood
in the aisles and streamed into the hall.

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy's Frank Pitre, who had the seat at
plaintiffs counsel table closest to the podium, said he arrived 75
minutes early for the hearing.  Ms. Cabraser said she'd never seen
anything like it and Mr. Boies agreed.  Stephen Toll of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll said Judge Breyer's job was like
"selecting the Dream Team."

Judge Breyer appointed Mr. Pitre to the steering committee, but
Mr. Toll did not make the "dream team."  Nor did former
presidential candidate John Edwards, an attorney at Edwards Kirby
in North Carolina, whose bid had drawn some attention.  The
committee includes lawyers from 13 states, with California and New
York most heavily represented.

The judge said that as part of his vetting process he called
fellow jurists across the country who have seen some of the
candidates in action.  The appointments, he wrote, are personal to
the individual attorney and those lawyers are personally
responsible for their duties.

"I don't pick law firms, I pick lawyers," Judge Breyer had advised
the group at the hearing, which lasted nearly five hours.

Judge Breyer attempted to keep things moving at the Jan. 21
hearing.  He asked lawyers to come up in groups of 10 and allowed
each just two minutes to make his or her pitch.  With a member of
the courtroom staff resetting a digital clock after each
presentation, most stopped well short of the buzzer.

The judge managed to pay close attention to most of the attorneys,
greeting them, making eye contact and thanking them for their
presentations.  And a few of the speakers became targets of Judge
Breyer's quick wit.

When John Hennan, a young lawyer from Billings, Montana, spoke,
Judge Breyer quipped, "There aren't many cars in Montana" to
laughs from the gallery.  Mr. Hennan replied that there might be
more lawyers in the courtroom than in his entire state. When
another Montanan later pitched, Judge Breyer cracked "Who's
practicing law there today?"

Joseph Russoniello, the former U.S. attorney for the Northern
District of California, received the most prolonged ribbing,
though.  "Your application to join the steering committee would be
premised on the fact that the case" is resolved before the next
presidential inauguration, the judge remarked, suggesting that
Mr. Russoniello could be up for a third appointment to the post
should a Republican win the election.

"It takes at least a year to be confirmed," Mr. Russoniello shot
back.

The judge offered a handful of clues about who might be up for a
leadership post over the course of the hearing.  Judge Breyer said
that geographical diversity would be a consideration and mentioned
that he would give some priority to lawyers in states where there
are lots of plaintiffs.

In what might have been a subtle tip-off, Judge Breyer greeted
Ms. Cabraser by name as she walked up to the podium and didn't
stop her when she went over the allowed time.

Before the leadership pitches, Judge Breyer introduced Robert
Mueller III, the former FBI director and current Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr partner whom he appointed to help guide
the parties' settlement talks.  Judge Breyer called Mueller "the
key" to settlement and asked counsel for VW at Sullivan & Cromwell
and Herzfeld & Rubin to cooperate with him fully.

Judge Breyer said the VW MDL is "obviously not a whodunit kind of
case."

"It is more of a case of how can we fix what was done and if it
can't be fixed how to get fair compensation" to those affected, he
said.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Mathis" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Mathis and Tiffany Nelson on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OF AG, AUDI AG, DR.
H.C.F., AG and Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. Case 4:15-cv-05691-DMR (N.D. Cal., December 11, 2015), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in the form of a
recall or replacement of affected vehicles as well as costs,
restitution, damages, disgorgement and penalties and other relief
in breach of warranties of implied warranty and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices
Act and Washington Consumer Protection Act.

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

Mathis bought a used 2014 Volkswagen Jetta with a 2.0L TDI engine
in Seattle, Washington in May, 2015 while Tiffany Nelson leased a
similar car in Brookfield, Wisconsin in August, 2013.

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

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

Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing under
German law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt,
Germany and is a 99.55% owned subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group
and manufactures luxury vehicle under the Audi brand.

Porsche AG is an automotive company under the Volkswagen Group
organized and existing under German law, with its principal place
of business in Stuttgart, Germany. It manufactures luxury sports
cars under the Porsche brand.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Porsche AG that sells Porsche vehicles in the United States and is
based in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      Ryan J. McEwan, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 500-6800
      Fax: (415) 395-9940
      Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
             rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com

           - and -

      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      James W. Anderson, Esq.
      Ian F. McFarland, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tel: (612) 338-4605
      Fax: (612) 338-4692
      Email: vesades@heinsmills.com
             janderson@heinsmills.com
             imcfarland@heinsmills.com

           - and -

      Joseph J. DePalma, Esq
      Bruce Greenberg, Esq
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Tel: (973) 623-3000
      Fax: (973) 623-0858
      Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
             bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

           - and -

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
      211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 750-1265
      Fax: (312) 212-5919
      Email: kcarroll@litedepalma.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Henley" Suit Moved to N.D. California MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Henley v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00734, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-
cv-05669-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 Henley case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 liter
diesel engines sold by defendants Volkswagen Group of America,
Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when official emissions
testing occurs. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R Smith, Esq.
          SMITH LAW
          700 W 31st St Ste 408
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          E-mail: david@dsmith-law.com

               - and -

          George E. Kapke Jr., Esq.
          Erin D. Lawrence, Esq.
          KAPKE & WILLERTH, LLC
          3304 NE Ralph Powell Rd.
          Lee's Summit, MO 64064
          Telephone: (861) 461 3800
          Facsimile: (861) 254 8014

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Lawrence, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
          700 W. 31st Street, Suite 473
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 200 2598
          E-mail: jlawrence@jsl-lawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John W. Cowden, Esq.
          David M. Eisenberg, Esq.
          BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE, LLC
          2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2533
          Telephone: (816) 471 2121
          Facsimile: (816) 472 0288E
          E-mail: cowden@bscr-law.com
                  eisenberg@bscr-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bonda" Suit Transferred to N.D. California MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bonda v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-13419, 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-05659-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 Bonda case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 liter
diesel engines sold by defendants Volkswagen Group of America,
Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when official emissions
testing occurs. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G Shapiro, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER AND URMY, LLP
          Two Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439 3939
          E-mail: TSHAPIRO@shulaw.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: "Triplett" Suit Moved to N.D. California MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Triplett v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-00076, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, 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-05727-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 Triplett case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 liter
diesel engines sold by defendants Volkswagen Group of America,
Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when official emissions
testing occurs. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq.
          Nicholas A. DiCello, Esq.
          Peter H. Weinberger, Esq.
          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          William B. Eadie, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER
          1001 Lakeside Avenue E, Ste. 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696 3232
          Facsimile: (216) 696 3924
          E-mail: dlansdowne@spanglaw.com
                  ndicello@spanglaw.com
                  sscott@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Jerry M. Miniard, Esq.
          MINIARD & ASSOCIATES
          6614 Dixie Highway
          Florence, KY 41042
          Telephone: (859) 525 1900
          Facsimile: (859) 525 1433
          E-mail: jmm@miniardlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Brewitt" Suit Transferred to MDL 2672
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brewitt et al. v. Volkswagen AG et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01223, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
05711-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 Triplett case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 liter
diesel engines sold by defendants Volkswagen Group of America,
Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when official emissions
testing occurs. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Wallace Stanley, Esq.
          Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          211 North Union Street, Suite 100
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (202) 789 3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789 1813

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth Abrams, Esq.
          McGuire Woods LLP
          Gateway Plaza
          800 East Canal Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775 4771
          Facsimile: (757) 640 3950

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Farmer" Suit Moved to N.D. California MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Farmer v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00615, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
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-05712-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 Farmer case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 liter
diesel engines sold by defendants Volkswagen Group of America,
Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when official emissions
testing occurs. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian A Jenkins, Esq.
          MINNILLO & JENKINS CO., LPA
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 723 1600
          Facsimile: (513) 723 1620
          E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345 8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345 8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Robert Brent Sherwood, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER & GROH, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345 8291
          Facsimile: (513) 361 1201
          E-mail: rsherwood@gs-legal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hugh J Bode, Esq.
          REMINGER & REMINGER CO LPA
          1400 Midland Building
          101 Prospect Avenue West
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 687 1311
          E-mail: hbode@reminger.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bustamante" Suit Moved to N.D. California MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bustamante et al. v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09278, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
05668-CRB to the proceeding.

The Defendant allegedly breached its express warranty by providing
a product containing defect.

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 Farmer case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 liter
diesel engines sold by defendants Volkswagen Group of America,
Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when official emissions
testing occurs. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George E. Kapke Jr., Esq.
          KAPKE & WILLERTH, LLC
          3304 NE Ralph Powell Rd.
          Lee's Summit, MO 64064
          Telephone: (861) 461 3800
          Facsimile: (861) 254 8014

               - and -

          David R Smith. Esq.
          SMITH LAW
          700 W 31st St Ste 408
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          E-mail: david@dsmith-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David M. Eisenberg, Esq.
          John W. Cowden, Esq.
          Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC
          2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2504
          Telephone: (816) 448 9343
          Facsimile: (816) 472 0288
          E-mail: eisenberg@bscr-law.com
                  cowden@bscr-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Youngblood" Suit Over Emission Test
------------------------------------------------------------
John Youngblood, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Defendants., Case 3:15-cv-05624-EDL
(N.D. Cal., December 10, 2015), seeks enjoinment, restitution
and/or disgorgement, compensatory damages, punitive damages and
attorney's fees in violation of the Manuson-Moss Warranty Act 15
U.S.C. Sec. 2301 et seq., Violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sec. 1750 et seq. and the
California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph P. Russoniello, Esq.
      BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
      101 California Street, Suite 1225
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 391-7100
      Fax: (415) 391-7198
      Email: jrussoniello@bgrfirm.com
             pcrosby@bgrfirm.com

     - and -

      Peter W. Ross, Esq.
      Michael Bowse, Esq.
      Elena Nutenko, Esq.
      BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
      2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 274-7100
      Fax: (310) 275-5697
      Email: pross@bgrfirm.com
             mbowse@bgrfirm.com
             enutenko@bgrfirm.com


WALMART STORES: Recalls Rival Griddles Due to Shock Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Walmart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Ark., announced a voluntary
recall of about 330,000 Rival brand griddles. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The heating element can crack and water can get inside, posing a
shock hazard when the griddle is plugged into an electrical
outlet.

This recall involves Rival brand electric griddles with model
number XJ-14207. The griddles are black and measure 20 inches long
by 10.5 inches wide. "Walmart" and the model number are printed on
a label molded into the bottom of the griddle. "Rival" is printed
on the outside edge of the griddle and on the griddle's
temperature dial.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Walmart stores nationwide and online at Walmart.com from July 2015
through December 2015 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the recalled
griddles and return them to any Walmart store for a full refund.


WALT DISNEY: Recalls Infant Bodysuits Due to Chocking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, of Lake Buena Vista, Fla.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 10,000 Darth Vader and
Disneyland 60th infant bodysuits. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The snaps on the bodysuits can detach, posing a choking hazard to
young children.

This recall involves two styles of infant one-piece bodysuits with
a three snap button closure.  The garments are 100 percent cotton.

The Darth Vader Infant Bodysuits were sold in five sizes: 3M, 6M,
12M, 18M and 24M.  The garment has a gray body with black sleeves
and trim. The artwork on the front of the bodysuit shows an infant
Darth Vader holding a light saber with the text: "If you only knew
the power of THE DARK SIDE."

The Disneyland 60th Infant Bodysuits have a light blue body with
royal blue sleeves and trim.  The artwork on the front of the
bodysuit includes Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Donald Duck and Pluto in
front of the Disneyland Castle. The Disneyland 60th bodysuits were
sold in four sizes: 6M, 12M, 18M and 24 M. The text on the front
of the garment reads "60th Disneyland Resort, Diamond
Celebration."

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/6Kmub7

The recalled products were manufactured in Guatemala and sold at
Walt Disney World(R) Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida,
Disneyland(R) Resort in Anaheim, California, the Treasure Ketch
Shop on the Disney Wonder(R) and Mickey's Mainsail located on the
Disney Magic(R), Disney Dream(R) and Disney Fantasy(R) cruise
ships from February 2015 through November 2015 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled infant
bodysuits and contact Walt Disney Parks and Resorts for
instructions on returning the bodysuits for a full refund.


WALTER ENERGY: $25MM Accord in Securities Case Awaits Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The $25 million settlement reached among the remaining parties in
a securities class action that also involved Walter Energy, Inc.,
remains pending and awaits final blessings from the court, Walter
Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy and some of its current and
former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are:
Keith Calder, Walter Energy's former CEO; Walter Scheller, Walter
Energy's current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former
President of Walter Energy's Canadian and U.K. operations
(collectively the "Individual Defendants"). The complaints were
filed by Peter Rush and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of
Walter Energy who each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy
shareholders who purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and
September 21, 2011.

These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The
complaints further allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934
Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
1934 Act.

On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re
Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also
appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public
Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C.
Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead
plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for
the consolidated action.

On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint in this action. The consolidated amended
complaint names as an additional defendant Joseph Leonard, a
current director and former interim CEO of Walter Energy, in
addition to the previously named defendants. Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 4, 2012.

On January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion without
prejudice. Defendants answered the complaint on February 15, 2013.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on August 15,
2013.

On March 18, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification without prejudice to refiling and rebriefing and
stayed this litigation pending a decision by the United States
Supreme Court in Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund,
Inc. ("Halliburton II"). Following the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Halliburton II on June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification on August 29, 2014.
Defendants' filed their opposition on October 28, 2014, and
Plaintiffs' Reply was filed on January 30, 2015.

On May 14, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification without prejudice. All other deadlines have
been stayed by the Court.

On June 12, 2015, the court issued a stipulated order dismissing,
without prejudice, all claims brought against Walter Energy.

On July 15, 2015, the remaining parties in the securities class
action executed a settlement agreement which resolves all claims
for $25.0 million. The settlement payment will be funded by the
Company's Directors and Officers liability insurance policy.

On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement and the settlement is subject
to court approval.


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Noncompliance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets Inc., a Rochester, N.Y. establishment, is
recalling approximately 1,125 pounds of chicken products that were
produced without the benefit of federal inspection, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The chicken items were produced on Jan. 3, 2016. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- Approximately 1-lb. vacuum-sealed packages containing
      "Wegmans Italian Flavored Chicken Breast Cutlet" with a
      use- by date of 1/24/2016.
  --- Approximately 1-lb. vacuum-sealed packages containing
      "Wegmans Brown Sugar Barbecue Seasoned Chicken Breast
      Cutlet" with a use-by date of 1/15/2016.
  --- 3-lb. vacuum-sealed packages containing "Wegmans Garlic &
      Fennel Whole Chicken Roaster" with a use-by date of
      1/13/2016.
  --- 1-lb. vacuum-sealed packages containing "Wokery Sherry
      Chicken 27482" with use-by date of 1/13/2016.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. or
P-7567" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to distribution and retail locations in Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during a
review of establishment records. The inspector found that the
establishment changed their production schedule, producing these
products outside the approved hours of operation.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be returned to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions about the recall should call Wegmans
Consumer Affairs Department at 1-(800)-934-6267, ext. 4760. Media
with questions can contact Jo Natale, Vice President of Media
Relations, at 585-429-3627.


WEST ELM: Recalls Saddle Bar, Counter Stools Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
West Elm, a division of Williams-Sonoma, Inc., of San Francisco,
announced a voluntary recall of about 6,000 (in addition, about
100 were sold in Canada) Saddle bar and counter stools. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The legs on the stools can break, posing a fall hazard.

The Saddle bar and counter stools have solid wood legs with a
pecan-stained finish and were sold in four upholstery options:
elephant leather, crosshatch steel/ivory, slate chevron and iron
basketweave. The seat height for the bar stools is 30.5 inches
with overall dimensions of 20.5 inches wide by 20 inches deep by
41 inches tall. The seat height for the counter stools is 26
inches with overall dimensions of 20.5 inches wide by 20 inches
deep by 37.5 inches high. SKU numbers are located on the box of
the product, the customer receipt and on a sticker on the bottom
of the seat. Recalled SKU numbers are:

  SKU       Type            Color
  ---       ----            -----
  652164    Counter Stool   Elephant Leather
  655472    Bar Stool       Elephant Leather
  1220763   Bar Stool       Iron Basketweave
  1235506   Bar Stool       Iron Basketweave
  1425487   Counter Stool   Iron Basketweave
  1591601   Counter Stool   Iron Basketweave
  1699289   Counter Stool   Slate Chevron
  1700749   Bar Stool       Slate Chevron
  1795665   Bar Stool       Slate Chevron
  1795566   Counter Stool   Slate Chevron
  4737185   Bar Stool       Elephant Leather
  4737318   Counter Stool   Elephant Leather
  8447229   Counter Stool   Crosshatch Steel/Ivory
  8447476   Bar Stool       Crosshatch Steel/Ivory
  9082843   Bar Stool       Crosshatch Steel/Ivory
  9087271   Counter Stool   Crosshatch Steel/Ivory

The firm has received six reports of the stools breaking,
including one injury.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at West
Elm stores, online at www.westelm.com and the West Elm catalogue
nationwide from July 2013 through November 2015 for between $370
and $500 for single stools and between $740 and $1,000 for a set
of two.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled stools and
contact West Elm for information on returning the stools for a
full refund. West Elm is contacting known customers directly.


ZULILY INC: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Zulily Inc., of Seattle, announced a voluntary recall of about 450
Children's Pajamas. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pajamas do not meet the federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries.

This recall involves six styles of Lilli Lovebird girls' two-
piece, long-sleeve, striped pajama sets. The pajamas are 95
percent cotton and 5 percent elastane, and were sold in sizes 4
through 12. The long-sleeve pajama tops have a sewn-on pocket in
the shape of a heart located on the center front. The pajamas came
in pink and white stripes with a red heart; dark pink, gray and
white strips with a pink heart; green, red and white stripes with
a red heart; light purple and white stripes with a pink heart;
steel gray and white stripes with a red heart; and Christmas red
and white striped with a green heart.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/s2Z7Ta

The recalled products were manufactured in Mauritius and sold at
Zulily.com from November 2015 through December 2015 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately take the sleepwear away from children
and contact Zulily for instructions on returning the product for a
full refund. Zulily is notifying consumers directly about the
recall.


* 401(K) Plan-Related Class Actions Surge in 4th Quarter 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blaine F. Aikin, writing for Investment News, reports that all
eyes may be on the Labor Department's fiduciary rule, but don't
forget the courts.

Eleven major class-action lawsuits were filed in federal courts
around the country against 401(k) sponsors or providers of
retirement products in the fourth quarter of 2015.  All involve
alleged fiduciary breach claims of, among other things, excessive
fees benefiting service providers in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Most of the defendants are industry brand names, including
Allianz, BB&T, Deutsche Bank, Fidelity, Insperity, New York Life,
Prudential, Putnam and TIAA-CREF. All of the suits seek class-
action status and millions of dollars in damages.

While Congress, the DOL and the Securities and Exchange Commission
define the boundaries for fiduciary advice and shape its contours,
it's the court system where the rubber meets the road and factual
issues are sorted out.  The courts play a critical role in
articulating what the fiduciary standard means in practical terms.
In a crucial recent case in point, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed
an ongoing fiduciary duty to monitor investment options in Tibble
v. Edison.

The most recent wave of suits hearkens back 10 years to an earlier
surge of excessive fee cases.  Although some of those cases were
thrown out, others survived and met success at the appellate court
level, resulting in multimillion-dollar settlements.

This time around, it appears that the plaintiffs' bar has honed
cases based on their experience of what has worked in the past and
are making more sophisticated arguments.  For example, some of the
suits allege that plan fiduciaries acted imprudently by not
considering the lower costs of collective trusts or even separate
accounts or used inappropriate benchmarks to make the disputed
investment option appear more competitive, and argue that per
participant record-keeping costs were unreasonable.

High-profile lawsuits should not escape the attention of
fiduciaries, especially those serving large plans, which are
typically the focus of litigation.  While the current filings all
involve claims of unreasonable fees, a deeper vetting of fiduciary
issues in the courts provides case study material on specific
areas that warrant elevated attention.

Stable value funds, long a staple of many 401(k) plans and popular
for providing higher returns than money market funds, are one type
of investment option being placed under the microscope.  One of
the more common complaints is that the product providers are
retaining unreasonable fees.

One of the suits argues that defendants were using a
"microscopically low-yielding money market fund" without
considering a stable value option.  But once added, plaintiffs
argued it was an imprudent selection.

Revenue-sharing between service providers is another target in the
new wave of litigation. Although legal, the practice does raise
red flags. Participants argue, in some cases, that payments bore
no relationship to the services offered.

Target date funds are an area that some observers believe will be
the next frontier in litigation.  One of the December suits
involves proprietary funds that participants claim were "untested
. . . with no performance history" and were added to the plan only
days after their inception. Participants argue that the absence of
a performance history "is wholly contrary to the most basic
prudent fiduciary practices."

Fiduciary status is also being brought into dispute, with
participants arguing for the broadest interpretation.  There is
some speculation that the mid-2000s wave of fee litigation and
questions about fiduciary accountability caught the DOL's
attention and contributed to its decision to propose the initial
fiduciary rule in 2010 as well as other fee disclosure rules.

The final DOL rule will not impact the current cases, but
certainly will raise questions of whether the expanded definition
of a fiduciary will make it easier to snare other service
providers with fiduciary accountability if and when the rule goes
into effect.

While all of this sounds like horrible news for ERISA fiduciaries,
it is important to keep in mind that these cases are generally
hard for plaintiffs to win if sound fiduciary practices are in
place.

ERISA does not judge investment performance in hindsight, so some
of the arguments over imprudent selection may easily fail.  Courts
also have been unreceptive to arguments attempting to assign
fiduciary accountability to service providers that do not exercise
discretion or render specific investment advice.

The cases that have been won generally involve egregious fiduciary
breaches such as using retail classes of funds for plans that
could easily have chosen directly comparable institutional shares.
Wasting plan assets in this way is clearly imprudent.

Responsible plan fiduciaries, including retirement plan advisers,
should make sure they have their bases covered.  Understand
fiduciary obligations imposed in law and regulation.  Have and
follow a sound investment policy statement and plan governing
documents.  Perform rigorous investment and service provider due
diligence and monitor these selections.  Don't waste plan money by
incurring unnecessary expenses.  Be alert to conflicts of interest
and mitigate them in the investors' interest.  Document all
decision-making processes.

Prudent practices not only provide a solid defense, they prevent
litigation in the first place.

Blaine F. Aikin is executive chairman of fi360 Inc.


* Department Stores in Calif. Face False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Belgum, writing for California Apparel News, reports that
California shoppers are filing a flurry of class-action lawsuits
against big-name department stores over markdowns allegedly made
on "false" original prices.

The lawsuits are putting retailers on high alert about how they
discount their merchandise and for how long they sell their goods
at full price before putting them on the bargain rack.

The most recent of these cases was filed in early January against
Macy's Inc. and its Bloomingdale's subsidiary.  In the lawsuit
filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Kristin Haley said
she bought a Lennox ornament in December for $17.99 at a Macy's in
San Rafael, Calif.  Ms. Haley maintained in court papers she
bought the ornament at a 70 percent discount because she thought
it was a great bargain after she saw the original price was listed
at $60.  However, the suit claims that the ornament was never sold
for $60 at Macy's or at any other retailers.

Ms. Haley also paid $17.25 for a dress at Macy's that allegedly
had a full retail price of $69.  Ms. Haley said this was not the
prevailing market price and was false advertising.

In the same class-action lawsuit, Sylvia Thompson said she bought
a Beautyrest mattress at a Macy's in Florida for half the original
listed price of $5,089.  According to the lawsuit, the product did
not sell at that original price of $5,089 and because of that
Thompson was damaged.

In the Macy's class-action lawsuit, the plaintiffs are asking for
$5 million in damages. Macy's has yet to file any legal documents
defending itself.

These class-action suits may seem frivolous on the surface, but
they can get expensive.  In November, JCPenney said it would make
available $50 million in cash or store credit to settle a class-
action lawsuit that accused the retailer of deceiving customers
into thinking they were getting big discounts on certain items.

The JCPenney lawsuit was filed in 2012 on behalf of California
shoppers who bought private-label and exclusive branded products
between November 2010 and January 2012.  In the class-action case
of Cynthia Spann v. JCPenney, which was filed in Los Angeles, the
plaintiffs claimed that JCPenney routinely marked down items from
an inflated price that was never really in effect.

Lead plaintiff Spann claimed that on March 5, 2011, she bought
three blouses from Penney's private brand East Fifth because the
items were advertised at $17.99, a 40 percent discount from their
original $30 price.  According to court documents, Ms. Spann later
found out that the blouses had not been sold for the original
price during the three months prior to her purchase.

JCPenney denied the allegations but said resolving the litigation
removed any uncertainty and risk, which was in the best interest
of the shareholders.

These kinds of lawsuits come at a time when many outlet stores
have multiplied but no longer just sell damaged or slow-moving
merchandise once sold at the nameplate's full-priced stores.

"I think these lawsuits are happening now because when outlets and
discount stores originally existed, they were selling seconds,"
said attorney Staci Riordan, who heads the fashion law team at
Nixon Peabody in Los Angeles.  "When retailers realized how
profitable the outlets were, they started making clothes
especially for those stores but didn't always change their
practice of labeling prices."

Sarah Bruno -- sarah.bruno@arentfox.com -- an attorney with Arent
Fox, has been monitoring these cases for some time.  "I think
these cases are more compelling than other class-action lawsuits
because the deception alleged has a dollar amount attached to it,"
she said.  "You are more capable of establishing harm when you say
you thought you were saving $20 but you weren't."

Ms. Bruno recommends that retailers develop a system to monitor
price changes.  "What they have to think through is who is
providing them the basis for the pricing and do they have a system
in place internally to develop the pricing they are advertising,"
she said.  "This can be an easy fix, but the process of learning
about it can be painful."

Ms. Riordan said retailers can keep reports that show their sell-
through and at what prices they were sold.  "They need to keep
that for a period of time," she said.  "If it is true they sold it
at full price, there shouldn't be a problem. But they should have
the records to support that position."

California's rules governing pricing are more stringent than
federal rules.  The Federal Trade Commission stipulates that
products have to be sold at regular prices for a "significant
amount of time" before going on sale.

In California, stores must sell the items at the "prevailing
market price" for a three-month period before putting them on
sale.  The more specific California regulation is the reason so
many of these class-action lawsuits are being filed in California.

In July, Kohl's was slapped with a class-action lawsuit filed by
two women in the San Diego area.  Wendy Chowning said she was
shopping at a Kohl's in Oceanside, Calif., where she bought a
Jennifer Lopez dress for $21.  Its full price was listed at $70.
In court documents, Ms. Chowning said she thought the prevailing
full price of the dress during the three months prior to her
purchase "was materially lower than $70" and she was duped by
false advertising.

The other plaintiff in the case, Lourdes Casas, said she bought an
Apt. 9 men's shirt at a Kohl's store in Chula Vista, Calif., for
$18.40 -- the reduced price on the $46 shirt.  Ms. Casas, in court
papers, said she "relied upon and was motivated by Kohl's
advertisements, statements and omissions concerning the value of
the shirt and would not have made said purchase absent the
advertisements."

Other lawsuits have been filed in the last few years in California
against retailers T.J. Maxx, Burlington Coat Factory and Nordstrom
Rack.  A U.S. District Court recently rejected Nordstrom's motion
to dismiss the case filed in San Diego.


* Employers Face Uncertainty in Obtaining Class Action Waivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emre M. Polat, Esq. -- empolat@pbnlaw.com -- of Porzio Bromberg &
Newman PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that despite
reversal of its decisions by the United States Courts of Appeals,
the National Labor Relations Board (the "NLRB") has ended the year
by sending a message that it is not backing down from its rulings
prohibiting employers from attempting to have employees waive the
right to pursue class action claims.  This showdown bears watching
in 2016.

In late December 2015, the NLRB issued 16 rulings finding that
employers violate the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") when
they impose agreements that require employees to waive the right
to pursue class actions and collective actions involving
employment claims.  Although the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit ("Fifth Circuit") reversed and ruled against
the NLRB's decisions in two similar cases, the NLRB appears to be
ignoring those decisions.

The NLRB first ruled on the issue of class action waivers in the
D.R. Horton case in 2013.  In that case, the NLRB ruled that an
employer that requires employees to sign an agreement that
includes an arbitration clause that precludes employees from
filing a joint, class, or collective claim violates the NLRA.  The
Fifth Circuit reversed that decision, finding that the NLRB's
decision violated the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") which
requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to
their terms, subject to limited exceptions.  Despite this clear
ruling from the Fifth Circuit, the NLRB again found in the Murphy
Oil case that the employer violated the NLRA by including a class
action waiver.  On appeal, the Fifth Circuit, again, reversed the
NLRB's decision in Murphy Oil.

Although the employer in Murphy Oil sought a ruling to hold the
NLRB in contempt for ignoring the Fifth Circuit's previous
decision in D.R. Horton, the Fifth Circuit declined to make such a
ruling on the basis that the NLRB might not know which circuit
court's law will be applied to its cases throughout the nation.

Thus, despite the Fifth Circuit's rejection of the NLRB's rulings
striking down class action waivers in D.R. Horton and in Murphy
Oil, the NLRB appears to remain undeterred.  The NLRB's view is
that mandatory waiver of class action claims through arbitration
infringes upon the protected rights of employees to engage in
concerted activity, regardless of what the Fifth Circuit has to
say about it.

This year, the Fifth Circuit will rule for the third time on the
NLRB's decision in a class action waiver case.  Notably, in 24
Hour Fitness, although the employer included a class action waiver
in its agreements, it did not make employment conditional upon
agreement to the waiver.  Instead, the employer allowed the
employees to opt-out of the arbitration clause within a certain
window of time.  Despite the opt-out provision, the NLRB
nonetheless found that the employer violated the NLRA because it
required employees to give up their right to engage in a protected
activity.

Barely acknowledging that the Fifth Circuit reversed its last two
decisions reaching the same conclusion, the NLRB continues to rule
that employers commit an unfair labor practice by maintaining and
enforcing an arbitration policy that requires employees, as a
condition of their employment, to resolve all claims against the
company through individual arbitration.  Several other cases in
which the NLRB ruled on class action waivers are pending appeal in
the Eighth Circuit and Ninth Circuit.

It appears the NLRB may welcome rulings on the validity of class
action waivers in federal appeal courts beyond the Fifth Circuit,
thus raising the real possibility of a circuit split and
eventually a decision by the United States Supreme Court. For this
reason, the effectiveness of class action waivers in reducing
legal exposure for employment claims remains uncertain.

TAKEAWAY FOR EMPLOYERS

The NLRB appears unlikely to change course unless and until it
receives clear direction from the Supreme Court.  Employers that
impose mandatory arbitration agreements upon its employees with
class action waivers, and those considering adopting such waivers,
should consider and evaluate this legal uncertainty.  Although the
NLRB continues to rule against such waivers despite the Fifth
Circuit rulings, the Supreme Court may eventually step in and
provide certainty in this regard.

* Employment-Related Class Actions Hit record High in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Cook Ramirez, writing for Human Resource Executive Online,
reports that American employers faced a record number of class-
action lawsuits in 2015, with more than 1,300 rulings across the
nation.  The financial risks of such cases are enormous, with the
monetary value of employment-related class-action settlements
reaching an all-time high in 2015.  The top 10 settlements alone
totaled nearly $2.5 billion, according to the 12th Annual 2015
Workplace Class-action Litigation Report, released earlier this
month by Chicago-based law firm Seyfarth Shaw.

The last several years have been transformative in class-action
and collective-action litigation involving workplace issues, says
Gerald Maatman, Jr., partner and co-chair of the Complex
Discrimination Litigation Practice Group at Seyfarth Shaw.
There's been virtually a complete turnaround from the collective
"sigh of relief" that resulted from the landmark 2011 Dukes v.
Walmart, in which 1.5 million women sued the retail giant for back
pay.  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Walmart, changing the
standards by which lawyers could certify class-action lawsuits and
giving employers cause to celebrate -- that is, until the last
couple of years.

"For the first couple of years, as Dukes began to take hold and
impact selection of case theories, types of cases, and litigation
filings, a lot of people thought class-action law had become pro-
defense and anti-plaintiff," says Mr. Maatman.  "It came home to
roost in 2015 that is no longer true and the manner in which cases
are brought has changed such that the plaintiff's bar is now
enjoying success in bringing, prosecuting and settling cases."
Alas, the Supreme Court is no longer viewed as solely pro-
business.  According to the Seyfarth Shaw report, "it has created
a complex tapestry of both pro-worker and pro-business rulings
through which employers must carefully thread the needle."  At the
same time, Mr. Maatman says, there has emerged a "push-the-
envelope agenda" by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Department of Labor and National Labor Relations Board, emboldened
by the Obama administration.

In 2015, the EEOC was involved in three Supreme Court cases that
brought significant implications for employers -- EEOC v. Mach
Mining (gender discrimination); EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores
(religious discrimination); and Young v. UPS (pregnancy
discrimination) -- according to Barry A. Hartstein, co-chair, EEO
and diversity practice group at Littler Mendelson in Chicago.

Under both the Equal Pay Act and the Age Discrimination Act, the
EEOC has authority to direct an investigation even when a charge
has not been filed by an employee.  All these factors have
combined to create a "perfect storm when it comes to wage-and-hour
litigation," according to Mr. Maatman.

All indications point to this year resulting in an even greater
number of employment-related lawsuits. Fortunately, a number of
clear themes have emerged that may help HR executives direct their
efforts in order to mitigate their organization's risk:
Continued Scrutiny of Hiring Policies and Practices: Recent
litigation has focused on criminal history, but the EEOC has been
closely scrutinizing other pre-employment hiring practices, such
as testing and assessments.

Expansion of Pregnancy Discrimination Claims: EEOC guidance issued
in the aftermath of the Young v. UPS ruling makes it clear that
failing to accommodate pregnant employees may expose employers to
ADA claims, based on temporary disability caused by pregnancy.

Evolution of Religious Discrimination Claims: The scope of
reasonable accommodation for religious practices has the potential
to impact grooming and appearance policies, as well as requested
time-off policies.

Broad Interpretation of LGBT Rights in the Workplace: The EEOC has
announced its intentions to protect workers from discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity by defining
such discrimination as an allegation of sex discrimination under
Title VII.  "The EEOC is actively looking for cases to push their
arguments about the scope of Title VII," says J. Randall Coffey --
rcoffey@laborlawyers.com -- a partner in the Kansas City office of
Fisher & Phillips LLP.  "They will be trying to find cases they
can use as a vehicle to convince courts to adopt their view."

Increased Scrutiny of Independent Contractor Classification:
Pointing to the 2015 Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System
independent contractor misclassification case that resulted in a
$228 million settlement, Mr. Maatman predicts a significant
increase in "copycat cases" in 2016.  "If you are labeling people
as independent contractors and not paying them benefits or
overtime, but otherwise treating them as employees, you may owe
them back pay or benefits," he says.

The average cost of defending an organization against an employee
lawsuit tops $150,000, says Mr. Maatman.  A class-action lawsuit
results in an even greater expenditure.  And if the court rules in
favor of the employees -- or the employer decides to settle -- it
can be a "bet-the-company" scenario with the potential to bankrupt
the business, he says.  Therefore, it's incumbent upon HR to take
any steps necessary to resolve an employee's issue internally,
before he or she hires an attorney or turn to a government agency.

Employers can avoid becoming the target of a class-action lawsuit
or EEOC investigation by keeping tabs on what kinds of claims are
being levied, says Mr. Coffey.  Focusing on the "hot spots" helps
HR stay ahead of the curve, reducing the risk of costly
litigation.

"The smartest thing an HR executive can do is take a look at the
EEOC's strategic enforcement plan because it's a roadmap to which
specific areas the agency is going to focus its enforcement
activities on," says Mr. Coffey.  "If you have concerns about
whether you are in compliance with the law, you can scrutinize the
list to make sure your policies and practices are up to snuff."


* New Law Brings Changes to Class Action Rules in Quebec
--------------------------------------------------------
Vincent de l'Etoile, Esq. -- vincent.deletoile@langlois.ca -- of
Langlois Lawyers LLP, reports that with the coming into force of
the new Code of Civil Procedure on January 1, 2016, some
interesting changes have been made to the rules governing class
actions in Quebec.

Nearly 40 years after the introduction of the class action into
Quebec law and more than 10 years after the last major revision of
the rules pertaining to it, the d‚but of the New Code of Civil
Procedure (the "NCCP") is bringing about some interesting changes
that will have an impact on current practices in this area of the
law.

While the essence of the current class action regime, the
authorization test and the procedural rules pertaining to such
disputes remain unchanged, the rights of the parties take on some
new aspects and some new concepts are introduced with the NCCP.
The new class action provisions are set out in articles 571 to 604
of the NCCP.

Some of the changes tend to harmonize Quebec's class action regime
with that of the other Canadian provinces and will bring Quebec
closer in line with certain common law jurisdictions in that
respect.

The major changes and innovations in the class actions area
brought in by the NCCP are summarized below.  They are listed as
they appear numerically in the new Code, and not by order of
importance.

Class Membership for Legal Persons, Partnerships and Associations
Employing More Than 50 Employees (Article 571 NCCP / Article 999
current CCP)

Currently, legal persons, partnerships and associations that had
more than 50 people in their employ during the 12 months prior to
the filing of a motion for authorization to institute a class
action cannot be class members.

The NCCP does away with this exclusion, such that any legal
person, partnership or association will now be able to a member of
the class action group, and consequently eligible to act as
representative of the group.

The possibility for large corporations to be members of a class
action could give rise to alternative remedies not geared towards
awarding monetary damages to individuals, and could lead to
increases in quantum.

Setting up a Website (Article 576 NCCP / Articles 1004 and 1005
current CCP)

In the judgment authorizing a class action, the Court may now
order that a website be set up to make information on the class
action available to members.  The NCCP does not specify who shall
bear the costs associated with the website.

Concurrent Multijurisdictional Class Actions (Article 576 NCCP)

The NCCP affords greater protection to the rights and interests of
Quebec residents in connection with multijurisdictional class
actions.

Courts can no longer suspend an action instituted in Quebec on the
grounds that the Quebec class members are covered by an action
pending outside the province.  The Court is now required to have
regard for the protection of the rights and interests of Quebec
residents when such a motion for suspension is filed.  The Court
may also authorize another representative to carry on the proposed
class action involving the same subject matter if it is convinced
that the class members' interests would thus be better served.

The interaction between these new provisions and those of the
Civil Code of Quebec on international lis pendens and the
recognition of foreign judgments will be of great interest.

Respondent's Right of Appeal of a Judgment Authorizing a Class
Action (Article 578 NCCP / Article 1010 current CCP)

This is probably the most significant development for class
actions under the NCCP.  The respondent may now appeal the
judgment authorizing the class action, with leave from a judge of
the Court of Appeal.

The test for granting leave is not defined in the NCCP, so the
Court of Appeal's initial rulings on this point are going to be
highly anticipated.

A judgment denying authorization can still be appealed as of right
by the Petitioner.

Notifying Class Members (Article 579 NCCP / Articles 1006 and 1046
current CCP)

The NCCP provides for the possibility of notifying members
individually of the authorization of the class action.  This is a
much more direct and personalized mode of notice, provided of
course that the class members have been identified.

Disbursements of the Representative (Articles 593 and 598 NCCP)
Hitherto not allowed by the courts, the disbursements of the
representative plaintiff in connection with the class action may
now be recovered through an indemnity awarded by the Court, in
addition to court costs and lawyers fees.  All of the foregoing
are payable out of the amount recovered at the outcome of the
class action.

Generally speaking, the case law pertaining to the current class
actions regime should continue to apply, mutatis mutandis, under
the NCCP.

The new provisions, however, promise to yield interesting
jurisprudential developments, which are sure to give litigants and
practitioners new ways and means to navigate the waters of Quebec
class actions law.

Langlois Lawyers LLP - Vincent de l'Etoile, Esq. --
vincent.deletoile@langlois.ca -- in Montreal, Canada.




                            *********

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  * * *