CAR_Public/160129.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, January 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 20


                            Headlines


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Dismissed from "Frank" Litigation
1EIGHTY LABS: Faces Fraud Class Action in Louisiana
AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Amended Complaint Filed in "Kelley" Suit
AEROTEK INC: Wins Summary Judgment in Misclassification Suit
ALLMAX NUTRITION: Court Trims Suit Over Dietary Supplements

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Physicians Healthsource Case Still Open
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Settlement in Illinois Suit Wins Final OK
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Stay of "Loyd" Action Sought
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone 4s Issues
ARC DOCUMENT: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement

AURORA BEHAVIORAL: Ruling in Suit Over Labor Practices Reversed
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Awaits Ruling from Arizona Supreme Court
BANKRATE INC: Bids to Dismiss Fla. Class Suit Pending
BANKRATE INC: Amended Complaint Filed in "Johnson" Case
BCB BANCORP: Scheduled to Pay $1.95MM Settlement in December

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Expects Final Settlement Approval in FY2016
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: To Seek Dismissal of "Zamir" Case
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Settles "Guzman" for Immaterial Amount
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Settles "Cavazos" for Immaterial Amount
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Settles "Coleman" for Immaterial Amount

BUFFALO BILLS: Ex-Cheerleaders' Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
CALUMET SPECIALTY: "Wolfe" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
CALUMET SPECIALTY: "Niver" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
CHATHAM LODGING TRUST: Affiliate Defending "Martinez" Class Suit
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Trial in "Wolf" Set for March 2016

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Students File Norovirus Class Action
CJ AMERICA: Judge Tosses MSG Class Action Settlement
CLUB CAR: Recalls Golf and Transport Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
CNOVA NV: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
CNOVA NV: March 21 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

COMSCORE INC: Bid to Consolidate Rentrak Merger Suits Filed
CONSTANT CONTACT: "McGee" Class Suit in Early Stages
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Judge Certifies Class Suit on Hep A Outbreak
COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Universal Stapler Handles
DANSON DECOR: Recalls Indoor Mini Light Sets Due to Fire Hazard

DEOLEO CANADA: Recalls Olive Oil Products Due to Spoilage
DODGE: Recalls DART 2013 and 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Dismissal of Securities Action Under Appeal
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Defending Antitrust Class Action
EHEALTH INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit

ELKHART COACH: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
EMPIRE STATE: Class Action Appeal Underway
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Defending "Machado" Class Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Class Actions Over Regency Deal Still Pending
ENERNOC INC: Del. Court Approved Merger Class Suit Settlement

EOS: Laws on "Natural" Product Claims Too Lax, Doctor Says
EXXON MOBIL: Appeals Court Hears Arguments in Class Action
FANDUEL INC: Lawyers Want Judge Scheindlin to Oversee Class Suit
FIFTH STREET: March 7 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
FIRST NATIONAL COMMUNITY: "Antonik" Parties in Settlement Talks

FIRST NATIONAL COMMUNITY: "Saxe" Parties in Settlement Talks
FITBIT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Heart Rate Monitor Results
FLINT, MI: Jeb Bush Blames Regulations for Water Crisis
FLINT, MI: Residents Express Concern Over Tainted Water Bill
FRESENIUS KABI: Recalls Propofol Injection

FRESH EXPRESS: Voluntarily Recalls 350 Cases of Baby Spinach
FRIENDLY FINANCE: S.D. Ohio Judge Narrows "Rose" Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Both Side Seek to Halt Ignition Switch Trial
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge's Comments May End Ignition Switch Trial
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls GMC & Chevrolet 2016 Models

GELATO FRESCO: Updates Recall on Toasted Hazelnut Dairy Ice
GELATO FRESCO: Updates Recall on Toasted Hazelnut Dairy Ice
GIRARDIN: Recalls Buses with Ricon Wheelchair Lift
GIRARDIN: Recalls G5 School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
GLEN ECHO: Updates Recalls on Inverloch Cheeses from Scotland

GLOBE SPECIALTY: To Settle Merger Class Suit for $32.5MM
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: SLC Clears D&Os from Shareholder Claims
GOPRO INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action in California
GROUP O: Court Decertifies "Creal" Overtime Suit
GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit

HARPERCOLLINS: Recalls Children's Books Due to Mould
HEADLINE PROMOTIONAL: Recalls Blazer Reflector Safety Light
HEARTWARE INT'L: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
HONDA: Sued Over Soy-Based Electrical Wiring
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Magnesium Sulfate Injection

INNERWORKINGS INC: Court Trims Van Noppen Class Suit
INSULET CORP: Still Defends Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys. Case
IPC HEALTHCARE: MOU Reached in Merger Class Suit
IXIA: Calif. Securities Class Suit Settles for $3.5-Mil.
JAYCO: Recalls Starcraft 2016 Models Due to Fire Hazard

KENNETH MCELWEE: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit
KERMIT INC: Recalls Barbeque Sauces Due to Soy & Anchovies
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Accord in Suit v. Gentive D&Os Has Final OK
KONA BICYCLE: Recalls Kona Wo Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
LABORATOIRE RIVA: Recalls Calcium + Vit. D  Tablets

LADENBURG THALMANN: Plaintiffs in ARCP Suit Must Amend Complaint
LIONSGATE: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Concealed SEC Probe
MADISON SQUARE: Settlement in Suit v. NHL Has Final Approval
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Oral Arguments Held on Bid to Dismiss
MANNKIND CORP: March 15 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

MDL 1950: Remaining Parties Reach Settlements
MDL 2295: PRA Group Still Defends TCPA Suits
MDL 2308: 1,112 Personal Injury Cases over Toning Shoes Pending
MDL 2672: 25 Class Suits v. Volkswagen et al. Transferred
MICHAELS STORE: Federal Judge Kills Data Breach Class Suit

MILKY WAY: Recalls Mandarin Oranges Light Syrup Due to Glass
MIMEDX GROUP: Consolidated Class Action in Discovery Phase
MODEL SERVICE: Plaintiffs Can Sue COO Ivers, Court Says
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit by Nashville Hospital
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend C&J Energy Merger Suit

NAT'L FOOTBALL: 3rd Cir. Tosses Ticket Pricing Class Action
NAT'L HOCKEY: Judge Orders Unsealing of Email in Concussion Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in Shareholder Suit
NAUGATUCK VALLEY: Amended Complaint Filed in Shareholder Suit
NISKA GAS: Consolidated Amended Complaint to be Filed

NV ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Solar Program Conspiracy
NV ENERGY: PUC Issues Decision on Rooftop Solar Customer Rates
OOMA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
PACIFIC PREMIER BANCORP: To File Demurrer in "Parshall" Suit
PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Pizza Delivery Fee Taxes

PEOPLES BANCORP: Expects Appeals Court Ruling after Q2 2016
PERRIGO COMPANY: Recalls Guaifenesin Grape Liquid
PET VALU: Ontario Court Dismisses Franchisee's Class Action
PHARMERICA CORPORATION: Settlement of Pines Nursing Suit Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Class Action Finally Goes to Jury Trial

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Class Suits Seek Damages over 2015 Oil Spill
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Investors Sue over Oil Spill
QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Case Proceeds as Class Suit
R THOMAS: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Sildenafil
RAMS: Faces Class Action Over Seat Licenses

RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Ruling May Spurt Arbitration Clause Changes
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Defending "Levin" Class Action in New York
RETROPHIN INC: Filed Reply Briefs in Support of Dismissal Bid
ROCKET FUEL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Defending Lanier Trust Case

SANOFI: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Meitav Amended Complaint
SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Faces FLSA Class Action in Louisiana
SERVICESOURCE INT'L: No Class Status Bid Filed in "Weller"
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Fraud, Breach of Contract Suit Dismissed
SHAKTI GROUP: Recalls Asafoetida Powder Due to Salmonella

SIGNATURE RETAIL: Court Sends "Castaldi" FLSA Suit to Arbitration
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Grabowski/Morga Accord to Resolve "Tomlinson"
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Grabowski/Morga Accord to Resolve "Boatright"
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Settlement Funds Distributed in "Angell" Case
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Angell Settlement to Resolve "Cooper" Action

SKECHERS U.S.A.: Finalized Deals with 460 LASC Case Plaintiffs
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Deals Reached with Counsel for 2,650 Claimants
ST. LOUIS, MO: Municipalities Sued Over Florissant Court Fees
STATOIL USA: Faces Class Action Over Lease Royalty Calculations
STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Suit Will Have Merits Discovery

SUNTRUST BANK: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Overdraft Suit
SUPERVALU INC: Minn. Judge Dismisses Consolidated Data Breach Suit
SYMETRA FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in "Stein" Class Suit
TC PIPELINES: Defending Suit by St. Louis Retirement System
TESCO CORP: Discovery to Commence in Overtime Suit

TOWERJAZZ: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action
TRUGREEN INC: Averts TCPA Class Action, Compels Arbitration
TWITTER INC: Edelson Drops Wiretapping Class Suit
UDR INC: Sued for Recording Phone Calls Without Consent
UNITED STATES: Approval of "Haggart" Settlement Reversed

UTAH: Sued for Indigent Public Defense System
VECTREN CORPORATION: Defending Class Suit by SIGECO Employees
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: South Koreans to File Class Suit in US
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Greenwald Named to Plaintiff's Steering Panel
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Has Kept Leadership Amid Emission Suits

WAL-MART STORES: Judge Orders Reinstatement of 16 Former Workers
WALT DISNEY: Laid Off Workers Sue Over H1-B Visa Abuse
WILLBROS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Restatement Pending
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Denies Liability in "Epstein" Case
ZILLOW INC: Judge Rejects Proposed Class Settlement

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Parties in "Reyes" Case in Settlement Talks

* Canadian Courts Criticize Copycat Credit Card Class Actions
* Law Firms Among Top Campaign Donors to State Sup. Ct. Justices
* Securities Class Suits Highest Since 2008, NERA Study Says
* Stock Market Volatility May Spur Securities Class Actions
* Ohio Shuts Down Sebring Schools Over Tainted Tap Water Concerns


                      Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Continues to Face Suits in California
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Continues Settlement Payments Talks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Appeals Lift of Stay on D/C Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Land Has 2,000 Personal Injury Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lawyers Pursue Global Settlement of Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Settlement Proceedings Concluded in "Arnold"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Supreme Court Allows Railway Co. to Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Grant in "Segroves" Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Discovery in "Terry" to Resume
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Wong Takes Over as SF Presiding Judge

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Jailed, Fined for Infractions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Lecturer With Mesothelioma Fails in Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clearwater Found Liable for Settlement Billings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Dies from Cancer After Years of Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Cases on Rise, StatsCan Says

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Engineer Dies Due to Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Couple Taking Host of Defendants in Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Blames Lung Cancer on Goodyear Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont, MetLife Named in Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP3.2MM Paid Out in Council Compensation Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintshire Worker Dies of Asbestos Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Patient Sues Range of Firms Over Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Senator Schumer Rallies to Block FACT Act
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Trial Ends in Deal with Crane Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seaford Railway Line Embroiled in Controversy

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Firm Accuses Lawyers of Racketeering
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 12 Canada Schools Revealed to Fail Asbestos Test
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heights High Renovation Uncovers More Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Authority Withdraws Appeal in NY PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CAS's Junked from Zurich Suit vs. Midwest


                            *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Dismissed from "Frank" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiff
in the case, In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. (Frank v.
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., et al), has filed a Stipulation
dismissing the Company from this litigation with prejudice.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an
action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction
marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries
previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors.

On December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice.
The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the
case in its entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and
numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to
assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the
lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek
to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek
restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0
million.

On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were consolidated
with a third case previously pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut in which the Company is not
a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated amended
complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012, purporting
to assert claims substantially similar to those originally
asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently refiled at
the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action
voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as
defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to
those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank
Action").

On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a
motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed on December 5,
2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company intends to defend
each of these actions vigorously.

On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause
directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel
for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the
Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such
that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action
doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank
Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to
the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the
Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action.

On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa
Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending,
for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants
filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting
that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines.

On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing
of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the
Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several
causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations
stemming from Trilegiant's refund mitigation strategy and a claim
for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the
Frank case into the Consolidated Action. On April 28, 2014
plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal the various rulings against
them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
and to have a partial final judgment entered dismissing those
claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. The Company filed its
Answer to the Complaint on May 12, 2014.

On March 26, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' motions that led
to the parties engaging in discovery.

On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff who sued the Company in this
action, David Frank, filed a Stipulation dismissing the Company
from this litigation with prejudice. The Company paid no monies to
David Frank, or any of his attorneys to resolve this action.


1EIGHTY LABS: Faces Fraud Class Action in Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
Jefferson Parish man says the company he hired to prepare his
divorce petition and related documents, 1Eighty Labs, illegally
did so because it is not licensed to practice law in the state of
Louisiana.

Anthony Lowery filed a class-action lawsuit Jan. 14 in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against
1Eighty Labs Inc., alleging fraud.  The class includes those using
the service since 2006, the suit states.

According to the complaint, 1Eighty Labs charges customers $299 to
prepare legal documents for divorces using answers litigants input
into the company's website, completecase.com.  However, the suit
says the service constitutes a null contract under state law
because the defendant is not licensed to practice in Louisiana.
On that basis, and because the website allegedly misrepresents its
ability to prepare legally valid documents, the suit seeks a
refund for all who have used the service.

Lowery and the other plaintiffs admitted to the class seek damages
in excess of $5 million.  They are represented by two New Orleans
attorneys: Roberto L. Costales of the Costales Law Office and
William H. Beaumont of William H. Beaumont Law.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:16-cv-00352


AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Amended Complaint Filed in "Kelley" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an amended
class action complaint has been filed the case, Kelley et al. v.
Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

A putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Kelley et al.
v. Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03007,
was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on April 29, 2015. An amended complaint was filed on
September 28, 2015 on behalf of a purported class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between June 25, 2014 and April 23,
2015.

The amended complaint asserts claims under the Exchange Act and
alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements or omitted allegedly material information during that
period related to, among other things, the prospects of the
Company's initial Phase 3 registration trial of RhopressaTM, named
"Rocket 1," and RhopressaTM.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the action are
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, and
the Company expects to incur costs associated with defending the
action. In addition, the Company has various insurance policies
related to the risks associated with its business, including
directors' and officers' liability insurance policies. However,
there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its
defense of the action, and there is no assurance that the
Company's insurance coverage, which contains a self-insured
retention, will be sufficient or that its insurance carriers will
cover all claims or litigation costs. At this time, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Due
to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot
reasonably predict the timing or outcomes, or estimate the amount
of loss, or range of loss, if any, or their effect, if any, on the
Company's financial statements.


AEROTEK INC: Wins Summary Judgment in Misclassification Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted Defendant's
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, ANDREW DRAKE,
Plaintiff, v. AEROTEK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-216-BBC
(W.D. Wis.).

Defendant Aerotek, Inc. is an international staffing company
providing technical, professional and industrial recruiting and
staffing services to customers throughout the United States,
Canada and Europe. Plaintiff Andrew Drake is a former recruiter
for defendant who worked in defendant's office in Madison,
Wisconsin. As a recruiter, plaintiff earned considerably more than
$700 a month. In addition to his salary, he received commissions
based on the weekly spread between the contractor's salary and the
client's payment to defendant.

Plaintiff contends, in part, that he and the other class members
who worked as recruiters of employees for defendant Aerotek,
Inc.'s client companies had been misclassified as exempt employers
and thereby deprived of the pay they had earned for overtime work,
in violation of Wisconsin statutes and the Wisconsin
Administrative Code. Plaintiff asserted jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2), alleging that the matter in controversy
exceeded $5,000,000, every class member was a citizen of Wisconsin
and defendant was a citizen of Maryland.

In June 2013, plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the
Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, alleging that
defendant had misclassified him as an exempt employee and claiming
that he should have been paid overtime for his recruiting work. A
department investigator accepted written position statements from
both parties and rendered an initial determination that plaintiff
did not meet the test for an administrative exemption under the
Wisconsin regulations. The investigator found that plaintiff was
not entitled to any relief because he could not prove he had
worked more than 40 hours in any work week. Having made this
determination, she closed her investigation. Both parties appealed
the preliminary determination but plaintiff withdrew his
administrative complaint before the review could be held.

In the motion, defendant moved for summary judgment with respect
to plaintiff's recruiter claim.

In her Opinion and Order dated January 7, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/4WhiX7from Leagle.com, Judge Crabb concluded that
defendant classified him properly as an administrative employee
under both the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(1),
and the Wisconsin Payment and Collection Law.

Andrew Drake is represented by Heath P. Straka, Esq. --
straka@gcllawyers.com -- Paul A. Kinne, Esq. --
kinne@gcllawyers.com -- Robert John Gingras, Esq. --
gingras@gcllawyers.com -- GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE, S.C., John C.
Mitby, Esq. & Michael J. Modl, Esq. -- lniebuhr@axley.com -- AXLEY
BRYNELSON, LLP

Aerotek, Inc. is represented by John S. Battenfeld, Esq. --
jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Joyce Elaine Taber, Esq. --
jtaber@morganlewis.com -- Lincoln O. Bisbee, Esq. --
lbisbee@morganlewis.com -- Thomas F. Hurka, Esq. --
thurka@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & Kendall W.
Harrison, Esq. -- jdobie@gklaw.com -- GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.


ALLMAX NUTRITION: Court Trims Suit Over Dietary Supplements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, TODD SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ALLMAX NUTRITION, INC. AND HBS INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
Canadian corporations, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-00744-SAB
(E.D. Cal.).

On May 14, 2015, Plaintiff brought a consumer class action on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated who purchased
the dietary supplement Allmax Nutrition IsoFlex from Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants designed, manufactured,
warranted, advertised and sold the Products throughout the United
States, and that Defendants continue to do so. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants included added complexes that make false claims to
entice consumers to choose the Products over competitors' products
in a competitive business environment.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) violation of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violation of the
California False Advertising Law; (3) violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) breach of
express warranty.

Plaintiff brought the action individually and as a representative
on behalf of a National Class and a California Subclass, which are
defined as (1) National Class: "All persons in the United States
who purchased the Products at any time during the four years
before the date of filing of this Complaint to the present." and
(2) California Subclass: "All persons in the State of California
who purchased the Products at any time during the four years
before the date of filing of this Complaint to the present."

Defendants move to dismiss the claims against Defendant Allmax
based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and all claims
as to both Allmax and HBS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (12)(b)(6). They assert that the Court does not have
personal jurisdiction over Defendant Allmax; Plaintiff fails to
state a claim because the claims are preempted by the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA") and the FDA's regulations;
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for unjust enrichment; and
Plaintiff fails to state a claim on behalf of a nationwide class
for the unjust enrichment and express warranty claims.

In the Order dated December 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/rJFKQTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Boone found that at the
pleading stage Plaintiff has alleged a plausible claim for
mislabeling due to the absence of L-arginine, L-glutamine, and L-
taurine in IsoFlex and Plaintiff's claim that IsoFlex's label's
statement that the "Glutamine Complex" improves recovery and
immunity support is not preempted. The Court also concluded that
Plaintiff's complaint is devoid of any factual allegations from
which the Court could plausibly find that California contract law
would apply to any individual who purchased the Product outside of
California.

The Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
ten days from the date of the order.

Todd Smith is represented by Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC & Tina Wolfson, Esq. --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.

Defendants are represented by Joshua Hawkes Lerner, Esq. --
jlerner@durietangri.com -- Michael H. Page, Esq. --
mpage@durietangri.com -- Ragesh K. Tangri, Esq. --
rtangri@durietangri.com -- Sarah Elizabeth Stahnke, Esq. -
sstahnke@durietangri.com -- DURIE TANGRI LLP


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Physicians Healthsource Case Still Open
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that no
trial date has been scheduled in a class action lawsuit filed by
Physicians Healthsource, Inc.

"On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. filed a class
action complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois against us," the Company said. "The complaint alleges
that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we
or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec.  227 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of
the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be
willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief.
Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been scheduled."


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Settlement in Illinois Suit Wins Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
settlement in a securities class action in Illinois has won final
court approval.

"On May 2, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us; Glen
Tullman, our former Chief Executive Officer; and William Davis,
our former Chief Financial Officer, by the Bristol County
Retirement System for itself and on behalf of a purported class
consisting of stockholders who purchased our common stock between
November 18, 2010 and April 26, 2012," the Company said.

In April 2015, the Court granted a motion for preliminary approval
of the class settlement in this lawsuit and on July 21, 2015, the
Court approved the settlement and entered a final judgment binding
on members of the class, minus stockholders who excluded
themselves from the settlement, including certain entities
affiliated with HealthCor Management, L.P.

"We do not believe we will incur a material loss in excess of a
recorded accrual with respect to this matter," the Company said.


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Stay of "Loyd" Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California has stayed
the proceedings in the Oglina action because it is related to the
pending securities class actions. Counsel are also seeking a stay
in the Loyd action for the same reason.

On May 8, 2015 and May 14, 2015, purported stockholders of the
Company brought two putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court in the Central District of California,
Napoli v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03474-TJH and Stein v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-03640-TJH (the "Securities Class Actions"), alleging
that Ampio and certain of its current and former officers violated
federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting
information regarding the STEP study. The lawsuits seek
unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 6, 2015 and September 25, 2015, purported stockholders
of the Company brought derivative actions in the United States
District Court in the Central District of California, Oglina v.
Macaluso et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05970-TJH-PJW ("Oglina action")
and the Colorado state court in Denver, Loyd v. Giles et al., Case
No. 2015CV33429 ("Loyd action"), alleging primarily that the
directors and officers of Ampio breached their fiduciary duties
because of their alleged misstatements and/or omissions regarding
the STEP study.

The United States District Court in the Central District of
California has stayed the proceedings in the Oglina action because
it is related to the pending Securities Class Actions. Counsel are
also seeking a stay in the Loyd action for the same reason.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend these lawsuits vigorously.

"We currently believe the likelihood of a loss contingency related
to these matters is remote and, therefore, no provision for a loss
contingency is required," the Company said.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone 4s Issues
---------------------------------------------------
Emily Henderson, writing for Jewocity, reports that one person
filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple because his iPhone 4s
became so slow that it pressured him to spend hundreds of dollars
on a new iPhone.  Here is why you have to update your iDevice to
iOS 9.2.1 now.

"The new vulnerability identified by Skycure involves the way iOS
handles cookie stores when dealing with captive portals", said
Skycure co-founder and CTO Yair Amit in a blog post.

Skycure says that this is the longest it has ever taken for Apple
to fix an issue they have reported to the company, but that the
fix was much more complicated than it would be for a typical bug.
This was possible as the user accessed a Wi-Fi network hosted by a
potential attacker.  Using this vulnerability, an attacker could
steal only unencrypted HTTP cookies, whereas most important Web-
based services (such as webmail and online banking) use encrypted
HTTPS instead.  By doing so, the attacker can then impersonate the
victim's identity on the chosen site.

The user can then browse the Web normally, once accepted. However,
Apple managed a fix in iOS 9.2.1, giving cookies of captive
portals their own isolated cookie store, preventing it from
gaining direct access to your Safari's browser cookie store.

Most notably, the firmware upgrade resolves a security bug that
researchers first reported to Apple in the summer of 2013, back
when Macklemore topped the charts and the Atlanta Braves were not
bad at baseball.

Although a minor update, iOS 9.2.1 focuses on security updates and
bug fixes rather than flashy new apps and tools.

What the update doesn't fix, however, is the battery percentage
indicator problem.

As well as a borderless display, the concept also shows off
features of Apple's next generation operating system, iOS 10.
Apple promises that it is already working on a solution to resolve
this issue.


ARC DOCUMENT: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
ARC Document Solutions, Inc. is awaiting final court approval of
the settlement in a class action lawsuit, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who
work or worked for American Reprographics Company, L.L.C. and
American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any
time from October 21, 2006 through the present, filed an action
against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Orange. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to (i)
provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof,
(ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that those
practices also violate the California Business and Professions
Code. The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the
court deems proper.

On March 15, 2013, the Company participated in a private mediation
session with claimants' counsel which did not result in resolution
of the claim. Subsequent to the mediation session, the mediator
issued a proposal that was accepted by both parties.

The Company has received preliminary court approval of the
settlement, and awaits final court approval.

The Company has a liability of $1.1 million as of September 30,
2015 related to the claim, which represents management's best
estimate based on information available.


AURORA BEHAVIORAL: Ruling in Suit Over Labor Practices Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that a recent ruling out of California shows that overtime
practices that appear perfectly legal on first glance can give
rise to liability if their cumulative impact pressures employees
to work off the clock.

In a ruling issued in October 2015, the California Court of
Appeal, Second Appellate District certified a class action brought
by nurses against Aurora Behavioral Health Care, which runs
psychiatric hospitals in Southern California.  The nurses allege
they were understaffed and required to remain at posts until
relieved, as well as finish work tasks before leaving at the end
of a shift.  This meant regularly skipping meal and rest breaks
and working off the clock.

The lower court didn't certify the class action, ruling that the
decision to work off the clock was a personal choice of the
employees.  But on appeal, the judge held that "such a 'choice' is
impermissible under California law."

What's most interesting about the ruling, says Brian Van Vleck of
Van Vleck, Turner & Zaller, is that, standing alone, Aurora's
practices seemed legal.  "Maintaining scheduled hours, expecting
employees to meet minimum production requirements, and requiring
advance approval to work overtime are not illegal practices," says
Mr. Van Vleck.  But when taken together, depending on the
situation, "their cumulative effect communicates an implied
expectation for employees to under-report their work time."


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Awaits Ruling from Arizona Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Supreme
Court of Arkansas was slated to rule in mid-November or December
of 2015 in an appeal related to a class action lalwsuit against
Bank of the Ozarks.

On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a
summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit
Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert
Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.
and Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on
December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and
complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV-12-6043.

The complaint in each case alleges that the Company and/or Bank
have harmed the plaintiffs, current or former customers of the
Bank, by improper, unfair, and unconscionable assessment and
collection of excessive overdraft fees from the plaintiffs.
According to the complaints, plaintiffs claim that the Bank
employs sophisticated software to automate its overdraft system,
and that this system unfairly and inequitably manipulates and
alters customers' transaction records in order to maximize
overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a practice of posting
of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the actual sequence in
which such items are presented for payment. Plaintiffs claim that
the Bank's deposit agreements with customers do not adequately
disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment policies and are
ambiguous, deceptive, unfair, and misleading. The complaint in
each case alleges that these actions and omissions constitute
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The complaint in the Walker case also includes a
count for conversion. Each of the complaints seeks to have the
cases certified by the court as a class action for all Bank
account holders similarly situated, and seeks a declaratory
judgment as to the wrongful nature of the Bank's overdraft fee
policies, restitution of overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and
the putative class (defined as all Bank customers residing in
Arkansas) as a result of the actions cited in the complaints,
disgorgement of profits as a result of the alleged wrongful
actions, and unspecified compensatory and statutory or punitive
damages, together with pre-judgment interest, costs, and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration in the Walker case. The trial court denied the motion
and found that the arbitration provision contained in the
controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable
and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the
result of unequal bargaining power. The Company and Bank appealed
the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on an
interlocutory basis.

On September 18, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Arkansas Court
of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case
to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order compelling
arbitration. On October 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed petitions
for reconsideration and review before the Arkansas Court of
Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court, respectively. On October 30,
2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
petition for reconsideration.

In January 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the
plaintiff's petition for review. Oral arguments were presented to
the Arkansas Supreme Court on May 1, 2014. On May 15, 2014, the
Arkansas Supreme Court vacated the Arkansas Court of Appeals'
decision, reversing and remanding the case to the trial court to
determine, in the first instance, whether there is a valid
agreement to arbitrate disputes between the named plaintiffs and
the Bank.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted by the trial court on the
arbitration issue on October 1, 2014, and the trial court took the
matter under advisement. On October 30, 2014, the trial court
issued an order once again denying the Company and Bank's motion
to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The trial court ruled that
the Consumer Deposit Account Agreement containing the arbitration
provision was not enforceable because of a lack of mutual
agreement and lack of mutual obligation. The Company and Bank have
appealed the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court on
an interlocutory basis.

The Company and Bank filed their initial appellate brief on April
14, 2015. The plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on May 14,
2015, and the Company and the Bank filed their reply brief on May
29, 2015. The Arkansas Supreme Court has determined that oral
arguments are unnecessary. A ruling from the Arkansas Supreme
Court was expected in mid-November or December of 2015.

The Plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the
proceedings in that case pending the outcome of the appeal in the
Walker case. The Company and the Bank believe the Plaintiffs'
claims in each of these cases are unfounded and subject to
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.


BANKRATE INC: Bids to Dismiss Fla. Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that certain individual
and underwriter defendants in a Florida class action lawsuit have
filed motions to dismiss the case against them.  Those motions
remain pending.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in
federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors. The suit, captioned The City of
Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-81323-DMM,
alleges, among other things, that the Company's 2011, 2012, and
2013 financial statements improperly recognized revenues and
expenses and therefore were materially false and misleading, and
seeks relief (including damages) under the federal securities laws
on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons, other
than the defendants, who purchased the Company's securities
between October 16, 2012 and September 15, 2014, inclusive.

On February 23, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which asserts claims against the Company, certain
officers and directors of the Company, entities associated with
Apax Partners, the underwriters of the Company's March 2014 stock
offering, and the Company's independent registered public
accountant, alleging that the Company's 2011, 2012, and 2013
financial statements were materially false and misleading and that
the Company sold securities in March 2014 pursuant to a
registration statement and prospectuses in violation of federal
securities law. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and rescission or rescissionary damages.

On March 9, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Other named defendants, including the Company's accountant, the
underwriter defendants, and the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer, Edward J. DiMaria, have each filed separate and
additional motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Those motions
are pending.

Pursuant to a notice of voluntary dismissal submitted by the lead
plaintiff, the Apax Defendants were terminated from the action on
April 23, 2015. The action is in its preliminary stages and the
Company is not able to predict its outcome. The Company cannot
presently estimate the amount of loss, if any, that would result
from an adverse resolution of this matter.

Two earlier lawsuits making similar allegations, captioned Tong v.
Evans, et al., No. 14-cv-81183-KLR (S.D. Fla), and Atiyeh v.
Evans, et al., No. 14 Civ. 8443 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y), were voluntarily
dismissed by their respective plaintiffs.


BANKRATE INC: Amended Complaint Filed in "Johnson" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an amended
complaint was filed in the case, Johnson v. Bankrate, Inc.

On June 16, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit styled Johnson
v. Bankrate, Inc. was filed against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) and seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief and
attorney's fees. The plaintiff alleged that the Company contacted
her and members of the class she seeks to represent on their
cellular telephones without their prior express written consent
and seeks to certify a nationwide class of individuals on that
basis. The same day she filed her complaint, plaintiff filed a
motion seeking an order certifying a class, but the court has
stayed it pending the completion of discovery.

On October 30, 2015, an amended complaint was filed adding a
second named plaintiff, making the same allegations as the
original complaint, and seeking certification of the same proposed
class and the same relief as the original complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Company
cannot presently estimate the amount of loss, if any, that would
result from an adverse resolution of this case.


BCB BANCORP: Scheduled to Pay $1.95MM Settlement in December
------------------------------------------------------------
BCB Bancorp, Inc. anticipated paying the $1,950,000 settlement in
a class action lawsuit by December 15, 2015, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

The Company, as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in its
own corporate capacity, is a named defendant in a shareholder
class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery
Division, General Equity (the "Action").

On May 9, 2012, the Company and the other defendants obtained
partial summary judgment, dismissing three of the five Counts of
the plaintiff's Complaint. On May 9, 2012, plaintiff's counsel was
awarded interim legal fees of approximately $350,000. The
obligation to pay that amount has been stayed.

The Company and the other defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking the dismissal of the remaining two Counts of the
plaintiff's Complaint. That motion was denied, without prejudice,
on February 19, 2014.

On September 21, 2015, the court entered an Order and Final
Judgment ("Judgment"). Pursuant to the Judgment, the Stipulation
of Settlement ("Stipulation") agreed to by the plaintiff class,
the Company and the remaining defendants was approved. In
consideration for the full settlement and release of all Released
Claims (as that term is defined in the Stipulation) and the
dismissal of the Action with prejudice as against the Company and
the remaining defendants, the Company, on its own behalf and on
behalf of the remaining defendants, will pay $1,950,000.00 to the
Class. It is anticipated that the aforesaid settlement amount will
be paid by December 15, 2015.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Expects Final Settlement Approval in FY2016
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company expects the court to grant final approval of a securities
class action settlement during fiscal year 2016.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July
6, 2012.

A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court
by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar allegations
against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine. The
Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012.

On July 26, 2012, another purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the same court by David Stein against the
same defendants based upon the same general set of allegations and
class period. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek
unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees' Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs.

A consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013. On
September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to Ashford
University's quality of education, the WSCUC accreditation process
and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied the motion
to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning Ashford
University's persistence rates.

"Following the conclusion of discovery, in September 2015, we
entered into an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to
settle the litigation for $15.5 million, which we believe will be
funded by our insurance carriers," the Company said. "The
settlement agreement is subject to final approval by the Court,
which we expect to occur during fiscal year 2016."


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: To Seek Dismissal of "Zamir" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company anticipated filing a motion to dismiss in the case, Nelda
Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys'
fees.

On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel.

On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar
amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming
from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended complaint also
names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg
Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus
Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action and
anticipates filing a motion to dismiss in November 2015. However,
the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise.
Based on information available to the Company at present, it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Settles "Guzman" for Immaterial Amount
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in the case, Betty Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,
have entered into an agreement to settle the case for an
immaterial amount.

In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaint is captioned Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,
et al. and generally alleges that the defendants engaged in
misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to
recruit and retain students. The complaint asserts a putative
class period of March 1, 2005 through the present.

In March 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was granted by the Court with leave to amend in
October 2011.

In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss. In May 2012, the Court
granted University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and granted
in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by the
Company and Ashford University. The Court also granted the
plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

In August 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period. The second
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement
of all profits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys'
fees. The defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the
second amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in
part.

On April 30, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which was denied by the Court on March 26, 2015. On
April 9, 2015, the plaintiff filed a petition for permission to
appeal the denial of class certification with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied by the
Court of Appeals on June 9, 2015.

On October 13, 2015, the parties entered into an agreement to
settle the case for an immaterial amount and have filed a
stipulation with the Court to dismiss the case with prejudice.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Settles "Cavazos" for Immaterial Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in the case, Cavazos v. Ashford University, have entered
into an agreement to settle the case for an immaterial amount.

On June 22, 2015, Diamond Cavazos filed a purported class action
against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Diamond
Cavazos v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various
wage and hour claims under California law for failure to pay
overtime, failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest
and meal breaks. The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits,
penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as
well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

Before responding to the complaint, the parties entered into an
agreement to settle the case for an immaterial amount and have
filed a stipulation with the Court to dismiss the case with
prejudice.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Settles "Coleman" for Immaterial Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in the case, Coleman et al. v. Ashford University, have
entered into an agreement to settle the case for an immaterial
amount.

On June 4, 2015, Brandy Coleman and a group of seven other former
employees filed a purported class action against Ashford
University in the Superior Court of the State of California in San
Diego. The complaint is captioned Brandy Coleman v. Ashford
University, LLC and generally alleges violations of the California
WARN Act for back pay and benefits associated with the termination
of the plaintiffs' employment in May 2015. The lawsuit seeks
unpaid wages, penalties and interest on behalf of the putative
class members, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys'
fees.

Before responding to the complaint, the parties entered into an
agreement to settle the case for an immaterial amount and have
filed a stipulation with the Court to dismiss the case with
prejudice.


BUFFALO BILLS: Ex-Cheerleaders' Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy J. Drury of the Supreme Court, Erie County, in New
York, granted class certification in the case captioned, CAITLIN
FERRARI, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. STEPHANIE MATECZUN, CITADEL BROADCASTING COMPANY,
CITADEL COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LTD., and BUFFALO BILLS, INC.
Defendants, Case No. 804125-2014 (N.Y. Sup.).

The Plaintiffs Caitlin Ferrari, Alyssa U., Maria P., and Melissa
M., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
have sought to sue the defendants as representatives in a class
action for unpaid funds earned as Buffalo Jills cheerleaders (The
Jills). The plaintiffs seek certification of a class and subclass
of all members of the defendants' cheerleading and ambassador
squads since April 9, 2008 and April 27, 2008, respectively. They
stated in their affidavits that the vast majority of the
appearances made by the Jills were made in the capacity of Buffalo
Bills cheerleaders. They stated that the primary purpose of the
cheerleaders practices was to perfect their cheerleading
performances for Buffalo Bills home games. They stated that the
Jills were required to provide cheerleading services for the
Buffalo Bills home games without cash compensation.

In the motion, plaintiffs moved pursuant to CPLR Section 901(a)
and 902 that (1) they be designated as class representatives and
their counsel as class counsel; (2) the defendants be ordered to
provide the plaintiffs with contact information for absent class
members within 10 days from the Court's order; and (3) they be
permitted to issue notice of the pendency of the action to members
of the putative class and subclass in the form annexed to
plaintiffs' counsel's affirmation.

In his Decision dated January 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/7RMSDyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Drury found that the
prerequisites under CPLR Section 901 have been met for a class
action and that class action is the most efficient and appropriate
manner of resolving the instant litigation under CPLR Section 902.

The defendants are directed to provide contact information for
absent class members within 21 days of the Court's Order granting
the instant motion.

Caitlin Ferrari is represented by Sean E. Cooney, Esq. --
scooney@dolcepanepinto.com -- DOLCE PANEPINTO, P.C. & Shane T.
Rowley, Esq. -- srowley@zlk.com -- LEVI KORSINSKY LLP

Defendants are represented by Dennis C. Vacco, Esq. --
dvacco@lippes.com -- Stacey L. Moar, Esq. -- smoar@lippes.com --
LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP, Scott M. Philbin, Esq. --
sphilbin@bsk.com -- Louis Orbach, Esq. -- lorbach@bsk.com -- BOND
SCHOENECK & KING


CALUMET SPECIALTY: "Wolfe" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania has granted preliminary approval of the settlement in
a nationwide collective action filed by Jonathan Wolfe.

On November 12, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit
alleging that Anchor, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
failed to pay drilling fluid engineers overtime in compliance with
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed titled Jonathan
Wolfe v. Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("Wolfe"). The
Company filed its answer to the complaint on January 9, 2015 and
the Wolfe plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 26,
2015, adding that Anchor's failure to pay overtime to a subclass
of drilling fluid engineers violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act (the "Pennsylvania Act"). For this subclass, the Wolfe
plaintiff seeks certification of a class action under the
Pennsylvania Act. The Wolfe plaintiff seeks to recover overtime
pay, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The portion
of the potential liability that relates to the period prior to
March 31, 2014, the date on which the Company acquired Anchor, is
eligible for indemnification under the securities purchase
agreement that effected that transaction; however, the right to
indemnification under the securities purchase agreement for the
potential Wolfe liability is subject to a deductible and
limitations otherwise set forth in the securities purchase
agreement.

On May 1, 2015, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a
tentative settlement of this litigation. On September 3, 2015, the
U.S. District Court entered an order granting preliminary approval
of the settlement as well as attorneys' fees and costs. A final
judgment must be entered by the U.S. District Court. The tentative
settlement amount is not material to the unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements.


CALUMET SPECIALTY: "Niver" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania has granted preliminary approval of the settlement in
a nationwide collective action filed by Timothy Niver.

On November 21, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit
alleging that Anchor and the Company, as well as SOS, failed to
pay solids control technicians overtime in compliance with the
FLSA was filed titled Timothy Niver v. Specialty Oilfield
Solutions, Ltd., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania ("Niver").  The Niver plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on January 21, 2015, adding that defendants'
failure to pay overtime to a subclass of solids control
technicians violated the Pennsylvania Act.  For this subclass, the
Niver plaintiff seeks certification of a class action under the
Pennsylvania Act. The Niver plaintiff seeks to recover overtime
pay, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Anchor and
the Company filed their answer to the amended complaint on
February 2, 2015.

The Company consented to conditional certification in the case,
and notice of the collective action has been issued to potential
class members. The portion of the potential liability that relates
to the period prior to August 1, 2014, the date on which the
Company acquired the assets of SOS, was retained by, and is the
responsibility of, SOS. To the extent Anchor or the Company is
found liable for damages relating to the period prior to the
acquisition of the assets of SOS, Anchor and the Company are
eligible for indemnification under the asset purchase agreement
that effected that transaction, and no deductible is applicable;
however, the right to indemnification is subject to limitations
otherwise set forth in the asset purchase agreement.

On June 1, 2015, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a
tentative settlement of this litigation. On October 7, 2015, the
U.S. District Court entered an order approving the settlement and
dismissing the case with prejudice. The settlement amount was not
material to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements.


CHATHAM LODGING TRUST: Affiliate Defending "Martinez" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an affiliate of
the Company is a defendant, along with Island Hospitality
Management, Inc., in a class action lawsuit pending in the San
Diego County Superior Court.  The class actions were filed on
April 25, 2012 and February 27, 2013, and were subsequently
consolidated on November 8, 2013 under the title Martinez et al v.
Island Hospitality Management, Inc., et al. Case No. 37-2012-
00096221-CU-OE-CTL.

The class action relates to 15 hotels operated by IHM in the state
of CA and owned by affiliates of the Company, NewINK JV,
Innkeepers JV, and/or certain third parties.  Both complaints in
the now consolidated lawsuit allege various wage and hour law
violations, including unpaid off-the-clock work, failure to
provide meal breaks and failure to provide rest breaks.  The
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money damages, penalties, and
interest.

"We are defending the case vigorously," the Company said. As of
September 30, 2015, we have included $637,000 in accounts payable
and accrued expenses, which represents an estimate of our exposure
to the litigation and is also estimated as the maximum possible
loss that the Company may incur."


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Trial in "Wolf" Set for March 2016
----------------------------------------------------
The case, Wolf v. DuPont, is set for trial in March 2016, The
Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA (collectively,
perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium
salt) in drinking water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.

Chemours, through DuPont, funded a series of health studies which
were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of
experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were conducted in
communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific
evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease.
The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney cancer,
testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol.

Through DuPont, Chemours is obligated to fund up to $235 million
for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and,
in addition, administrative cost associated with the program,
including class counsel fees. In January 2012, Chemours, through
DuPont, put $1 million in an escrow account to fund medical
monitoring as required by the settlement agreement.

The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established
the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and
the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is
ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated
payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow
account.

As of September 30, 2015, less than $1 million has been disbursed
from the escrow account related to medical monitoring.
In addition, under the settlement agreement, DuPont must continue
to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in
water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking
Water Association (LHWA) and private well users.
Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists.

At September 30, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits
filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West
Virginia. These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district
litigation in Ohio federal court (MDL). Based on the information
currently available to the company, the majority of the lawsuits
allege personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and
thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water.

There are 37 lawsuits alleging wrongful death. In the third
quarter of 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for
individual trial. The first case (Bartlett v. DuPont) was tried to
a verdict on October 7, 2015. The Plaintiff alleged that PFOA in
drinking water caused her kidney cancer with causes of action for
negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Ohio
law applied to the causes of action and damages. The jury found in
favor of the Plaintiff awarding $1.1 million in damages for
negligence and $0.5 for emotional distress. The jury found that
DuPont's conduct did not warrant punitive damages. Chemours,
through DuPont, will appeal the verdict based upon substantial
errors made at the trial court.

The second case (Wolf v. DuPont) is set for trial in March 2016.
This case involves a Plaintiff alleging damages for ulcerative
colitis. West Virginia law will apply to the causes of action and
damages.

Chemours, through DuPont, denies the allegations in these lawsuits
and is defending itself vigorously. No claims have been settled or
resolved during the periods presented.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Students File Norovirus Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Lauren C. Williams, writing for Think Progress, reports that a
group of students filed a class-action lawsuit against Chipotle
for covering up signs of a foodborne illness outbreak in its Simi
Valley, California stores.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of six minor students from Grace
Brethren School and the school's cheerleading coach Mia Phillips,
who were sickened after eating at the Simi Valley Chipotle in
August.

According to the complaint, the restaurant's kitchen manager was
allowed to work and handle food for at least two days, despite
having gastrointestinal symptoms.

The alleged cover-up happened August 20, the day the kitchen
manager was then diagnosed with a norovirus infection and told not
to return to work and two days after showing symptoms, the lawsuit
stated.

After several illness complaints from customers, the plaintiffs
said Chipotle launched a food safety campaign called the "Norwalk
Protocol," which focused on preventing the spread of the norovirus
or norwalk virus, instead of alerting the local health department
of a potential outbreak.  Nearly 300 people reported getting sick
after eating at the Simi Valley restaurant.

The lawsuit alleges the Chipotle manager closed the restaurant,
citing a staffing shortage, but did so in an attempt to implement
the "Norwalk Protocol" and conceal a potential outbreak.

Instead of telling customers the truth, Plaintiffs are informed
and believe that Chipotle's Area Manager, Scotty Shadix, told Eric
Rose and his neighbors who went to the Chipotle Simi Valley
restaurant on August 20, 2015 to complain they had become sick
from eating food purchased during the previous two days that there
was no problem with their food and the restaurant was closed due
to a "staffing shortage."

Instead of admitting there had been a foodborne illness outbreak,
Chipotle's Area Manager gave Mr. Rose his business card with a
handwritten note on it saying "1 Free Entree @ Simi Valley only."
Based on the complaint, a Chipotle official contacted Ventura
County's health department two days after launching the alleged
clean-up campaign.  The food program manager with the county's
Environmental Health Division Doug Beach told the Ventura County
Star the department wasn't able to do a proper investigation
because everything had been cleaned up by the time it was alerted
to the problem.

"Because they had already shut the restaurant down, thrown out all
the food, completely cleaned the place up, went top to bottom with
bleach, and brought in a new staff, we didn't have any opportunity
to sample food or do some of the things we normally do to
investigate a foodborne outbreak," Mr. Beach said.  "Had we known
earlier, we potentially could have prevented more people from
getting sick."

News of the lawsuit comes days after Chipotle announced all of its
restaurants would close February 8 for nationwide food safety
training in light of the company's months-long bout with E. Coli,
Salmonella, and norovirus outbreaks.

More than 200 people reported getting sick after eating at the
Simi Valley restaurant, outbreaks of E. coli spread nationwide,
and Chipotle restaurants in Minnesota struggled with a statewide
Salmonella outbreak.  Federal health authorities have already
launched investigations into the E. coli cases, and the Justice
Department initiated a probe into California's norovirus outbreak.
Chipotle hasn't made public comments regarding the lawsuit.


CJ AMERICA: Judge Tosses MSG Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Emma Gallimore, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
decision from a San Diego federal judge demands that attorneys who
seek approval of class action settlements must carefully choose
the people and organizations that will benefit from the
settlement.

Judge Dana M. Sabraw, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, has denied preliminary approval of a
proposed class action settlement in Peterson v. CJ America, Inc.,
over Annie Chun soup products.

Judge Sabraw identified two defects in the settlement.  First, the
plaintiff failed to show that California law should apply to the
non-California class members.

Second, that the cy pres recipients, people or organizations who
will benefit from the settlement if it cannot be paid solely to
the class members, are suitable to the nature of the case.

Dennis Peterson alleged that Annie Chun's packaged food contained
ingredients that had monosodium glutamate, more commonly known as
MSG, even though labeling on the product stated "no MSG added."

He brought claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law.  He also
brought a breach of express warranty claim.

The parties reached a $1.5 million settlement that encompassed an
incentive award to the plaintiff, attorneys fees and settlement
administration expenses, and cash awards to class members.

It also named three cy pres organizations: the National Farm to
School Network, the Mayo Clinic, and Action for Healthy Kids.

The court took issue with these cy pres entities, saying that
precedent required "that there be a driving nexus between the
plaintiff class and the cy pres beneficiaries."

The precedent was set by a 2012 case, Dennis v. Kellogg Co., which
also addressed issues of false advertising.

In that case the court concluded that "appropriate cy pres
recipients are not charities that feed the needy, but
organizations dedicated to protecting consumers from, or
redressing injuries caused by, false advertising."

"In the wake of the Kellogg decision, federal courts have paid
particular attention to the cy pres residents," said attorney
Maya Ingram -- mingram@mofo.com -- of Morrison Foerster.

For the Peterson case, the plaintiff will have to provide specific
evidence that the proposed recipients provided consumers with
information on food labeling and food choices.  Though the court
recognized that the plaintiff had "noble and lofty goals," it did
not serve the objective of the statutes at issue.

The court also raised concerns about the scope of the class.
Although CJ Food products were sold in California and the company
had an office there, the company's headquarters are in
South Korea.  The record did not show where marketing and labeling
decisions were made.

"To remedy this settlement, plaintiff will need to demonstrate
that California had significant contacts that created state
interests such that applying California law to non-California
class members was neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair or
the parties will potentially need to renegotiate the scope of the
class," Ms. Ingram said.

Once the settlement has been renegotiated to address the court's
issues, the plaintiff can submit the proposal to the court for
approval.


CLUB CAR: Recalls Golf and Transport Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 3, 2015
Posting date: December 3, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56100

This recall involves 2014-2016 Precedent gas golf and transport
vehicles, of various sizes, models, and colours, used for short-
distance transportation. The recalled vehicles can be identified
by the model and serial numbers. Serial numbers are located above
and to the right of the accelerator pedal. The model number is the
first two letters of the serial number.

Recalled models and serial numbers include:

  Model               Model Number   Serial Number Range
  -----               ------------   -------------------
  Precedent 12 Gas     SL            1438-497172 to 1604-619273
  Precedent 12L Gas    SM            1503-527138 to 1603-619240
  Precedent 12 4       SN            1502-525626 to 1604-619488
  Passenger Gas
  Precedent 12         SU            1516-545869 to 1603-618029
  Signature Gas
  Precedent 12         SV            1506-530816 to 1546-608008
  Signature 4
  Passenger Gas

An improperly factory-installed air intake hose clamp can rub and
wear a hole in the fuel tank, causing a leak and posing a fire
hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to the use of the recalled
vehicles.

Club Car LLC has received three reports that the air intake hose
clamp rubbed the fuel tank on the recalled vehicles.  None of
these reports originated in Canada.  No incidents of fire or
injuries have been reported.

Approximately 1,442 of the recalled vehicles were sold at
authorized Club Car dealers across Canada.  Approximately 11,600
recalled vehicles were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from July 2014 through August
2015.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Club Car LLC
              Augusta
              Georgia
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact Club Car LLC to schedule a free repair.

Club Car LLC has mailed notices of the recall to owners of
affected vehicles directly.  For more information, consumers may
contact Club Car LLC toll free at 1-888-227-7925 from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. EST Monday through Friday or visit Club Car's website and
click on Safety Information at the bottom of the page.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/JCGb6D


CNOVA NV: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Jan. 20 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
of purchasers of Cnova N.V. ("Cnova" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
CNV) securities issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering on or about November 19, 2014 (the "IPO") and/or
between November 19, 2014 and December 18, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to serve
as lead plaintiff.  Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224
or 310-201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this
matter.

On December 18, 2015, the Company reported that it had "engaged
legal advisors and external forensic accountants to perform a
review of issues in connection with employee misconduct related to
inventory management."  On this news shares of Cnova fell $0.53,
or nearly 18%, to close at $2.42 per share on December 21, 2015,
on unusually heavy volume, thereby injuring investors.

On January 12, 2016, the company issued an update on its review of
inventory management.  The Company disclosed that: (1) it had
uncovered an overstatement of Cnova net sales, (2) there was a
"material discrepancy" in accounts receivable, and (3) that a 10%
write-off of total inventory was necessary, among other issues.

On January 20, 2015, Cnova closed at $2.28 per share, nearly 70%
below the IPO price of $7.00 per share.

The complaint charges Cnova and certain of its officers,
directors, and underwriters of the Company's IPO with violations
of the federal securities laws.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that, within the Company's IPO registration statement,
and/or throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company overstated net sales; (2) that the Company
failed to properly write-off the value of certain returned items;
(3) that there was a material discrepancy in accounts receivable
related to the damaged/returned items; (4) that, as such, the
Company's EBIT was overstated; (5) that the company lacked
adequate internal controls; and (6) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements and Defendants'
statements about Cnova's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com


CNOVA NV: March 21 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP on Jan. 22 disclosed that a class action has
been filed against Cnova NV ("Cnova" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
CNV) and certain of its officers, directors, and underwriters of
Cnova's IPO for violations of the federal securities laws.  The
case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Cnova securities (the "Class")
between November 19, 2014 and December 18, 2015 (the "Class
Period").

On December 18, Cnova disclosed that it had "engaged legal
advisors and external forensic accountants to perform a review of
issues in connection with employee misconduct related to inventory
management," and that "[t]he investigation will also assess any
accounting and financial statement impact of the conduct under
review."  On December 19, Cnova's stock price fell 18% to close at
$2.45 resulting in a loss of more than a $200 million in the
Company's market capitalization, and down nearly 70% below the
Company's IPO price of $7.00 per share.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to disclose that Cnova:
(1) overstated net sales; (2) failed to properly write-off the
value of certain returned items; (3) misstated accounts receivable
related to the damaged/returned items; (4) overstated EBIT; (5)
lacked adequate internal controls; and (6) issued misleading
financial statements.

If you purchased Cnova securities during the Class Period, you
have until March 21, 2016 to file a motion to serve as lead
plaintiff.  As a member of the class, you may seek to serve as a
lead plaintiff or take no action and remain an absent class
member.  If have questions about becoming a lead plaintiff or
possess information relevant to this case, please contact either
attorney Steven Harte at (617) 398-5600 or Steven@blockesq.com or
attorney Brad Vettraino at (617) 398-5600 or Bradley@blockesq.com
Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with relevant
information is assured.

Block & Leviton represents investors affected by violations of
securities laws as well as whistleblowing employees.  The firm's
lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases for
over 70 years, have recovered billions of dollars for investors
and represent some of the nation's largest institutional
investors.


COMSCORE INC: Bid to Consolidate Rentrak Merger Suits Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a motion to
consolidate class action lawsuits related to the pending merger
with Rentrak Corporation.

Since the public announcement of the Company's proposed merger
with Rentrak on September 29, 2015, four putative shareholder
class action lawsuits have been filed against Rentrak, its
directors, the Company and other defendants, as described further
below, in connection with Rentrak and the Company entering into a
merger agreement on September 29, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement").

The four actions were filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court in
the State of Oregon: (1) Nathan v. Rentrak Corporation, et al.,
No. 15CV27429, filed on October 9, 2015; (2) Blum v. Rentrak
Corporation, et al., No. 15CV27443, also filed on October 9, 2015;
(3) Stein v. Rentrak Corporation, et al., No. 15CV27520, filed on
October 12, 2015; and (4) Sikorski v. Rentrak Corporation, et al.,
No. 15CV27932, filed on October 14, 2015.

Each of the foregoing lawsuits was filed on behalf of a putative
class of Rentrak shareholders against Rentrak, the individual
members of Rentrak's board of directors, and/or comScore and/or
its merger subsidiary entity (the Nathan action does not name
comScore or the merger subsidiary entity as defendants).

The lawsuits allege variously that the individual members of
Rentrak's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed
to Rentrak's shareholders by (a) approving the proposed merger for
inadequate consideration; (b) approving the merger to obtain
unique benefits not shared equally with other Rentrak
shareholders; (c) failing to take steps to maximize the value paid
to Rentrak shareholders; (d) failing to take steps to ensure a
fair process leading up to the proposed merger; (e) agreeing to
preclusive deal protection devices in the merger agreement; and
(f) failing to ensure that no conflicts exist between individual
directors' own interests and their fiduciary obligations to
Rentrak's shareholders.

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

On October 22, 2015, in the Nathan lawsuit, plaintiffs filed a
motion to consolidate the lawsuits and appoint Nathan as the lead
plaintiff and Nathan's counsel as lead counsel, and that motion is
supported by the plaintiff's counsel in the Blum, Stein and
Sikorski lawsuits. This motion is pending with the court.

Based on examination of the claims, the Company believes that, as
to the Company, they are without merit. The Company continues to
investigate the claims and intends to vigorously protect and
defend itself. It is not possible for the Company to estimate a
potential range of loss at this time.


CONSTANT CONTACT: "McGee" Class Suit in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------
Constant Contact, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the class action
lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, is in its
very early stages.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the
Company and two of its current officers. The lawsuit asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on allegedly false and/or
misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material facts,
regarding the Company's business, operations, prospects and
performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014
to July 23, 2015.

"This litigation is in its very early stages," the Company said.

As a result, neither the ultimate outcome of this litigation nor
an estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses
can be assessed at this time. Nevertheless, the Company intends to
vigorously defend all claims asserted, including by filing a
motion to dismiss at the appropriate time.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Judge Certifies Class Suit on Hep A Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Flynn, writing for Food Safety News, reports that the 2013
multistate outbreak of hepatitis A virus infections linked to
pomegranate seeds imported from Turkey had a lot of parts. It
involved pomegranate arils in Townsend Farms Organic Anti-oxidant
Blend frozen juice that sickened 165 people in ten states, sending
71 to hospitals.

An upcoming October trial is also going to have a lot of parts,
but it was made a little easier to follow when a federal judge in
California combined multiple cases with approval of a class action
certification. The class action, known as Jacob Petersen, et al
vs. Costco Wholesale Inc., also includes Townsend Farms Inc.,
Purely Pomegranate, Fallon Trading Co. Inc., and United Juice
Corp. as defendants.

The litigation was transferred from the California state court
system to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in August 2013.  Plaintiffs are alleging injuries in
excess of $5 million for exposure to the hepatitis A virus (HAV)
after consuming the frozen berry and pomegranate seed mix sold
under the Townsend brand at Costco stores.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in
Atlanta first learned of the outbreak on May 13, 2013 in reports
from the New Mexico Department of Health.  Shortly afterward,
Colorado linked outbreak cases to the berry mix sold at various
Costco stores in that state.

Costco learned of the HAV outbreak on May 29, 2013, and
immediately removed the product from sales shelves and notified
customers in its database who'd purchased the product by phone and
mail to warn them about the problem. Costco warehouse managers
were also ordered to "pull and hold" the juice.

Product recalls followed from Townsend Farms on June 3 or 4, and
June 28; and by Scenic Fruit Company on June 26. Both are based in
Oregon. Townsend said its expanded recall came "after the FDA and
the CDC confirmed that the epidemiological evidence supports a
clear association between hepatitis A illness outbreak and one lot
of organic pomegranate seeds used in the Frozen organic
Antioxidant blend subject to the voluntary recall."

Costco Pharmacies began offering HAV vaccinations at no charge,
and 10,316 of its member customers took the company up on the
offer. Costco also offered to reimburse members who were
vaccinated by their own medical providers.

The ten plaintiffs named in the class action are from nine states.
Their legal team includes Marler Clark, the nationally known food
safety law firm based in Seattle.

"The defendants Purely Pomegranate, Fallon Trading and United
Juice variously and respectively imported, manufactured,
distributed, or sold the HAV-contaminated pomegranate arils that
the defendant Townsend Farms used to manufacture the recalled
products," explains U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter. "In
turn, the defendant Townsend Farms sold the recalled product to
Costco for retail sale in its stores, which is where the recalled
product that caused injury to the named-plaintiffs and class
members was purchased."

Judge Carter also explained that attorneys for the defendants
argued "that both the factual and legal circumstances surrounding
consumption differ for each person, citing differences in the
"amount of the Berry Mix one consumed, the length of time one
consumed the product, the passage of time after consumption, and
one's unique medical history influence . . ." as well as the
variance in the states' legal standards concerning whether an
individual 'reasonably feared' infection."

The judge, however, ruled that "common elements exist."

On his personal blog, plaintiff attorney Bill Marler says:
"Although it has been a long time coming, with much work done to
get here, but today we finally received the court's ruling on
class certification, and the ruling was in our favor."

"The court granted our motion that asked it to certify what is
called a "liability only" class action. This means that, for
purpose of determining whether Townsend Farms and Costco are
liable for damages caused by consumption of the contaminated
berries, that question will be determined on behalf of both the
named plaintiffs and all class members," he added.


COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Universal Stapler Handles
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 3, 2015
Posting date: January 7, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56538

Covidien is voluntarily recalling specific item codes and
production lots of Covidien Endo GIA Ultra Universal stapler
handles. This voluntary recall is being conducted following
customer reports of instruments failing to fire or partially
firing and reports of the instrument articulating lever
disengaging during use. If the instrument fails to fire or
partially fires, or if the articulating lever desengages, the
surgeon may be required to replace the device to continue the
procedure.

Affected products:
A. ENDO GIA ULTRA UNIVERSAL STAPLER
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: EGIAUSHORT
                         EGIAUSTND
                         EGIAUXL

Manufacturer: Covidien LLC
              15 Hampshire Street
              Mansfield
              02048
              Massachusetts
              UNITED STATES


DANSON DECOR: Recalls Indoor Mini Light Sets Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 25, 2015
Posting date: November 25, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56000

This voluntary recall involves Danson Decor Brand 100 count indoor
mini light sets, produced in 2015.  The affected products have a
length of approximately 7.6 metres (25 feet), clear or multi-
coloured bulbs and a green wire.

The following seasonal lights are included in this recall:

  Product     Description     UPC           Item       CSA
  ------      -----------     ---           Number     Number
                                            ------     -------
100 count     Multi-Coloured  062615994143  X99414     224823
indoor Mini   Bulbs
Light Set
              Clear Bulbs     062615994150  X99415     224823

Consumers are able to locate the item number and CSA file number
on the white tag affixed to the wire and the UPC on the back of
the product's packaging.

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

Neither Health Canada nor Danson Decor has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 85,000 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from August 2015 through November
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Danson Decor Inc.
          St. Laurent
          Quebec
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Zhejiang Kaifu Lamp Co., Ltd.
              Taizhou City, Zhejiang
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal
lights and return them to the place where they were purchased for
a full refund.

For additional information, consumers may contact Danson Decor
toll free at 1-800-363-1865 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. EST,
Monday through Friday or by email.

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

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/XvB6KC


DEOLEO CANADA: Recalls Olive Oil Products Due to Spoilage
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 2, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Deoleo Canada Ltd.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10186

  Brand      Common name    Size     Code(s) on   UPC
  name       -----------    -----    product      ---
  ----                               ----------
  Bertolli   Extra Light    250 ml   2017.JA.XX   0 41790 00410 6
             Tasting Olive           L5403R,
             Oil                     2017.FE.XX
                                     L5207R XX
                                     represents
                                     the day of
                                     the month.
  Bertolli   Extra Light    500 ml   2017.MA.XX   0 41790 00420 5
             Tasting Olive           L5321T,
             Oil                     2017.JN.XX
                                     L5324T,
                                     2017.MA.XX
                                     L5526T,
                                     2017.JN.XX
                                     L5526T XX
                                     represents
                                     the day of
                                     the month.
  Bertolli   Extra Light     1 L     2017.MR.XX   0 41790 00430 4
             Tasting Olive           L5111R,
             Oil                     2017.JA.XX
                                     L5203R,
                                     2017.MR.XX
                                     L5211R,
                                     2017.MA.XX
                                     L5321R XX
                                     represents
                                     the day of
                                     the month.
  Bertolli   Extra Light     2 L     2017.MA.XX   0 41790 00440 3
             Tasting Olive           L5221R,
             Oil                     2017.MR.XX
                                     L5311R XX
                                     represents
                                     the day of
                                     the month.
  Bertolli   Classico Olive  250 ml  2017.FE.XX   0 41790 00150 1
             Oil                     L5109R,
                                     2017.AP.XX
                                     L5116R,
                                     2017.JA.XX
                                     L5403R XX
                                     represents
                                     the day of
                                     the month.
  Bertolli   Classico Olive  500 ml  2017.MA.XX   0 41790 00140 2
             Oil  L5321T,            2017.AP.XX
                                     L5414T,
                                     2017.MR.XX
                                     L5512T XX
                                     represents
                                     the day of
                                     the month.
  Bertolli   Classico Olive  1 L     2017.MA.XX   0 41790 00135 8
             Oil                     L5106R,
                                     2017.MA.XX
                                     L5111R XX
                                     represents
                                     the day of
                                     the month.
  Bertolli   Classico Olive  3 L     2017.FE.XX   0 41790 00170 9
             Oil                     L5507R XX
                                     represents
                                     the day of
                                     the month.


DODGE: Recalls DART 2013 and 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Brakes
Units affected: 11988
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015571TC
ID number: 2015571
Manufacturer recall number: R63

On certain vehicles, engine oil may migrate from the vacuum pump
into the brake booster. Prolonged brake booster diaphragm exposure
to engine oil could cause the diaphragm to fail, leading to a loss
of brake booster assist. This may result in increased brake pedal
effort, which could increase stopping distances, potentially
resulting in a crash causing injury and/or damage property.
Correction: Dealers will inspect the brake booster grommet for the
presence of oil. If no oil is found, the vacuum tube assembly will
be replaced. If oil is found, the vacuum pump, vacuum tube
assembly, brake booster and master cylinder will be replaced.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  DODGE     DART       2013, 2014


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Dismissal of Securities Action Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs
in a securities class action lawsuit have taken an appeal from the
dismissal of their case.

In August 2014, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits
alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed against
the Company and several of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. These
lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that, between
October 29, 2013 and July 29, 2014, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors made alleged material misstatements and
omissions regarding the financial performance of Turbo. The
consolidated lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of
shareholders as well as other equitable and unspecified monetary
relief.

On April 1, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action lawsuit and the
case was dismissed with prejudice on May 19, 2015.

On June 18, 2015, the plantiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company
intends to vigorously defend against this consolidated lawsuit. At
this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate
outcome of this consolidated lawsuit, nor can it reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Defending Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. is defending a consolidated
antitrust class action lawsuit in California, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

In September and October 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws
were filed against the Company and various other companies in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These
lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that the
defendants agreed to restrict competition through non-solicitation
agreements and agreements to fix wage and salary ranges. The
lawsuits seek to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
worked for the defendants at any time from 2004 to the present.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
At this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict the
ultimate outcome of these lawsuits, nor can it reasonably estimate
a range of possible loss.


EHEALTH INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
EHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the court has held
a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action complaint.

"On January 26 and March 10, 2015, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed against us, our chairman and chief executive
officer, Gary L. Lauer ("Mr. Lauer"), and our senior vice
president and chief financial officer, Stuart M. Huizinga ("Mr.
Huizinga"), in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California," the Company said.

On May 6, 2015, the Court consolidated the two cases.  On June 10,
2015, a consolidated complaint was filed.  The consolidated
complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance, guidance
and operations during an alleged class period of May 1, 2014 to
January 14, 2015.

"The consolidated complaint alleges that we and Messrs. Lauer and
Huizinga violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder," the
Company said.  The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, equitable/injunctive relief and such other
relief as the court deems proper.  On July 15, 2015, defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The court held a
hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on September 30, 2015.


ELKHART COACH: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Other
Units affected: 176
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015570TC
ID number: 2015570

On certain vehicles equipped with an S-Series wheelchair lift, the
platform could potentially crack due to bent knuckle link arms
and/or defective bearing. Overtime, the platform could separate of
the rear portion of the pivot plate making the lift inoperable and
putting the lift operator at risk of injury. Correction: Owners
will need to make an appointment with the local Ricon Dealer to
have the lift inspected and repaired.

  Make             Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----             -----       ----------------------
  ELKHART COACH    ECII        2010
  ELKHART COACH    ECI         2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014


EMPIRE STATE: Class Action Appeal Underway
------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that oral
argument was scheduled to be held October 28, 2015, in a class
action appeal.

Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the
"Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme
Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L.
Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of
former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.
Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

"One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating
partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty," the Company said.

The Second Class Actions were consolidated on consent, and co-lead
class counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014.

"A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014,
which did not name us or our operating partnership as defendants.
It seeks monetary damages," the Company said.

On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully
submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral
arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion to dismiss
was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014.

On January 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement
the record on appeal to include additional materials from the
Original Class Action, which the defendants opposed. The motion
was denied on March 5, 2015. The plaintiffs perfected this appeal
by filing their brief and the appellate record with the court on
March 23, 2015. Oral argument on the appeal was scheduled for
October 28, 2015.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Defending "Machado" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. is defending a class
action lawsuit by Christopher Machado, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

"On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a purported holder of our
common stock, filed a civil action in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against us and our chief
executive officer and our chief financial officer, Machado v.
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO," the Company said.

"The complainant in the action asserts claims on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of our securities between November
4, 2014 and April 27, 2015. The complaint asserts violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
based on assertions that disclosures made by us during the class
period concerning our organic growth rate, average revenue per
subscriber, and financial accounting related to our international
business were false or misleading. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of
himself and the purported class, compensatory damages and his
costs and expenses of litigation."


ENERGY TRANSFER: Class Actions Over Regency Deal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that certain of
the class action lawsuits related to a transaction with Regency GP
remain pending and are at a preliminary stage.

On February 3, 2015, William Engel and Enno Seago, purported
Regency unitholders, filed a class action petition on behalf of
Regency's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of
Regency in the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (the "Engel Lawsuit"). The lawsuit names as defendants the
Regency General Partner, the members of the Regency General
Partner's board of directors, ETP, ETP GP, ETE, and, as a nominal
party, Regency. The Engel Lawsuit alleges that (1) the Regency
General Partner's directors breached duties to Regency and the
Regency's unitholders by employing a conflicted and unfair process
and failing to maximize the merger consideration; (2) the Regency
General Partner's directors breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process; and
(3) the non-director defendants aided and abetted in these claimed
breaches. The plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the
defendants from closing the proposed transaction or an order
rescinding the transaction if it has already been completed. The
plaintiffs also seek money damages and court costs, including
attorney's fees.

On February 9, 2015, Stuart Yeager, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the
Regency's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of
Regency in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (the "Yeager Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief
sought in the Yeager Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the
Engel Lawsuit.

On February 10, 2015, Lucien Coggia a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of Regency in
the 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the
"Coggia Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in
the Coggia Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the Engel
Lawsuit.

On February 3, 2015, Linda Blankman, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Regency's common unitholders in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas (the "Blankman Lawsuit"). The
allegations and claims in the Blankman Lawsuit are similar to
those in the Engel Lawsuit. However, the Blankman Lawsuit does not
allege any derivative claims and includes Regency as a defendant
rather than a nominal party. The lawsuit also omits one of the
Regency General Partner's directors, Richard Brannon, who was
named in the Engel Lawsuit. The Blankman Lawsuit alleges that the
Regency General Partner's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the unitholders by failing to maximize the value of
Regency, failing to properly value Regency, and ignoring conflicts
of interest. The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the non-
director defendants for aiding and abetting the directors' alleged
breach of fiduciary duty. The Blankman Lawsuit seeks the same
relief that the plaintiffs seek in the Engel Lawsuit.

On February 6, 2015, Edwin Bazini, a purported Regency unitholder,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's common
unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (the "Bazini Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims,
and relief sought in the Bazini Lawsuit are nearly identical to
those in the Blankman Lawsuit. On March 27, 2015, Plaintiff Bazini
filed an amended complaint asserting additional claims under
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 11, 2015, Mark Hinnau, a purported Regency unitholder,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's common
unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (the "Hinnau Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims,
and relief sought in the Hinnau Lawsuit are nearly identical to
those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On February 11, 2015, Stephen Weaver, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (the "Weaver Lawsuit"). The
allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Weaver Lawsuit are
nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On February 11, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit"). The
allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Dieckman Lawsuit are
similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit, except that the Dieckman
Lawsuit does not assert an aiding and abetting claim.

On February 13, 2015, Irwin Berlin, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (the "Berlin Lawsuit"). The
allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Berlin Lawsuit are
similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On March 13, 2015, the Court in the 95th Judicial District Court
of Dallas County, Texas transferred and consolidated the Yeager
and Coggia Lawsuits into the Engel Lawsuit and captioned the
consolidated lawsuit as Engel v. Regency GP, LP, et al. (the
"Consolidated State Lawsuit").

On March 30, 2015, Leonard Cooperman, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (the "Cooperman Lawsuit"). The
allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Cooperman Lawsuit
are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On March 31, 2015, the Court in United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas consolidated the Blankman, Bazini,
Hinnau, Weaver, Dieckman, and Berlin Lawsuits into a consolidated
lawsuit captioned Bazini v. Bradley, et al. (the "Consolidated
Federal Lawsuit"). On April 1, 2015, plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Federal Lawsuit filed an Emergency Motion to Expedite
Discovery. On April 9, 2015, by order of the Court, the parties
submitted a joint submission wherein defendants opposed
plaintiffs' request to expedite discovery. On April 17, 2015, the
Court denied plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery.

On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Regency unitholder,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's common
unitholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Dieckman DE Lawsuit"). The lawsuit alleges that the transaction
did not comply with the Regency partnership agreement because the
Conflicts Committee was not properly formed.

On June 5, 2015, the Dieckman Lawsuit was dismissed. On July 23,
2015, the Blankman, Bazini, Hinnau, Weaver and Berlin Lawsuits
were dismissed. On August 20, 2015, the Cooperman Lawsuit was
dismissed. The Consolidated Federal Lawsuit was terminated once
all named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed.

Each of the remaining lawsuits is at a preliminary stage.

"ETP cannot predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits
that might be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. ETP and
the other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend
vigorously against these and any other actions," the Company said.


ENERNOC INC: Del. Court Approved Merger Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
EnerNOC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Delaware Court
of Chancery Court has approved the settlement of a merger class
action lawsuit.

On November 6, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, World Energy, Wolf
Merger Sub Corporation, and members of the board of directors of
World Energy arising out of the merger between the Company and
World Energy. The lawsuit generally alleged that the members of
the board of directors of World Energy breached their fiduciary
duties to World Energy's stockholders by entering into the merger
agreement because they, among other things, failed to maximize
stockholder value and agreed to preclusive deal-protection terms.
The lawsuit also alleged that the Company and World Energy aided
and abetted the board of directors of World Energy in breaching
their fiduciary duties. The plaintiff sought to stop or delay the
acquisition of World Energy by the Company, or rescission of the
merger in the event it is consummated, and seeks monetary damages
in an unspecified amount to be determined at trial.

The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and on December 24,
2014, without admitting, but expressly denying any liability on
behalf of the defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) regarding a proposed settlement to resolve all
allegations. The MOU was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Among other things, the MOU provided that, in consideration for a
release and the dismissal of the litigation, World Energy would
include additional disclosures in a Form SC 14D9-A to be filed
with the SEC no later than December 24, 2014. The MOU also
provided that the litigation, including the preliminary injunction
hearing, be stayed. The merger closed on January 5, 2015.

On March 26, 2015, the parties executed and filed with the
Delaware Chancery Court a formal stipulation of settlement. On
August 20, 2015, after holding a hearing, the Delaware Court of
Chancery Court approved the settlement.


EOS: Laws on "Natural" Product Claims Too Lax, Doctor Says
----------------------------------------------------------
C.J. LeMaster, writing for Mississippi News Now, reports that a
class-action lawsuit lobbed serious allegations at a brand of lip
balm, claiming the cosmetic has serious side effects.

Now an area physician said he thinks laws are too lax regarding
what some claim are "natural" products.

EOS lip balm has no shortage of celebrity endorsements, from
Kim Kardashian to Britney Spears.

However, a growing number of customers claim the product causes
them to break out in blisters and rashes on their lips and face.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court on Jan. 20, states EOS misled
its customers.

A string of similar class-action cases claim the same thing in
three states.

"I haven't seen it in my office, but I have seen other products
where, you know, the company will claim that their products are
natural.  By doing this, they can get around some of the screening
guidelines for safety," family physician Dr. Timothy Quinn said.

Dr. Quinn said the marketing of the lip balm potentially is the
most misleading here.

It's promoted as organic and gluten-free, those dietary buzz words
many love to hear.

The suit alleges the ingredients may be causing allergic
reactions, particularly with those sensitive to Vitamin E.

Vitamin E is not listed by name among the ingredients of EOS lip
balm, according to the product website.

"In my research, a dermatologist at George Washington University
stated products that claim to be natural aren't necessarily safe,
and she even went further to quote that anthrax is natural, and
it's not safe," Dr. Quinn said.

Dr. Quinn said one good thing that could come out of these
lawsuits: better protection for consumers.

"I'm just hoping that this case will encourage stricter
legislation so that all products, if they claim that their
ingredients are natural or not, will have to go through the same
strict protocols as far as screening, you know, so that we can all
be safe," Dr. Quinn said.

A company spokesperson said he believes the products are safe and
the lawsuits are "without merit."

At this point, the various types of lip balm have not been pulled
off store shelves.


EXXON MOBIL: Appeals Court Hears Arguments in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Hale-Shelton, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that
property owners suing Exxon Mobil failed to prove that they and
other landowners along the Pegasus pipeline have enough in common
to merit class-action status, the oil company said in its argument
against an appeal of a federal judge's decision dismissing the
case.

"The district court did not abuse its discretion in decertifying
the class," Exxon Mobil and subsidiaries Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co.
and Mobil Pipe Line Co. said in an 83-page document filed in the
8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.

"Appellants failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the
commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements" under federal
civil procedural rules "because the class claims could not be
resolved without extensive individual inquiries into the state of
the pipeline on each individual landowner's property," Exxon Mobil
wrote in the document filed on Jan. 21.

"More specifically, the record demonstrates that the pipeline has
been repaired in some sections and completely replaced in others,"
it added.

Thomas Thrash, an attorney for plaintiffs Arnez and Charletha
Harper and Rudy and Betty Webb, said on Jan. 22 that he and the
plaintiffs' other attorneys were confident about their position in
their appeal.

"Exxon doesn't raise any new issues," Mr. Thrash said in an email.

The Harpers and the Webbs filed the complaint in April 2013 in
U.S. District Court in Little Rock in response to an oil spill in
Mayflower.  The Pegasus pipeline, made in 1947-48, cracked open in
the Northwoods subdivision March 29, 2013, and spilled tens of
thousands of gallons of thick crude into the neighborhood,
drainage ditches and a cove of Lake Conway.

Judge Brian Miller originally granted the lawsuit class-action
status on behalf of landowners whose property was crossed by Exxon
Mobil's Pegasus pipeline that runs from Corsicana, Texas, to
Patoka, Ill.  In March, though, Miller reversed his own ruling and
dismissed the case.  The property owners soon appealed to the 8th
Circuit.

In responding to the appeal, Exxon Mobil also argued that Miller
was correct to decertify the class because the federal Pipeline
Safety Act "precludes the use of state law to impose safety
standards upon the operation of an interstate pipeline like the
Pegasus Pipeline."

That's exactly what the plaintiffs were trying to do, Exxon Mobil
said.  They were "demanding repair, replacement, or removal of the
pipeline based upon their belief that the pipeline is unsafe."

"This ruling doomed plaintiffs' class certification motion, as
well as their individual claims," Exxon Mobil said.

The district court also correctly rejected individual claims
because Exxon Mobil had no contractual duty under the land
easements to repair and maintain the pipeline, the oil company
said.

It also noted that the appellants did not own property damaged by
the oil rupture in Mayflower.

"The undisputed proof in this case established that no oil leaked
on appellants' property," the company said.

The 650-mile-long segment of the Pegasus pipeline covered in the
lawsuit has been shut down since shortly after the Mayflower
accident.  Only the pipeline's remaining 211-mile stretch, which
runs from Corsicana to Nederland, Texas, has resumed service.


FANDUEL INC: Lawyers Want Judge Scheindlin to Oversee Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
over 30 class-action suits against the daily fantasy sports
websites FanDuel and DraftKings may be heard in Manhattan -- and
lawyers on the cases want the stop-and-frisk judge to oversee
them.

A seven-judge panel will hear arguments on Jan. 21 in Fort Myers,
Fla., to determine which federal judge will preside over the class
actions filed in more than 10 states, court documents show.

At least two attorneys submitted papers suggesting Manhattan
Federal Court Judge Shira Scheindlin -- who ruled in 2013 that the
city's stop-and-frisk program was unconstitutional -- is well-
suited to oversee what is sure to be a complex case with a massive
amount of electronic evidence.

"The bench and bar have praised Judge Scheindlin for her
intellectual acumen, her demeanor in the courtroom, and her
expertise in mass tort and complex litigation," wrote attorney
Alan Milstein, whose clients include Nash Weitzman.

Weitzman's suit said his love of daily fantasy became a nightmare,
costing him $500,000 in losses, according to his suit.

In general, the class-action suits allege that FanDuel and
DraftKings players were duped into participating in illegal
gambling operations that gave an unfair advantage to their own
employees who also participated in daily fantasy competitions.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that Manhattan would be the
best venue for the consolidated cases because FanDuel is
headquartered in New York, the city is relatively easy to reach
and the courthouse has a history of overseeing complex cases.

DraftKings, for its part, wants the trial heard in Massachusetts,
where it is headquartered, filings show.

A FanDuel spokeswoman declined to comment.

The class would include everyone who played daily fantasy sports.

In 2015, 56.8 million people played fantasy sports in the U.S. and
Canada, according to the Fantasy Sports Trade Association.


FIFTH STREET: March 7 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a national securities law firm, reminds
investors in Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. of the March 7,
2016 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company and
certain officers.

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of all those who purchased FSAM
securities on or around the October 30, 2014 initial public
offering.  The case, Linde et al v. Fifth Street Asset Management,
Inc. et al, No. 3:16-cv-00025 was filed on January 7, 2016, and
has been assigned to Judge Robert N. Chatigny.

The lawsuit claims that the Company and its executives violated
federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements
and filing documents omitting information in connection with the
Company's IPO.

Specifically, since the IPO was completed, Fifth Street Finance
Corp., a publicly traded asset portfolio company under FSAM,
announced that a substantial portion of its debt portfolio had
entered non-accrual, including $4.2 billion it manages for FSAM.
This led to FSC being downgraded by Fitch Ratings Inc. from BB+
from BBB- on a negative outlook due largely to FSAM's poor
management of FSC and its credibility problems with investors.
Since the announcement, FSC has had to reissue financials for
three consecutive quarters.

The share price has fallen from its $17.00 per share IPO price to
a $4.03 per share closing price on December 9 -- a 76% drop.
Request more information now by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/FSAM

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Take Action

If you invested in FSAM stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the
IPO and would like to discuss your legal rights, visit
www.faruqilaw.com/FSAM

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding FSAM's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class that
is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees
the litigation on behalf of the putative class.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.


FIRST NATIONAL COMMUNITY: "Antonik" Parties in Settlement Talks
---------------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the parties in a consumer lawsuit filed by Steven
Antonik are in talks for a possible resolution of the dispute.

On August 13, 2013, Steven Antonik, individually, as Administrator
of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A.
Howells, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
filed a consumer protection class action against the Company and
Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, seeking
equitable, injunction and monetary relief to address an alleged
pattern and practice of wrong doing by the Bank relating to the
repossession and sale of the Plaintiffs' and class members'
financed motor vehicles.

Discovery in this matter is substantially completed. The parties
have agreed to meet and discuss a possible resolution of this
matter, however, at this time, the Company cannot reasonably
determine the outcome or potential range of loss.


FIRST NATIONAL COMMUNITY: "Saxe" Parties in Settlement Talks
------------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the parties in a consumer lawsuit filed by Charles
Saxe, III are in talks for a possible resolution of the dispute.

On September 17, 2013, Charles Saxe, III individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated filed a consumer class
action against the Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common
Pleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial
Code in connection with the repossession and resale of financed
vehicles.

Discovery in this matter is substantially completed. Plaintiffs'
counsel has filed a petition to certify the class which the Bank
is aggressively defending. The parties have agreed to meet and
discuss a possible resolution of this matter, however, at this
time the Company cannot reasonably determine the outcome or
potential range of loss.


FITBIT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Heart Rate Monitor Results
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Monitor Daily's Matthew Riley, Consumer Reports
backs Fitbit heart rate monitor results in the aftermath of a
class-action lawsuit Fitbit is currently facing.  Two Fitbit
devices, the Surge and Charge HR were submitted to a test once
more.

Trackers such as those offered by Fitbit encompass a thin line
between medically accurate devices and simply activity trackers.
While it's advised to not take any of the results displayed by
such devices at face value, there are potentially dangerous
situations leading to class-action lawsuits such as the one Fitbit
is currently facing.

The underpinning of the class-action lawsuit are faulty heart rate
monitor results.  Using Fitbit devices during workouts, several
customers complained that they measured low BPM rates.  However,
several documented instances showed that the BPM rates of the
respective users were alarmingly high.

In one case the Fitbit heart rate monitor results showed a 82 BPM
value.  According to the personal trainer of that person, the true
BPM value measured with a chest heart rate monitor was 160. Such a
high value indicates that the heart is under significant stress
due to high-intensity training.  The plaintiffs in the class-
action lawsuit argue that such cases are telling for a false
advertising campaign.

However, Consumer Reports backs Fitbit heart rate monitor results.
Recently, the Charge HR and Fitbit's Surge were submitted to a
test.  Two subjects wearing the trackers followed a high-impact
workout routine.  The location of the wearable Fitbit devices was
also changed a couple of times. It ranged from the wrist to the
forearm.  The control was represented by BPM values measured with
a chest heart rate monitor.

According to the Consumer Reports report, the test didn't yield
any significant differences between the two type of devices:

"During nearly every trial, the variance between the chest strap
and the Fitbit devices amounted to no more than three heartbeats
per minute".

Although chest heart rate monitors are widely hailed as the
standard for accurate BPM values, the Fitbit devices seem to be
nearly close to the performance.  The class-action lawsuit is
right in bringing up the topic.  An under-reported heart rate
monitor value may pose significant health dangers.  Case in point,
trackers such as the Fitbit devices should be fine tuned to
respond to growing concerns.

Albeit the fact that Consumer Reports backs Fitbit heart rate
monitor results, it's still time to consider an improvement.


FLINT, MI: Jeb Bush Blames Regulations for Water Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------
Josh Israel, writing for ThinkProgress, reports that GOP
presidential hopeful and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush defended
Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI) against criticism over his handling of the
Flint water crisis on Jan. 24, arguing instead that the blame
should go to the fact that regulations are too complex.

On ABC's This Week, co-host Martha Raddatz asked Mr. Bush who is
to blame for the ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan, and the
fact that the city of more than 100,000 Americans had been
"drinking, eating, brushing their teeth in lead-contaminated
water, while the government was telling them repeatedly 'it's safe
to use.'"

"We've created this complex, no responsibility regulatory system,
where the federal government, the state government, a regional
government, local and county governments are all pointing fingers
at one another."  He proposed simply having a "21st century system
of rules: Whenever you see a problem, it should become public,
there should be transparency instead of trying to cover it up."
He then praised Synder for having "taken responsibility" and for
"rolling up his sleeves and trying to deal with it."  Mr. Bush
said he should not resign, as he "needs to do what he's doing,
which is to accept responsibility and began to solve the problem,"
adding that Snyder has "been a great governor for Michigan."

Finally, Mr. Bush said that instead of "blaming people," we should
be doing what Snyder is doing, creating a strategy to fix it --
praise that would seem to contradict his claim moments earlier
that the state government was among those "pointing fingers."

Mr. Snyder has come under fire -- including a class-action lawsuit
-- from Flint residents for his slow response to the crisis.  Far
from being fully transparent, Snyder has released a heavily
redacted and apparently incomplete set of emails relating to the
contamination problem.

Mr. Bush has previously endorsed a massive rollback of
environmental regulations -- a "regulatory spring cleaning" that
would require Congress to individually approve rules and requiring
that all new regulatory costs be offset by regulatory savings.


FLINT, MI: Residents Express Concern Over Tainted Water Bill
------------------------------------------------------------
John Vibes, writing for The Free Thought Project, reports that as
the water crisis in Flint deepens, it is becoming apparent that
the effects of the lead-infested water are not just a health
hazard, but the situation has the potential of ruining many more
lives outside of the poison issue.  There is no denying that the
water in Flint is undrinkable and that it is contaminated with
lead and other substances, and it is clear that the government of
Flint is responsible for the problem.

However, the city's government continues to charge people for the
poison water and then threatening to foreclose their home or take
their children if they refuse to pay.  Michigan law states that
parents are neglectful if they do not have running water in their
home, and if they chose not to pay for water they can't drink
anyway, then they could be guilty of child endangerment.
Activists in Flint say that some residents have already received
similar threats from the government if they refuse to pay their
bills.

Flint residents have recently filed two class action lawsuits
calling for all water bills since April of 2014 to be considered
null and void because of the fact that the water was poisonous.

"We are seeking for the court to declare that all the bills that
have been issued for usage of water invalid because the water has
not been fit for its intended purpose," said Trachelle Young, one
of the attorneys bringing the lawsuit said in court.

"Essentially, the residents have been getting billed for water
that they cannot use. Because of that, we do not feel that is a
fair way to treat the residents," Ms. Young added.

Recent estimates have indicated that it could take up to 15 years
and over $60 million to fix the problem, and the residents will be
essentially forced to live there until the problem is solved.
Despite the fact that the issue is obviously the government's
responsibility, they have made it illegal for people to sell their
homes because of the fact that they are known to carry
contaminated water.  Meanwhile, residents are still left to
purchase bottled water on their own, in addition to paying their
water bill.

Although this problem is finally getting national media attention
in Flint, they aren't the only city with contaminated water
supplies.  In fact, a recent report published by The Guardian
showed that public water supplies across the country were
experiencing similar issues.

This crisis highlights the many dangers of allowing the government
to maintain a monopoly on the water supply and calls attention to
the fact that decentralized solutions to water distribution should
be a goal that we start working towards.


FRESENIUS KABI: Recalls Propofol Injection
------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 3, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56250

Recalled lot does not meet its vial fill specification.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers across Canada

Affected products:
Propofol Injection (2015-12-03)
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02437643
Dosage form: Intravenous emulsion
Strength: 10 mg/mL, 1% w/v Propofol
Lot or serial number: 16IC03

Recalling Firm: Fresenius Kabi Canada Ltd.
                45 Vogell Rd, Ste 200
                Richmond Hill
                L4B 3P6
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Fresenius Kabi Canada Ltd.
                                45 Vogell Rd, Ste 200
                                Richmond Hill
                                L4B 3P6
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


FRESH EXPRESS: Voluntarily Recalls 350 Cases of Baby Spinach
------------------------------------------------------------
Food Safety News reports that Fresh Express Inc. is voluntarily
recalling 350 cases of Fresh Express Baby Spinach after a piece of
almond was found in the production supply.

The 12-ounce packages have a product code of G010A17A and use-by
date of Jan. 24, according to the recall notice on the Food and
Drug Administration website.

The recalled bagged spinach could present an allergen risk to
people who have sensitivities to tree nuts.  Fresh Express
representatives are coordinating with stores to remove the
recalled product from retail stores where distributed, primarily
in Eastern and Southeastern states.

No other Fresh Express products are included in this recall.  No
illnesses had been reported in relation to the product as of the
posting of the Jan. 19 recall notice.

"The recall was necessitated when a portion of a single almond was
inadvertently introduced into the production supply.  In order to
safeguard the health and wellbeing of consumers, Fresh Express is
conducting a precautionary recall of product that could have come
into contact with the almond during this isolated incident," the
recall notice states.

Fresh Express is coordinating closely with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and is conducting a full investigation into event.
Consumers in possession of the recalled product should discard it.
A refund is available where purchased or by contacting the Fresh
Express Consumer Response Center toll-free at 800-242-5472 during
the hours of 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. EST.


FRIENDLY FINANCE: S.D. Ohio Judge Narrows "Rose" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, Monica S. Rose, Plaintiff, v. Friendly
Finance Corp. et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-1032 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio:

     -- granted Monica Rose's motion to dismiss Friendly
        Finance's breach of contract counterclaim only to the
        extent that it requests attorney's fees,

     -- dismissed a conditional counterclaim against the putative
        class members; and

     -- granted in part Friendly Finance's motion for judgment on
        the pleadings as to Ms. Rose's breach of fiduciary duty
        claim (count II) and declaratory judgment claim (count
        VI) and denied as to Ms. Rose's breach of contract claim
        (count I), RICO claim (count IV), and unjust enrichment
        claim (count V)

Rose filed a six-count class action complaint against defendants
Friendly Finance Corporation and American Modern Home Insurance
Company. In the complaint, Ms. Rose alleged that Friendly Finance
provided her and the putative class members with financing for
automobile loans. Ms. Rose alleged that Friendly Finance
improperly added the cost of automobile insurance, procured
through American Modern, to her loan balance and the loan balances
of the putative class members, a practice known as force-placing
insurance. Ms. Rose alleges that Friendly Finance's conduct of
forceplacing insurance and improperly charging fees violated the
contracts that she and the other putative class members had with
Friendly Finance.

The complaint set forth the following claims: breach of contract
against Friendly Finance (count I), breach of fiduciary duty
against Friendly Finance (count II), aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against American Modern (count III), violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against
Friendly Finance and American Modern (count IV), unjust enrichment
against Friendly Finance and American Modern (count V), and
declaratory judgment against Friendly Finance and American Modern
(count VI).

Friendly Finance asserted a counterclaim against Ms. Rose for
breach of contract arguing that Ms. Rose breached the contract by
failing to make the scheduled installment payments and by failing
to obtain insurance. Friendly Finance alleged that Ms. Rose owed a
deficiency balance of $4,727.09 plus interest and reasonable
attorney's fees.

In the motion, Friendly Finance sought judgment in its favor and
against Ms. Rose on all claims in the complaint, dismissing the
complaint with prejudice, and requiring Ms. Rose to pay all costs
of this action, a judgment in its favor and against Ms. Rose on
its counterclaim, and such other relief as may be proper in law
and equity. Further, to the extent that a class is certified,
Friendly Finance requested that the Court enter judgment in its
favor against any class member meeting the criteria set forth in
its conditional counterclaim for all amounts owed, plus all
interest, costs, and all attorney's fees allowed by law.

In her motion to dismiss, Ms. Rose moved to dismiss Friendly
Finance's counterclaim against her to the extent that Friendly
Finance seeks attorney's fees and to dismiss Friendly Finance's
conditional counterclaim in its entirety.

In his Opinion and Order dated January 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/hANylxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kemp found that Ms.
Rose fails to demonstrate a significant possibility of future harm
if her declaratory judgment claim is not maintained. In the case,
a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties is not
of sufficient immediacy to warrant the issuance of a declaratory
judgment. The Court concluded that Friendly Finance is correct in
its assertion that Ohio law typically does not permit a claim for
unjust enrichment when there exists an express contract between
the parties on the subject matter at issue.

Monica S. Rose is represented by Troy John Doucet, Esq. --
jdoucet@doucetengineers.com -- Jonathan Mark Layman, Esq. --
jlayman@doucetengineers.com -- DOUCET & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Defendants are represented by Kimberly Smith Rivera, Esq. --
kyrivera@mcglinchey.com -- Melany Kotlarek Fontanazza, Esq. --
mfontanazza@mcglinchey.com -- MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD PLLC & James
Scott Wertheim, Esq. -- Wertheim@MGL-law.com -- MILLER GOLER
FAEGES LAPINE LLP


GENERAL MOTORS: Both Side Seek to Halt Ignition Switch Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
both sides say they'll seek the dismissal of a trial aimed at
defining settlement options for hundreds of lawsuits stemming from
General Motors' faulty ignition switches.

Attorney Robert C. Hilliard said the action being taken on Jan. 22
will mark a "disappointing" end to the trial from the plaintiffs'
point of view.

General Motors Co. spokesman James R. Cain said the Manhattan case
was unmerited.

It involved an Oklahoma man whose air bags didn't inflate when his
car crashed in 2014.

On Jan. 21, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said that General
Motors should be entitled to dispute the claims of Robert Scheuer
with new evidence raising questions about his testimony.


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge's Comments May End Ignition Switch Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the first New York trial aimed
at defining settlement options for hundreds of lawsuits stemming
from General Motors Co.'s faulty ignition switches could end
abruptly.

Federal Judge Jesse Furman on Jan. 21 said the case brought by an
Oklahoma man against Detroit-based GM was "almost worthless as a
settlement tool."  He urged both sides to take "a very hard look"
at whether it's worthwhile to continue presenting the case to the
jury or leaving it in his hands for a ruling.

The judge commented after numerous holes were shown in the claims
of Robert Scheuer, who says he suffered injuries when his air bags
failed to deploy.

GM's ignition switches sometimes shut off vehicle functions,
causing accidents.  Millions of vehicles were recalled. GM says it
has fixed the problem.

The Manhattan trial began more than a week ago.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls GMC & Chevrolet 2016 Models
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 419
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015575TC
ID number: 2015575
Manufacturer recall number: 16370

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201 - Occupant Protection. The
console-compartment latch assembly may be unable to retain the
door in the event of a crash, contrary to the requirements of the
standard, increasing the risk of injury to the occupant.
Correction: Dealers will replace the console-compartment latch
assembly.

  Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----        ----------------------
  GMC         CANYON       2016
  CHEVROLET   COLORADO     2016


GELATO FRESCO: Updates Recall on Toasted Hazelnut Dairy Ice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Gelato Fresco
Distribution: Nova Scotia, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10176

The food recall warning issued on November 20, 2015 has been
updated to include additional distribution information. This
additional information was identified during the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Gelato Fresco is recalling Gelato Fresco brand Toasted Hazelnut
Dairy Ice from the marketplace because it may contain almond which
is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to almond
should not consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have the recalled product in your home.
Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store
where they were purchased.

If you have an allergy to almond, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common name   Size      Code(s) on    UPC
  name     -----------   -----     product       ---
  ----                             ----------
  Gelato   Toasted       500 ml    4745          0 67902 50002 1
  Fresco   Hazelnut
           Dairy Ice

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/YJ8QLo


GELATO FRESCO: Updates Recall on Toasted Hazelnut Dairy Ice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Gelato Fresco
Distribution: Nova Scotia, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10196

The food recall warning issued on November 26, 2015 has been
updated to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Gelato Fresco is recalling Gelato Fresco brand Toasted Hazelnut
Dairy Ice from the marketplace because it may contain almond which
is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to almond
should not consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have the recalled product in your home.
Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store
where they were purchased.

If you have an allergy to almond, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common name   Size      Code(s) on    UPC
  name     -----------   -----     product       ---
  ----                             ----------
  Gelato   Toasted       500 ml    4745          0 67902 50002 1
  Fresco   Hazelnut
           Dairy Ice

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/YJ8QLo


GIRARDIN: Recalls Buses with Ricon Wheelchair Lift
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 10
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015568TC
ID number: 2015568
Manufacturer recall number: 15-063-RCC

On certain buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the lift
platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean
against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the
vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at
risk of injury. Correction: Owners will be provided with
inspection and repair instructions, as well as necessary repair
parts.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  GIRARDIN             2006, 2007


GIRARDIN: Recalls G5 School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 27
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015569TC
ID number: 2015569
Manufacturer recall number: 15-063-RCS

On certain school buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the
lift platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean
against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the
vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at
risk of injury. Correction: Owners will be provided with
inspection and repair instructions, as well as necessary repair
parts.

  Make        Model            Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----            ----------------------
  GIRARDIN    G5 SCHOOL BUS    2006, 2007, 2008, 2009


GLEN ECHO: Updates Recalls on Inverloch Cheeses from Scotland
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Glen Echo Fine Foods
Distribution: Alberta, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec,
Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10192

The food recall warning issued on November 21, 2015 has been
updated to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Glen Echo Fine Foods is recalling Inverloch cheeses imported from
Scotland from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume and
distributors, retailers and food service establishments should not
sell or use the recalled products described below.

The recalled products may have been sold in smaller packages, cut
and wrapped by some retailers. Consumers who are unsure if they
have purchased the affected products are advised to contact their
retailer.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

This recall was triggered by the company. The CFIA is conducting a
food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

  Brand     Common name      Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  name      -----------      ----    product      ---
  -----                              ----------
  Isle of   Laird's Mustard  1 kg    All codes    5 060020 410338
  Kintyre   Mature Cheddar
            & Whole Grain
            Mustard
  Isle of
  Kintyre   Laird's Mustard  200 g   All codes    5 060020 410123
            Mature Cheddar
            & Whole Grain
            Mustard
  Isle of   Applesmoke       900 g   All codes    5 060020 410260
  Kintyre   Mature Cheddar
  Isle of   Applesmoke       250 g   All codes    5 060020 410253
  Kintyre   Mature Cheddar
  Isle of   Drumloch         2.7 kg  All codes    5 060020 410062
  Kintyre
  Isle of   Drumloch         450 g   All codes    5 060020 410048
  Kintyre
  Isle of   Drumloch         200 g   All codes    5 060020 410161
  Kintyre
  Isle of   Old Smoky- Oak   200 g   All codes    5 060020 410079
  Kintyre   Smoked
            Flavoured
            Mature Cheddar   1 kg    All codes    5 060020 410321
  Isle of   Island Herbs -
  Kintyre   Mature Cheddar
            & Herbs
  Isle of   Island Herbs -   200 g   All codes    5 060020 410109
  Kintyre   Mature Cheddar
            & Herbs
  Isle of   Lazy ploughman   200 g   All codes    5 060020 410154
  Kintyre   Mature Cheddar
            & Pickle
  Isle of   Poacher's
  Kintyre   Choice - Mature  1 kg    All codes    5 060020 410314
            Cheddar & Garlic
  Isle of   Poacher's        200 g   All codes    5 060020 410093
  Kintyre   Choice - Mature
            Cheddar & Garlic
  Isle of   Highland Chief - 1 kg    All codes    5 060020 410307
  Kintyre   Mature Cheddar &
            Single Malt
            Whisky
  Isle of   Highland Chief - 200 g   All codes    5 060020 410086
  Kintyre   Mature Cheddar
            & Single Malt
            Whisky
  Isle of   Captain's        1 kg    All codes    5 060020 410345
  Kintyre   Claret - Mature
            Cheddar & Claret
  Isle of   Captain's        200 g   All codes    5 060020 410154
  Kintyre   Claret - Mature                       or
            Cheddar & Claret                      5 060020 410116
  Isle of   Ben Gunn         200 g   All codes    5 060020 410130
  Kintyre   - Mature Cheddar
            & Chives
  Inverloch Gigha Cheese -   200 g   All codes    5 060020 410208
            Cheese Co
            Flavoured with
            Highland Liqueur
  Inverloch Gigha Cheese -   200 g   All codes    5 060020 410222
  Cheese Co Flavoured with
            Pear Schnapps
  Inverloch Gigha Cheese -   200 g   All codes    5 060020 410215
  Cheese Co Flavoured with
            Orange Liqueur
  Inverloch Gigha Cheese -   200 g   All codes    5 060020 410185
  Cheese Co Flavoured with
            Garlic
  Inverloch Gigha Cheese -   200 g   All codes    5 060020 410192
  Cheese Co Flavoured with
            Chives
  Inverloch Gigha Cheese     200 g   All codes    5 060020 410178
  Cheese Co Plain

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


GLOBE SPECIALTY: To Settle Merger Class Suit for $32.5MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in a merger class action lawsuit have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding, which provides for the payment of
$32.5 million case to resolve the dispute.

On March 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of the Company's shareholders ("Company Shareholders") in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action,
captioned Fraser v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10823-VCG, named as defendants the Company, the members of its
board of directors, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
Ferroglobe. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the
Company directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
obtain the best price possible for Company Shareholders, that the
proposed merger consideration to be received by Company
Shareholders is inadequate and significantly undervalued the
Company, that the Company directors failed to adequately protect
against conflicts of interest in approving the transaction, and
that the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deters
competitive offers. The complaint also alleged that the Company,
Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and Ferroglobe aided and
abetted these alleged breaches. The action sought to enjoin or
rescind the Business Combination, damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On April 1, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders challenging
the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The action, captioned City of Providence v. Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG, named as
defendants the Company, the members of its board of directors, its
Chief Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
Ferroglobe. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the
Company's board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided
and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
Ferroglobe, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain
provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred
a potential alternative transaction. The complaint further
alleged, among other things, that the Company's Executive Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted by Grupo VM,
FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and Ferroglobe, breached their
fiduciary duties by negotiating the Business Combination
Agreement, and, in the case of the Executive Chairman, by entering
into a voting agreement in favor of the Business Combination
Agreement, out of self-interest. The action sought to enjoin the
Business Combination, to order the board of directors to obtain an
alternate transaction, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 10, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders
challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. The action, captioned Int'l Union of
Operating Engineers Local 478 Pension Fund v. Globe Specialty
Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10899-VCG, named as defendants the
Company, the members of its board of directors, its Chief
Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
Ferroglobe. The complaint made identical allegations and sought
the same relief sought in City of Providence v. Globe Specialty
Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG.

On April 21, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders
challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. The action, captioned Cirillo v. Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10929-VCG, named as
defendants the Company, its board of directors, Grupo VM,
FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and Ferroglobe. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the Company's directors, aided and
abetted by the Company, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
Ferroglobe, breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the
Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain
provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred
a potential alternative transaction. The action sought to enjoin
or rescind the Business Combination, disclosure of information,
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 4, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
consolidated these four actions under the caption In re Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A.
No. 10865-VCG (the "Action"). The Court further designated the
complaint filed in C.A. No. 10865-VCG as the operative complaint
in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Company from
convening a special meeting of Company Shareholders to vote on the
proposal to adopt the Business Combination Agreement or
consummating the Business Combination. In addition, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for expedited proceedings, and supporting brief, in
which they requested that the Court schedule a trial in this
action before the Company Shareholders vote on the Business
Combination. Defendants, including Globe, filed an opposition
brief in which they objected to Plaintiffs' motion for expedited
proceedings to the extent it seeks expansive discovery and an
expedited trial on the merits in lieu of a preliminary injunction
hearing. Subsequently, the parties reached agreement on the scope
of expedited discovery.

On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint, realleging, among other things, that the
Company's board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided
and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
Ferroglobe, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain
provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred
a potential alternative transaction. The amended complaint further
alleged that, among other things, the Company's preliminary proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 6, 2015, was
materially misleading and incomplete, and that the Company's board
of directors and Chief Executive Officer breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to
Company Shareholders in connection with the Business Combination.
The amended complaint sought, among other relief, an order
enjoining the Defendants from consummating the proposed Business
Combination; a declaration that the disclosures contained in the
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus are deficient; damages; and
attorneys' fees and costs.  On August 26, 2015, the Court held a
hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

On September 10, 2015, the parties to the Action entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which outlined the terms
of an agreement in principle to settle the Action. Based on the
terms of the MOU, the parties to the Action entered into a formal
stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") on October 30, 2015.
The Stipulation provides that the settlement is subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the settlement,
final certification of a settlement class, and closing of the
Business Combination.  Upon satisfaction of these conditions, a
$32.5 million aggregate cash payment will be paid after the
closing of the Business Combination by the combined companies on a
pro rata basis to the holders of shares of Company common stock
(other than the defendants in the Action and certain related
persons) as of the close of business on the business day
immediately prior to completion of the Business Combination. The
Stipulation also provides that the Defendants will implement
governance amendments for the benefit of the Company's
shareholders following completion of the Business Combination.
Defendants have agreed to pay or cause to be paid such attorneys'
fees and expenses as may be awarded by the court to Plaintiffs'
Counsel for their efforts in prosecuting the Action, as well as
the costs of administering the settlement. The Stipulation
includes a release of all claims against the Defendants and their
advisors relating to or arising from the Action.


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: SLC Clears D&Os from Shareholder Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a special
litigation committee has said shareholder claims asserted in a
securities class action lawsuit were without merit.

The Company, certain current and former members of the Company's
Board of Directors, LG Acquisition Corporation, Sartini Gaming and
the Sartini Trust were named on February 6, 2015, as defendants in
three complaints filed in the District Court of the State of
Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District in Hennepin County.

The cases are captioned James Orr, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, as plaintiff, vs. Lakes
Entertainment, Inc., LG Acquisition Corporation, Sartini Gaming,
Inc., Lyle A. Berman, Timothy J. Cope, Larry C. Barenbaum, Neil I.
Sell, Ray M. Moberg, and the Blake L. Sartini and Delise F.
Sartini Family Trust, as defendants; Anthony Dacquisito, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, as plaintiff vs.
Larry Barenbaum, Lyle Berman, Neil Sell, Ray Moberg, Timothy Cope,
LG Acquisition Corporation, Sartini Gaming, Inc., and the Blake L.
Sartini and Delise F. Sartini Family Trust, as defendants; and
David Lehr and Pamela Lehr, as plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Larry Barenbaum, Lyle
Berman, Neil Sell, Ray Moberg, Timothy Cope, LG Acquisition
Corporation, Sartini Gaming, Inc., and the Blake L. Sartini and
Delise F. Sartini Family Trust, as defendants.

These are purported shareholder class action lawsuits brought by
certain of the Company's shareholders on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, alleging that in entering into the
Merger, the defendants had breached their fiduciary duties of good
faith, loyalty and due care, and/or have aided and abetted such
breaches. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, attorney's
fees.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint consolidating all pending actions arising
out of the Merger. In response to the lawsuits, the Board of
Directors appointed a special litigation committee (the "SLC")
pursuant to Minnesota law to investigate the claims alleged by the
plaintiffs.

On June 8, 2015, the judge in the matter denied the plaintiffs'
request for expedited proceedings and stayed the lawsuit until the
conclusion of the SLC investigation and the issuance of its
determinations.

The SLC issued its report on October 13, 2015, in which it
determined, among other matters, that the members of the Company's
Board of Directors properly discharged their fiduciary duties
under Minnesota law and that the shareholder claims were without
merit. The SLC report has been submitted to the District Court
with a motion requesting that the Court dismiss the litigation.

"An unfavorable outcome in this lawsuit could result in
substantial costs to the Company," the Company said. "It is also
possible that other lawsuits may yet be filed and the Company
cannot estimate any possible loss from this or future litigation
at this time."


GOPRO INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP on Jan. 22 disclosed that it has filed
a class action suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against GoPro, Inc. ("GoPro" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq: GPRO), Nick Woodman ("Woodman"), the
Company's CEO, and Jack Lazar ("Lazar"), the Company's CFO.

The complaint alleges that Defendants GoPro, Woodman, and Lazar,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC.  The
complaint is brought on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities who purchased the publicly traded Class A common stock of
GoPro between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 to recover
damages caused to the Class by defendants' violations of the
securities laws.

The complaint further alleges that defendants made untrue
statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts
concerning sales of the Company's HERO line of cameras, including
the Company's new HERO4 Session.  Moreover, the complaint alleges
that unknown to investors, during the Class Period, defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that the sell-through of the
Company's HERO line of cameras, including the Company's new HERO4
Session, was poor and did not meet the Company's internal
expectations, and that as a result, the Company's revenue growth
had materially declined.

The complaint alleges that the Class Period ends on January 13,
2016, when GoPro disclosed its preliminary financial results for
the quarter and year ended December 31, 2015, stating, in part,
the following: "GoPro expects revenue to be approximately $435
million for the fourth quarter of 2015 and $1.6 billion for the
calendar year.  Fourth quarter revenue reflects lower than
anticipated sales of its capture devices due to slower than
expected sell through at retailers, particularly in the first half
of the quarter.  Fourth quarter revenue includes a $21 million
reduction for price protection related charges resulting from the
HERO4 Session repricing in December."

On January 14, 2016, the next trading day, GoPro shares declined
from a closing price on January 13, 2015 of $14.61 per share, to
close at $12.48 per share, a decline of $2.13 per share or
approximately 15% on heavier than usual volume.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than March 14, 2016 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
proposed Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP --
http://www.kaplanfox.com

Our firm, with offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Chicago and New Jersey, has decades of experience in prosecuting
investor class actions and actions involving violations of the
Federal securities laws.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please e-mail attorneys Jeff Campisi --
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- or Larry King -- lking@kaplanfox.com --
or contact them by phone, regular mail, or fax:

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, New York 10022
          Toll-Free Telephone: (800) 290-1952
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax:  415-772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com


GROUP O: Court Decertifies "Creal" Overtime Suit
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Group O's
motion to decertify in the case captioned, MICHELLE CREAL,
KASANDRA MURPHY, and FELICIA WRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown,
Plaintiffs, v. GROUP O, INC., Defendant, Case No. 13 C 4275 (N.D
Ill.).

Plaintiffs Michelle Creal, Kasandra Murphy, and Felicia Wright
filed the instant three-count action in June 2013 against
Defendant Group O, Inc. seeking overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (Count I) and Illinois wage laws (Counts II
and III). Plaintiffs alleged that "Group O has an unlawful policy
or practice of rounding employees' swipe-in and swipe out times in
a manner that almost always benefits Group O," and that Plaintiffs
worked before and after their shifts, and during unpaid meal
periods, without overtime pay.

The Court conditionally certified Plaintiffs' FLSA claim in May
2014 after which 91 additional plaintiffs opted in.

Group O contends that Plaintiffs make no allegations of any
similar reasons for not taking a full meal period, and that
Plaintiffs' work experiences are too varied for the court to
collectively evaluate their meal claims.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated January 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/wovatIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kocoras concluded that
Plaintiffs' FLSA claim lacks a common policy or plan requiring
Plaintiffs' and the 91 opt-in plaintiffs to work before or after
their shifts or during meal periods without overtime pay, and that
Plaintiffs and the opt-in plaintiffs lack sufficient similarity to
allow this matter to proceed as a collective action under the
FLSA.

The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
without prejudice to refiling later in the action by, and on
behalf of, the individual named Plaintiffs in the action.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jessica Judith Fayerman, Esq. --
jfayerman@prinz-lawfirm.com -- THE PRINZ LAW FIRM, P.C.

          - and -

     Uche O. Asonye, Esq.
     John A Singer, Esq.
     Vaughn Christopher Ganiyu, Esq.
     ASONYE & ASSOCIATES
     100 N LaSalle St,
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312)795-9110

Group O, Inc. is represented by John C. O'Connor, Esq. --
joconnor@poflegal.com -- Matthew P. Pappas, Esq. --
mpappas@poflegal.com -- Brian Dean Ekstrom, Esq. --
bekstrom@poflegal.com -- PAPPAS DAVIDSON O'CONNOR & FILDES P.C


GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court of the Southern District of New York, docketed
under 16-cv-00472, against GW Pharmaceuticals PLC ("GW
Pharmaceuticals" or "the Company") (Nasdaq: GWPH), and certain of
its officers, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased GW Pharmaceuticals securities between
December 4, 2014 and January 8, 2016 inclusive (the "Class
Period").

GW Pharmaceuticals is a British biopharmaceutical company company
known for its multiple sclerosis treatment product Sativex,
nabiximols. Together with its subsidiaries, GW Pharmaceuticals
engages in discovering, developing, and commercializing
cannabinoid prescription medicines.

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

On January 10, 2016, The Sunday Times reported that GW
Pharmaceuticals disclosed in its annual fiscal report, that its
internal financial controls were not effective as of September 30,
2015, and continued to state that the management had determined
that it lacked effective controls over the completeness and
valuation of clinical trial accruals. It went on to state that the
management does not have sufficiently precise controls to evaluate
the completeness and accuracy of the calculation of clinical trial
accruals due to the incorrect allocation of expenditure to
clinical studies. The management also lacks sufficiently precise
control to ensure completeness of clinical trial accruals in
connection with contractual progress payment liabilities.

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


HARPERCOLLINS: Recalls Children's Books Due to Mould
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 30, 2015
Posting date: November 30, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56074

This recall involves That's Not My Reindeer and That's Not My
Santa children's books. These are full coloured children's board
books with half die-cut pages featuring tactile elements.

The recalled books may be contaminated with mould.

Neither Health Canada nor HarperCollins Publishers have received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of these products in Canada. The manufacturer, Usborne Publishing,
received one customer report of mould found in cartons of a UK
shipment.

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

Approximately 1500 units of the recalled That's Not My Reindeer
book and 80 units of the recalled That's Not My Santa book were
sold at various stores across Canada.

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

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: HarperCollins Publishers
             Toronto
             Ontario
             CANADA

Manufacturer: Usborne Publishing Ltd.
              London
              UNITED KINGDOM

Consumers should immediately take the recalled books away from
young children and return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund or credit.

For additional information, consumers may contact HarperCollins
Publishers at 1-844-327-5757 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time Monday through Friday or email the firm at
hcorder@harpercollins.com.

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

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

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

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


HEADLINE PROMOTIONAL: Recalls Blazer Reflector Safety Light
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 27, 2015
Posting date: November 27, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Burn Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56032

The recall involves the Blazer Flashing Reflector Safety Light
which is a clip-on LED flasher intended to promote pedestrian
safety. The LED flasher was available in yellow, red, and blue and
has the words "Nova Scotia Power an Emera Company" imprinted on
one side and "Home Warming - Homewarming.ca" on the other side.

The battery compartment of the clip-on LED flashers is not secure
and can easily be removed by children releasing two button
batteries.  If ingested, these small batteries can get stuck in
the child's esophagus and burn through it and the wind pipe.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to these products.

Nova Scotia Power has received two incident reports of children
ingesting these batteries.

For more information on button battery safety, please visit the
Battery Safety page on the Healthy Canadians website.

Approximately 4,700 units of the recalled product were handed out
by Nova Scotia Power Inc. at the Chronicle Herald Parade of Lights
in Halifax.

The affected products were handed out on November 21, 2015.

Obtained from the United States.

Importer: Headline Promotional Products
          Halifax
          Nova Scotia
          CANADA

Distributor: Nova Scotia Power Inc.
             Halifax
             Nova Scotia
             CANADA

Parents and care givers should immediately take these products
away from children and discard the product according to local
municipal waste guidelines.

In Nova Scotia, these products were distributed at a holiday
parade in Halifax.  Nova Scotia Power has done a voluntary recall
of this item and is collecting them at three locations in the
Halifax Regional Municipality on Saturday, November 28, 2015.  For
more information, visit the Nova Scotia Power's website.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/SV1HQl


HEARTWARE INT'L: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on Jan. 22
disclosed that it has filed a securities class action on behalf of
the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association against
HeartWare International, Inc. ("HeartWare" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: HTWR) and certain of its senior executives (collectively,
"Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  The action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") on
behalf of investors in HeartWare common stock between June 10,
2014 and January 11, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  A copy
of the Complaint filed in the action, captioned St. Paul Teachers'
Retirement Fund Association v. HeartWare International, Inc., No.
15-cv-520 (S.D.N.Y.), is available on BLB&G's website at
http://www.blbglaw.com

HeartWare is a medical device company that develops and
manufactures miniaturized implantable heart pumps.  The Complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, HeartWare and certain of its
senior executives violated provisions of the Exchange Act by
making numerous false and misleading statements and omissions of
material fact, including in press releases and in statements
during conferences and conference calls with analysts and
investors.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that after the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a Warning Letter
identifying numerous manufacturing and other regulatory failures
at the Company's sole manufacturing facility, Defendants falsely
assured investors that the Company had addressed those problems,
and that they therefore posed no risk to the clinical trials or
timely approval of MVAD, a pump that HeartWare is presently
developing.

The truth concerning the Company's failure to remediate the
regulatory failures identified by the FDA and its impact on the
viability of MVAD was revealed through a series of disclosures.
On September 1, 2015, HeartWare announced a highly dilutive
acquisition of Valtech Cardio, Ltd., a manufacturer of medical
devices used to treat heart disease.  The Complaint alleges that
this disclosure revealed significant obstacles to the timely
approval of MVAD.  On September 9, 2015, HeartWare disclosed that
it was halting enrollment in the MVAD trial because of a
manufacturing problem with the device.  On October 12, 2015,
HeartWare disclosed that patients in the MVAD trial had suffered
adverse events, and that the trial would be further delayed.  And
on January 11, 2016, the Company revealed that problems with MVAD
had resulted in serious adverse events in nearly half of the
patients so far implanted with the device, and that the trial
would be delayed indefinitely.  In response to each of these
disclosures, the price of HeartWare's common stock declined
significantly.  In total, HeartWare's common stock fell 72% from
its Class Period high to close at $26.50 per share on January 12,
2016.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from
January 22, 206.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion
for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is March 22, 2016.  Any member
of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Michael Blatchley of BLB&G at (212) 554-1281, or via e-mail at
michaelb@blbglaw.com

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.


HONDA: Sued Over Soy-Based Electrical Wiring
--------------------------------------------
Christopher Maynard, writing for Consumers Affairs, reports that
many drivers are all-too-aware of the dangers that animals can
have on the road. Hitting a larger one, or getting into an
accident while trying to avoid a smaller one, can really take a
toll on a consumer's wallet. But a new class action shows that
animals can also wreak havoc on your car when it's not being used.

Consumers from three states have filed suit against Honda for
breaching its warranty contract, according to a Courthouse News
Service report. The plaintiffs claim that the automaker refused to
cover repairs caused by rabbits, mice, and squirrels chewing
through soy-based electrical wiring on their vehicles.

The suit was put together after several consumers complained about
the wiring on their cars being chewed through by small animals.
Greg Delaney, from Arizona, said that he had to take his vehicle
to a dealership after he found that the wiring was "shredded
through." The dealership looked into the issue and found a live
rabbit still chewing on the wiring on the car.

When it came time to pay for the repair, the dealership said that
the problem did not fall under warranty. A report says that
Delaney "was charged and paid approximately $765 for the repair."

This was not an isolated incident, though. Texas consumer Sean
Rickard faced a similar problem when he found that animals had
chewed through the power steering wires on his Honda Accord. He
ended up paying a $500 deductible on his $1,400 bill, and the
dealership once again claimed that issue was not covered under
warranty.

To date, several different consumers have reported similar issues,
saying that small animals are drawn to the soy-based insulation on
2012-2015 Honda vehicles. Delaney, Rickard, and lead plaintiff
Daniel Dobbs point out that Honda is well aware of the issue,
saying that the company "actually sells rodent repellent tape used
to wrap electric wiring in order to deal with the propensity of
having this wiring chewed through by rodents and other animals
attracted to the soy component of the wires."

The automaker has stated that the soy-based insulation is cheaper
and better for the environment, but have declined to comment on
the suit to this point.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, actual and
statutory damages for breach of warranty, and the formation of a
common fund for all legal costs and fees associated with the case.


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Magnesium Sulfate Injection
------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc., a Pfizer company, has announced a voluntary recall
of one lot of, MAGNESIUM SULFATE IN WATER FOR INJECTION (0.325 mEq
Mg**/mL) 40 mg/mL 2g total, 50 mL (NDC: 0409-6729-24, Lot 53-113-
JT, Expiry 1NOV2016) to the user level due to a confirmed customer
report of an incorrect barcode on the primary bag labeling. The
product has a barcode identifying the product contents on both the
overwrap and on the primary container. The barcode on the overwrap
is correct; however, there is potential for the primary container
barcode to be mislabeled with the barcode for HEPARIN SODIUM 2000
USP UNITS/1000 mL in 0.9%SODIUM CHLORIDE INJECTION. The product is
labeled with the correct printed name on the primary container and
overwrap. To date, Hospira has not received reports of any adverse
events associated with this issue for this lot.

If the incorrect barcode on Magnesium Sulfate in Water for
Injection, is not detected prior to dispensing or administration
to a patient, and the product is administered based on the printed
name, patient harm is unlikely since the barcode on the overwrap
and readable text on the primary container and overwrap are
correct. However, if detected, there is the potential for delay in
treatment of Magnesium Sulfate in Water for Injection that can
result in life-threatening seizures, stroke, cerebral hemorrhage
and maternal death, and attendant risks to the fetus, including
fetal demise. Administration of the magnesium sulfate drug product
to a patient who is prescribed heparin and in whom the Magnesium
Sulfate is contraindicated can result in serious adverse events
related to the drug's pharmacologic action and may require medical
intervention. Although serious in nature, the likelihood of this
risk to occur is low due to the high detectability of this
nonconformance.

Magnesium Sulfate in Water for Injection is indicated for the
prevention and control of seizures in preeclampsia and eclampsia,
respectively.

The product is packaged 50 mL fill, in 100 mL container bags and
sold 24 bags per carton (NDC: 0409-6729-24, Lot 53-113-JT, Expiry
1NOV2016). The lot was distributed nationwide in the U.S. to
wholesalers, distributors and hospitals from September 2015 to
November 2015. Hospira has initiated an investigation to determine
the root cause and corrective and preventive actions.

Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop
use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately.
Customers should notify all users in their facility. Customers who
have further distributed the recalled product should notify any
accounts or additional locations which may have received the
recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the
product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the
consumer level. Hospira will be notifying its direct customers via
a recall letter and is arranging for impacted product to be
returned to Stericycle in the United States. For additional
assistance, call Stericycle at 1-877-650-7695 between the hours of
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday. Patients should
contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to using this drug
product.

For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira using the
information provided below.

  Hospira Contact   Contact Information    Areas of Support
  ---------------   -------------------    ----------------
  Hospira Global    1-800-441-4100         To report adverse
  Complaint         (8am-5pm CT, M-F)      events or product
  Management        (ProductComplaintsPP   complaints
                    @hospira.com)          Hospira Medical
                                           Communications  1-800-
                                           615-0187 or
                                           medcom@hospira.com
                                           (Available 24 hours a
                                           day/7 days per week)
                                           Medical inquiries

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

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


INNERWORKINGS INC: Court Trims Van Noppen Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has
narrowed the claims in the Van Noppen class action lawsuit.

In February 2014, shortly following the Company's announcement of
its intention to restate certain historical financial statements,
an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The
complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and
certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by
making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and
by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities,
relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The
purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside
sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in
France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims and
intend to vigorously defend the matter. On September 29, 2014, the
Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 30, 2015, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss,
resulting in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims relating
to the inside sales initiative.


INSULET CORP: Still Defends Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys. Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the case, Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345, which
remains outstanding.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court,
Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current
and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were
voluntarily dismissed.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-
12345, which remains outstanding, alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages in connection with the
Company's allegedly inflated stock price between May 7, 2013 and
April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

"Due in part to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company
currently cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss, or range of
loss, in connection with this matter," the Company said.


IPC HEALTHCARE: MOU Reached in Merger Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
IPC Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, that the
parties in a merger class action lawsuit have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding providing for the settlement and the
release of all claims.

On August 4, 2015, IPC Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company" or "IPC"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Team Health Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Team Health"), together with Intrepid
Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a Delaware corporation and a
direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Team Health, providing for,
subject to the satisfaction or waiver of specified conditions, the
acquisition of the Company by Team Health at a price of $80.25 per
share in cash pursuant to a merger (the "Merger") of Merger Sub
with and into the Company.

Two purported stockholders of IPC each filed a putative class
action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of a
purported class of stockholders naming IPC, each of IPC's current
directors, Team Health and Merger Sub as defendants (the
"Defendants"). By order of the court, these actions were
consolidated (and are collectively referred to as the
"Litigation"), and all further litigation relating to or arising
out of the merger was directed to be consolidated with such
actions. A third action was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and, pursuant to order of the court, is required to be
consolidated with the previously-filed actions.

On November 6, 2015, the Defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Litigation providing for
the settlement and the release of all claims that were or could
have been brought against the Defendants in the Litigation based
upon a duty arising under Delaware law to disclose or not omit
material information in connection with the Merger, upon entry of
a final order by the Delaware Court of Chancery approving the
settlement. In the Memorandum of Understanding, IPC agreed to file
a Form 8-K making certain supplemental disclosures to the
definitive proxy statement of IPC on Schedule 14A dated October
15, 2015 relating to the Merger and the Merger Agreement (the
"Proxy Statement").

The Defendants believe that no additional disclosure is required
to supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws. However,
to avoid the risk that the Litigation may delay or otherwise
adversely affect the consummation of the Merger, and to minimize
the expense of defending the Litigation, IPC has agreed, pursuant
to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement. The supplemental
disclosures to the Proxy Statement are set forth. The Memorandum
of Understanding contemplates that, subject to completion of
certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
settlement contemplated by the parties will be subject to
customary conditions, including consummation of the Merger,
certification of the class alleged in the Litigation, and court
approval following notice to IPC's stockholders.

In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Delaware
Court of Chancery will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved
by the presiding court, such settlement will resolve and release
all claims that were or could have been brought against the
Defendants based upon a duty arising under Delaware law to
disclose or not omit material information (including a claim for
negligent misrepresentation) in connection with the Merger,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders of IPC
prior to final approval of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Delaware Court of Chancery
will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such a stipulation. If the Delaware Court of Chancery does not
approve the settlement, such proposed settlement, as contemplated
by the Memorandum of Understanding, may be terminated.


IXIA: Calif. Securities Class Suit Settles for $3.5-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ixia said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015, that a $3.5 million has been reached in
a securities class action.

On November 14, 2013, a purported securities class action
complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul
Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period
from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013.

The initial complaint alleged that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
by making materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's recognition of revenues related to its warranty and
software maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and
employment history of the Company's former President and Chief
Executive Officer, Victor Alston. The complaint also alleged that
the defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to
make certain disclosures, regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, including regarding the financial
statements and internal financial controls that were the subject
of the Company's April 2013 restatement of certain of its prior
period financial statements.

The complaint further alleged that the Company lacked adequate
internal financial controls and issued materially false and
misleading financial statements for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal quarters ended March
31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011, March 31, 2012, June
30, 2012, and September 30, 2012. The complaint, which purported
to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, sought, on
behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and
other relief.

On March 24, 2014, following a proceeding to select a lead
plaintiff in the matter, the court issued an order appointing
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System (the "Oklahoma Group") as lead
plaintiffs.

On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a first amended
complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants under
the same legal theories set forth in the initial complaint. The
first amended complaint also contained allegations that certain of
the individual defendants increased their trading in the Company's
stock during February, March, April and May of 2011 and during
February and March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to
inflate the Company's reported deferred revenues during the period
of February 4, 2011 through April 3, 2013.

On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss the first
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Law Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After briefing and a hearing on October 6,
2014, the court issued an order dismissing the first amended
complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the
Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint.

On November 5, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a second amended
complaint. On January 6, 2015, the named defendants moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint. After briefing and a hearing
on April 13, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second
amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court
gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended
complaint.

On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order staying the class
action until July 31, 2015, pending the outcome of a voluntary,
non-binding mediation scheduled for July 23, 2015 to explore a
possible settlement of both the purported securities class action
and the shareholder derivative action.

On July 23, 2015, the parties conducted the scheduled mediation
with respect to the purported class action but did not reach an
agreement to resolve and settle the litigation. However,
settlement discussions continued after the mediation session, and
on August 14, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
purported securities class action litigation.

The settlement will not become effective until the parties agree
on a formal Stipulation of Settlement and such Stipulation is
approved by the Court. The settlement terms include a settlement
payment of $3.5 million, which the Company expects will be paid in
full by one of the Company's insurance carriers.

The settlement will not include any admission of wrongdoing or
liability on the part of the Company or the individual defendants,
and upon final approval of the settlement by the Court, the
settlement will resolve the claims asserted against all of the
defendants in the purported class action and will include a full
release of all defendants in connection with the allegations made
in the purported securities class action.


JAYCO: Recalls Starcraft 2016 Models Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 14
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015574TC
ID number: 2015574

On certain travel trailers, there could be inadequate protection
for the liquid propane (LP) lines and electric wiring under the
unit. This could result in the LP lines and electrical wires being
damaged by road debris, which could increase the risk of a propane
leak and an electrical short. A propane leak in the presence of an
ignition source could result in a fire causing injury and/or
damage to property. Correction: Dealers will add an additional
shield to protect lines and wiring.

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


KENNETH MCELWEE: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jose L. Linares of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted in part Defendants' motion
for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs FDCPA claim in the
case captioned, SANFORD WEISS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH L. McELWEE, ESQ., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 11-MD-2221-(NGG)(RER) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff commenced this action on March 24, 2014 with the filing
of a proposed class action Complaint alleging violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that by naming the allegedly wrong "Sanford Weiss" in the
tax sale foreclosure proceeding, Defendants violated Section
1692e(2)(A), which makes it a violation for a debt collector to
falsely represent the "legal status" of a debt; Section 1692e(5),
which makes it a violation for a debt collector to threaten "to
take any action that cannot legally be taken"; Section 1692e(10),
which prohibits the use of any false or deceptive means to
collect, or attempt to collect, a debt; Section 1692e(11), which
prohibits a debt collector from failing to disclose in the initial
written communication that the debt collector is attempting to
collect a debt and in subsequent communications that the
communication is from a debt collector; Section 1692f, which makes
it a violation to use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or
attempt to collect any debt; and, Section 1692g, which requires
the debt collector to give what is commonly referred to as a 30-
day notice within five days of its initial communication with the
consumer and send the consumer a written notice.

Defendants filed an Answer on May 28, 2014 and moved for judgment
on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b),
which was denied by the Court on January 23, 2015. Defendants
argued that (1) the tax sale foreclosure proceeding at issue did
not seek to collect a "consumer debt" within the meaning of the
FDCPA; (2) that there is no evidence in the record by which a
reasonable juror could conclude that Defendants are "debt
collectors" within the meaning of the FDCPA; (3) that there is no
evidence in the record by which a reasonable juror could conclude
that Defendants are "debt collectors" within the meaning of the
FDCPA; (4) Plaintiffs FDCPA action is barred under the doctrines
of promissory and equitable estoppel; and (5) that because
Plaintiff filed this action in bad faith and for the purposes of
harassment, Defendants should be granted an award of their
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(a)(3).

On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment
arguing that Defendants were attempting to collect a "debt" within
the meaning of the FDCPA. Plaintiff summarily contends that he is
entitled to summary judgment on his various FDCPA claims because
the Defendants' alleged conduct constitute a violation of those
provisions.

In his Opinion dated January 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/DC7aplfrom Leagle.com, Judge Linares found that (1)
Plaintiff cannot show that the tax sale foreclosure proceeding
involved a "debt" within the meaning of the FDCPA; (2) Defendants
are entitled to summary judgment because there is no evidence in
the record suggesting that any alleged sewer charges arose from a
consensual transaction; and (3) there are comprehensive and
fundamental fact disputes as to whether Plaintiff or her attorney
acted in bad faith in initiating this lawsuit, in spite of an
alleged covenant not to file suit.

Sanford Weiss is represented by:

     Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
     Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC
     375 Passaic Ave
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Tel: (973)227-5900

          - and -

     Laura S. Mann, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF LAURA S. MANN, LLC
     2nd Floor, 1618 Union Valley Rd
     West Milford, NJ 07480
     Tel: (973)506-4881

Defendants are represented by:

     Kenneth L. McElwee, Esq.
     88 East Main Street, Suite 315
     Mendham, NJ 07945


KERMIT INC: Recalls Barbeque Sauces Due to Soy & Anchovies
----------------------------------------------------------
Kermit, Inc. of DeLand, Florida is recalling products co-packed
for Peddlin' Rooster, P.O. Box 1743, DeLand, Florida 32721,
because of an undeclared allergen on the label. The undeclared
allergen is soy and anchovies as an ingredient in Reduced Sodium
Worcestershire Sauce and Organic Ketchup that is used in making
the following products:

  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Raspberry BBQ Sauce,
      Net Wt 16.9 oz (469gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Moonshine Ghost
      Honey Mustard BBQ Sauce, Net Wt 15.1 oz (428gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Espresso BBQ Sauce,
      Net Wt 16.5 oz (469gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Dark Chocolate BBQ
      Sauce, Net Wt 16.5 oz (469gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Cranberry Pear BBQ
      Sauce, Net Wt 16.5 oz (469gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Moonshine Ghost Red
      Apple BBQ Sauce, Net Wt 16.5 oz (469 gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Red Apple BBQ Sauce,
      Net Wt 16.5 oz (469 gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Moonshine Ghost Wild
      Blueberry BBQ Sauce, Net Wt 16.5 oz (469 gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Wild Blueberry BBQ
      Sauce, Net Wt 16.5 oz (469 gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Moonshine Ghost
      Original BBQ Sauce, Net Wt 16.5 oz (469 gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Strawberry BBQ
      Sauce, Net Wt 12 oz (340gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet White Peach BBQ
      Sauce, Net Wt 16.5 oz (469 gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Cara Cara Orange
      Vanilla, Net Wt 16.5 oz (469gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Golden Pineapple w/
      Ghost Pepper BBQ Sauce, Net Wt 16.5 oz (469gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Golden Pineapple BBQ
      Sauce, Net Wt 16.5 oz (469gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet Pomegranate BBQ
      Sauce, Net Wt 12 oz (340gm)
  --- Peddlin' Rooster Gourmet Thick N'Sweet BBQ Sauce, Net Wt
      16.5 oz (469 gm)

The products only come in clear glass bottles in the sizes
indicated by each product. Each product contains a "Best By" date.
The recall is for all of the individual products with any "Best
By" date prior to November 1, 2017.

The recalled products were produced for Peddlin' Rooster, LLC,
P.O. Box 1743, DeLand, Florida 32721.

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

Purchasers allergic to soy and anchovies as an ingredient in
Reduced Sodium Worcestershire Sauce and Organic Ketchup should
destroy the product, or contact LaRon Keith at Peddlin' Rooster,
LLC, P.O. Box 1743, Deland, Florida 32721, 1-812-797-3939.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Accord in Suit v. Gentive D&Os Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has
granted final approval to the settlement of a class action lawsuit
against former officer and director of Gentiva.

A consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit was pending
against a former officer and director of Gentiva in federal
district court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), as well as
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), and alleged, among other items, that Gentiva's
public disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that
Gentiva improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits
to patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement
rates under Medicare, which caused an artificial inflation in the
price of Gentiva Common Stock between July 31, 2008 and October 4,
2011. The court dismissed Gentiva from the lawsuit in December
2013.

On December 10, 2014, the former officer and director of Gentiva
reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit for $6.5
million (which was funded in its entirety by insurance), with
final approval provided by the court on September 29, 2015. This
amount was provided for in the Gentiva opening balance sheet and
therefore had no impact on Kindred's statement of operations.


KONA BICYCLE: Recalls Kona Wo Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 1, 2015
Posting date: December 1, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56056

This recall involves all 2014 Kona Wo bicycles with a charcoal
black frame and silver decals. The word "Wo" is on the top tube of
the frame, and the word "Kona" is on the down tube of the frame
and on the side of the seat.

The fork can break at the junction of the crown, posing a fall
hazard to the rider.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these products. In Europe, Kona
has received two reports of the bicycle forks failing. No injuries
have been reported.

Approximately 262 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled bicycles were sold from September 2013 to October
2014.

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Distributor: Kona Bicycle Company
             Ferndale
             Washington
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
contact Kona or an authorized Kona dealer for a free replacement
and installation of the bicycle fork.

For more information, consumers can contact Kona by telephone
toll-free at 1-800-566-2872 from 8:30am to 5pm PST, Monday to
Friday.  Consumers may also visit the company's website and click
on the 2014 Kona Wo recall link under the support tab.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/yUM420


LABORATOIRE RIVA: Recalls Calcium + Vit. D  Tablets
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 26, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56128

Out of specification result for assay content of Cholecalciferol
(Vitamin D) during shelf life testing.

Wholesalers and pharmacies across Canada

Affected products:
Calcium 600 + D200
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80050297
Dosage form: Tablet
Strength: Calcium: 600 mg
          Vitamin D: 200 UI
Lot or serial number: C3178

Recalling Firm: Laboratoire Riva Inc.
                660 Industrial Blvd.
                Blainville
                J7C 3V4
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Laboratoire Riva Inc.
                                660 Industrial Blvd.
                                Blainville
                                J7C 3V4
                                Quebec
                                CANADA


LADENBURG THALMANN: Plaintiffs in ARCP Suit Must Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit related to
American Realty Capital Partners, Inc.'s securities offerings have
been granted by the court to file an amended complaint.

In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners,
Inc. ("ARCP"), certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's
auditing firm, as well as the underwriters of ARCP's May 21, 2014
offering of $1,656,000 in common stock ("May 21, 2014 Offering")
and three prior notes offerings. The complaints have been
consolidated.

Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of
the May 21, 2014 offering and as one of eight underwriters of
ARCP's July 13, 2013 offering of $300,000 in convertible notes.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on financial reporting of
expenses, improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from
operations), and false and misleading Sarbanes Oxley
certifications, including statements as to ARCP's internal
controls, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of
federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages, as well as other relief.

In October 2015, the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss was
granted without prejudice; the plaintiffs were granted leave to
file an amended complaint by December 2015.

The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without
merit and, if they are re-filed, intends to vigorously defend
against them.


LIONSGATE: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Concealed SEC Probe
--------------------------------------------------------
Dave McNary, writing for Variety, reports that a federal judge has
dismissed a shareholder suit alleging that Lionsgate had concealed
a U.S. regulatory investigation into its effort to prevent a
hostile takeover by billionaire Carl Icahn.

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan, in a 56-page ruling,
found the plaintiff shareholders failed to show that Lionsgate's
disclosures related to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
probe were materially false or misleading.

The suit, which sought class-action status, was filed by KBC Asset
Management NV in July, 2014, in U.S. District Court in New York
City against Lionsgate and four of its top executives.

The action was filed four months after Lionsgate had agreed to pay
$7.5 million and admit wrongdoing to settle Securities and
Exchange Commission claims that the studio failed to disclose all
information about its 2010 efforts to block Icahn's hostile
takeover.

The SEC said when it disclosed the settlement that Lionsgate
management engaged in transactions that allowed board member Mark
Rachesky to boost his stake through newly issued shares --
effectively blocking Icahn's takeover bid. The SEC took issue with
the fact that Lionsgate did not disclose that the $100 million
debt-to-equity swap reduced Icahn's stake to 33.5% from 37.3%.

Icahn filed suit but settled in August 2011 as part of cashing out
his stake for $7 a share, or $310 million.

"Lionsgate failed to reveal that the move was part of a defensive
strategy to solidify incumbent management's control, instead
stating in SEC filings that the transactions were part of a
previously announced plan to reduce debt," the SEC said.

The SEC's order found Lionsgate violated two sections and three
rules and required Lionsgate to "cease and desist" from future
violations.

Lionsgate had no comment and a spokesman noted that the company
does not comment on litigation as a matter of corporate policy.


MADISON SQUARE: Settlement in Suit v. NHL Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison Square Garden Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
New York court has granted final approval to the settlement
reached in antitrust lawsuits against the National Hockey League
and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports networks and cable
and satellite distributors.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports
networks and cable and satellite distributors. The second
complaint, which was substantially identical to the first, was
dismissed after its named plaintiff was named as a co-plaintiff in
the first complaint. The operative complaint primarily asserted
that certain of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered
into by defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide
certain territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the
television and online distribution of live hockey games, violated
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiffs
sought injunctive relief against the defendants' continued
violation of the antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees
and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss. On December 5, 2012, the court issued an
opinion and order largely denying the motion to dismiss.

On April 8, 2014, following the conclusion of fact discovery, all
defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
the case in its entirety. On August 8, 2014, the Court denied the
motions for summary judgment.

On May 14, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' class certification
motion with respect to damages but granted it with respect to
injunctive relief. Both plaintiffs and defendants filed petitions
with the Court of Appeals seeking pretrial review of these
rulings.

On June 10, 2015, the parties entered into a proposed settlement
(the "Settlement") of the lawsuit and the Settlement was filed
with the Court on June 11, 2015. The Settlement was subject to
Court approval.

On June 15, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement and directed that notice of the proposed Settlement be
sent to the putative class. On August 31, 2015, the Court held a
final fairness hearing on the Settlement.

On September 1, 2015, the Court found that the Settlement's terms
were fair, reasonable and adequate and issued an order approving
the Settlement, which became effective on September 16, 2015.

As a result of the Court's order, the lawsuit was dismissed and
all appeals were withdrawn with prejudice. The time to appeal the
court's order has expired.  The Settlement did not result in any
changes to the distribution of NHL games on the MSG Networks or in
any Company payment obligations.


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Oral Arguments Held on Bid to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
court was scheduled to hold oral arguments for December 1, 2015,
on the Company's motion to dismiss the case, Thomas et al., v.
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160.

On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the
Company and certain of the Company's now-former officers. On April
21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors
and former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the Company,
and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the
Company's public stock offerings.

On June 15, 2015, these two class action lawsuits were
consolidated. On June 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in
the consolidated action, against the Company, certain of the
Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of
the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as
underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015 and a putative
subclass consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 6,
2013 public stock offering. The consolidated amended complaint
asserts claims on behalf of the putative class for (i) alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company's
current directors and former officers, (ii) alleged violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the Company's
current directors and former officers, and (iii) alleged
violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act by a
shareholder. The consolidated amended complaint also asserts
claims on behalf of the subclass for (i) alleged violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") by
the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former
officers, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters
of the Company's public stock offerings, (ii) alleged violations
of Section 12 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the
Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of
the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as
underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings, (iii)
alleged violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act by the
Company, certain of the Company's former officers, and a
shareholder of the Company.

On July 27, 2015, the Company and certain defendants filed motions
to dismiss the consolidated action, Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160, which is pending in
the Northern District of California. The Company's motions to
dismiss are fully briefed and the court scheduled oral argument on
the motions for December 1, 2015.


MANNKIND CORP: March 15 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 22 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
all shareholders who purchased shares of MannKind Corporation
("MannKind" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MNKD) between August 10,
2015 and January 5, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Shareholders who incurred losses on shares on purchased within the
Class Period are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774.

If you purchased the shares of MannKind Corporation during the
period August 10, 2015 and January 5, 2016, inclusive, you may, no
later than March 15, 2016, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class.

MannKind, is a biopharmaceutical company whose main product,
Afrezza, is a rapid-acting insulin inhaled at mealtimes to help
control insulin levels in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
On January 5, 2016, MannKind issued a press release announcing the
termination of its license and collaboration agreement with
pharmaceutical distributor Sanofi-Aventis.  That same day,
Bloomberg reported that Sanofi terminated the agreement with
MannKind due to low level of prescriptions despite Sanofi's best
efforts.  On this news, the company's stock fell $0.70 per share,
or over 48%, to close at $0.75 per share on January 5, 2016.

Then, on January 6, 2016, an article published in the LA Times
stated that Afrezza was unsuccessful because the doctors tasked
with carrying out FDA-mandated lung testing on Afrezza patients
were unfamiliar with the tests, and didn't prescribe Afrezza as a
result.  On this news, the company's stock fell further, by
approximately 2.67%, to close at $0.73 per share on January 6,
2016.  Since reaching a class period high of $4.31 per share on
August 12, 2015, the market capitalization of MannKind has
declined over $1.5 billion.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our website
at www.whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to the "MannKind
Investigation."


MDL 1950: Remaining Parties Reach Settlements
---------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the remaining
parties to the putative class action reported to the MDL 1950
court that settlements in principle had been reached.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including GICs. These
cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516 ("MDL 1950"). Five of these
cases named both AGMH and AGM: (a) Hinds County, Mississippi v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia v. Wachovia
Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington County,
Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.

In April 2009, the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss on the federal claims for these five cases, but granted
leave for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The
Corrected Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed
on October 9, 2013, lists neither AGM nor AGMH as a named
defendant or a co-conspirator. The complaint generally seeks
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
costs. The other four cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also
alleged that the defendants violated California state antitrust
law and common law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market
allocation, thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of
competition in the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in
the cities paying higher fees for these products: (f) City of
Oakland, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of
Alameda, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of
Fresno, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno
County Financing Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp.

When the four plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
September 2009, the plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.
However, the complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's
activities. The consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

In April 2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in
part the named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated
complaint. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits.

On September 22, 2015, the remaining parties to the putative class
action reported to the MDL 1950 Court that settlements in
principle had been reached. The parties also reported that final
settlement with those remaining defendants would resolve the
putative class case.


MDL 2295: PRA Group Still Defends TCPA Suits
--------------------------------------------
PRA Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend claims in the case, Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, case
No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent.

On December 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters
into one consolidated proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court").

On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").

Following the ruling of the United States Federal Communications
Commission on June 10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the
TCPA, the Court lifted the stay of these matters that had been in
place since May 20, 2014.


MDL 2308: 1,112 Personal Injury Cases over Toning Shoes Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the multi-district
litigation entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability
Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR (W.D. Ky.) currently
encompasses 1,112 personal injury cases.

On February 20, 2011, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
II and Skechers Fitness Group were named as defendants in a
lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that Shape-ups are
defective and unreasonably dangerous, negligently designed and/or
manufactured, and do not conform to representations made by our
company, and that we failed to provide adequate warnings of
alleged risks associated with Shape-ups. In total, we are named as
a defendant in 1,181 currently pending cases (some on behalf of
multiple plaintiffs) filed in various courts that assert further
varying injuries but employ similar legal theories and assert
similar claims to the first case, as well as claims for breach of
express and implied warranties, loss of consortium, and fraud.
Although there are some variations in the relief sought, the
plaintiffs generally seek compensatory and/or economic damages,
exemplary and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 19, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order establishing a multidistrict litigation
("MDL") proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe
Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR.

Since 2011, a total of 1,233 personal injury cases have been filed
in or transferred to the MDL proceeding and 414 additional
individuals have submitted claims by plaintiff fact sheets.
Skechers has resolved 449 personal injury claims in the MDL
proceedings, comprised of 79 that were filed as formal actions and
370 that were submitted by plaintiff fact sheets. Skechers has
also settled 8 claims in principle -- 6 filed cases and 2 claims
submitted by plaintiff fact sheets -- and anticipates that those
settlements will be finalized in the near term. Forty-two cases in
the MDL proceeding have been dismissed either voluntarily or on
motions by Skechers and 38 unfiled claims submitted by plaintiff
fact sheet have been abandoned.

The MDL currently encompasses 1,112 personal injury cases (which
include the claims of 1,437 individuals who filed court approved
questionnaires) and 4 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets.
Under a mediation procedure authorized by the District Court, a
total of 2,353 settlement questionnaires were submitted by persons
who had yet to file a lawsuit or who were already participants in
the MDL or related coordinated proceedings pending in California
state court.

On August 6, 2015, the Court entered an order staying all
deadlines, including trial, pending further order of the Court.


MDL 2672: 25 Class Suits v. Volkswagen et al. Transferred
---------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five class action lawsuits against Volkswagen Group of
America Inc., et al., have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  The transfers are pursuant to
the Transfer Order entered in In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel"
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 2672, on Dec. 8, 2015.  The Hon. Charles R. Breyer oversees In
re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" MDL, Case No. 15-MD-2672-CRB (JSC)
(N.D. Calif.), and at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdlthe
Court Clerk is making additional information about this proceeding
available to practitioners and the public.  The Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee is scheduled to file a consolidated class
action complaint by Feb. 22, 2016, and Judge Breyer has scheduled
a status conference for 8:00 a.m., on Feb. 25, 2016, in San
Francisco.


   Cases Transferred to MDL No. 2672
   ---------------------------------
Michelle Davis Redmond v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05657 (N.D. Cal., December 11, 2015)
Case in other court: Alabama Northern, 5:15-cv-01648

          Plaintiff Counsel:

               Dennis A Mastando, Esq.
               MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
               301 Washington Street, Suite 302
               Huntsville, AL 35801
               Tel: (256) 532-2222
               E-mail: tony@mastandoartrip.com

                    - and -

               Eric James Artrip, Esq.
               MASTANDO ARTRIP LLC
               301 Washington St Ste 302
               Huntsville, AL 35801
               Tel: (256) 532-2222
               Fax: (256) 513-7489
               E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Amie Adelia Vague, Esq.
               LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE
               400 20th St North
               Birmingham, AL 35203
               E-mail: avague@lightfootlaw.com

                    - and -

               Harlan Irby Prater, IV, Esq.
               LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC
               400 20th St North
               Birmingham, AL 35203
               E-mail: hprater@lightfootlaw.com

                    - and -

               Sara Anne Ford, Esq.
               LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC
               The Clark Building
               400 20th Street, North
               Birmingham, AL 35203
               Tel: (205) 581-0700
               E-mail: sford@lfwlaw.com

Steven Yell v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05706 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07429

          Plaintiff's counsel:

               Celene S. Chan, Esq.
               KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
               500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1310
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Tel: (213) 254-4800
               Fax: (213) 254-4801
               E-mail: cchan@klwtlaw.com

                    - and -

               Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
               KASDAN SIMONDS ET AL LLP
               19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 850
               Irvine, CA 92612
               Tel: (949) 851-9000
               Fax: (949) 833-9455
               E-mail: kskasdan@kasdansimonds.com

                    - and -

               Graham Bruce LippSmith, Esq.
               KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
               500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1310
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Tel: (213) 254-4800
               Fax: (213) 254-4801
               E-mail: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
               Tel: (213) 229-9500
               Fax: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing,
Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation,
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05699 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)

          Counsel to Todd Mitsuda, on behalf of himself and all
others
          similarly situated; Erik Brunkal, on behalf of
themselves and
          all others similarly situated; Daniel Sievers, on behalf
of
          themselves and all others similarly situated; Farley
          Toothman, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly
          situated; Michael Bong Kim, on behalf of themselves and
all
          others similarly situated:

               David C Wright, Esq.
               McCUNE WRIGHT LLP
               2068 Orange Tree Lane Suite 216
               Redlands, CA 92374
               Tel: (909) 557-1250
               Fax: (909) 557-1275
               E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com

                    - and -

               Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
               McCUNEWRIGHT LLP
               2068 Orange Tree Lane, Ste 216
               Redlands, CA 92374
               Tel: (909) 557-1250
               Fax: (909) 557-1275
               E-mail: jkk@mccunewright.com

                    - and -

               Richard D. McCune, Jr., Esq.
               McCUNEWRIGHT LLP
               2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
               Redlands, CA 92374
               Tel: (909) 557-1250
               Fax: (909) 557-1275
               E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com

                    - and -

               Robert C O'Brien, Esq.
               ARENT FOX LLP
               555 West Fifth Street 48th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90013
               Tel: (213) 629-7400
               Fax: (213) 629-7401
               E-mail: obrien.robert@arentfox.com

                    - and -

               Stephen Gerard Larson, Esq.
               ARENT FOX LLP
               555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065
               Tel: (213) 629-7400
               Fax: (213) 629-7401
               E-mail: stephen.larson@arentfox.com

Amy E. Weiss v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05702 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07474

          Plaintiff's counsel:

               Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
               ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP
               6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90045
               Tel: (310) 844-9696
               E-mail: alfredo@asstlawyers.com

                    - and -

               Jamie Greer Goldstein, Esq.
               ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP
               555 12th Street, Suite 1230
               Oakland, CA 94607
               Tel: (510) 629-4877
               Fax: (510) 291-9742
               E-mail: jamie@asstlawyers.com

                    - and -

               Mike M Arias, Esq.
               ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE AND TORRIJOS, LLP
               6701 Center Drive West 14th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90045-1558
               Tel: (310) 844-9696
               Fax: (310) 861-0168
               E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com

Danna Hendricks v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05697 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 5:15-cv-01948

          Plaintiff's counsel:

               Stuart M Eppsteiner, Esq.
               EPPSTEINER AND FIORICA ATTORNEYS LLP
               12555 High Bluff Drive Suite 155
               San Diego, CA 92130
               Tel: (858) 350-1500
               Fax: (858) 350-1501
               E-mail: sme@eppsteiner.com

                    - and -

               Andrew Jerry Kubik, Esq.
               EPPSTEINER AND FIORICA ATTORNEYS, LLP
               12555 High Bluff Drive, Suite 155
               San Diego, CA 92130
               Tel: (858) 350-1500
               E-mail: ajk@eppsteiner.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
               Tel: (213) 229-9500
               Fax: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

Christopher J D Angelo v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05700 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07390

          Plaintiff's counsel:

               David James Vendler, Esq.
               MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP
               1055 W 7th St #2400
               Los Angeles, CA 90017
               Tel: (213) 891-9100
               Fax: (213) 488-1178
               E-mail: dvendler@mpplaw.com

                    - and -

               Kevin M Pollack, Esq.
               MORRIS POLICH AND PURDY LLP
               1055 W 7th St 24th Fl
               Los Angeles, CA 90017
               Tel: (213) 891-9100
               Fax: (213) 488-1178
               E-mail: kpollack@mpplaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
               Tel: (213) 229-9500
               Fax: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

Gerald Netkin v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. et al
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05698 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07367

          Plaintiff's counsel:

               Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
               LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STARR
               23277 Ventura Blvd.
               Woodland Hills, CA 91364
               Tel: (818) 225-9040
               Fax: (818) 225-9042
               E-mail: starrlawadam@yahoo.com

                    - and

               Robert L. Starr, Esq.
               LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR APC
               23277 Ventura Boulevard
               Woodland Hills, CA 91364
               Tel: (818) 225-9040
               Fax: (818) 225-9042
               E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com

                    - and -

               Stephen M. Harris, Esq.
               MEYER & NJUS
               200 6th St S Ste 1100
               Minneapolis, MN 55402-4121
               Tel: (612) 630-3259
               Fax: (612) 337-5894
               E-mail: sharris@meyernjus.com

          Counsel for Volkswagen of America Inc:

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN ROWE MAW LLP
               350 South Grand Ave
               25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Tel: (213) 621-9483

Michael MaCauley v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al,
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05695 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07430

          Plaintiff's counsel:

               Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
               LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
               8730 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 310
               Beverly Hills, CA 90212
               Tel: (877) 206-4741
               Fax: (866) 633-0228
               E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com

                    - and -

               David Levi Weisberg, Esq.
               KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
               12304 Santa Monica Boulevard
               Suite 221
               Los Angeles, CA 90025
               Tel: (310) 507-7924
               Fax: (310) 507-7906
               E-mail: david@kristensenlaw.com

                    - and

               Todd M Friedman, Esq.
               KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
               153 E 53rd St
               Citicorp Center
               New York, NY 10022-4675
               Tel: (212) 446-4786
               Fax: (212) 446-4900
               E-mail: tfriedman@kirkland.com

                    - and -

               John P Kristensen, Esq.
               KRISTENEN WEISBERG LLP
               12304 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 100
               Los Angeles, CA 90025
               Tel: (310) 507-7924
               Fax: (310) 507-7906
               E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com

Craig Temkin et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05707 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07432

          Plaintiff's counsel:

               Matthew J Preusch, Esq.
               KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P.
               1129 Spring St., Suite 8
               Santa Barbara, CA 93101
               Tel: (805) 456-1496
               E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN ROWE MAW LLP
               350 South Grand Ave, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Tel: (213) 621-9483

Gregory Giauque et al v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05714 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07473

          Counsel to Plaintiff:

               Daniel S Robinson, Esq.
               ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC
               19 Corporate Plaza Drive
               Newport Beach, CA 92660
               Tel: (949) 720-1288
               Fax: (949) 720-1292
               E-mail: drobinson@rcrsd.com

                    - and -

               Kevin Frank Calcagnie
               ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC
               19 Corporate Plaza Drive
               Newport Beach, CA 92660
               Tel: (949) 720-1288
               Fax: (949) 720-1292
               E-mail: kcalcagnie@rcrlaw.net

                    - and -

               Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
               ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC.
               19 Corporate Plaza Drive
               Newport Beach, CA 92660
               Tel: (949) 720-1288
               Fax: (949) 720-1292
               E-mail: mrobinson@rcrlaw.net

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
               Tel: (213) 229-9500
               Fax: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

Michael McCabe et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05710 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 5:15-cv-01930

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Matthew J Preusch, Esq.
               KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P.
               1129 Spring St., Suite 8
               Santa Barbara, CA 93101
               Tel: (805) 456-1496
               E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

          Counsel to Genin:

               Joshua C Ezrin, Esq.
               AUDET AND PARTNERS LLP
               711 Van Ness Suite 500
               San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
               Tel: (415) 982-1776
               Fax: (415) 576-1776
               E-mail: jezrin@audetlaw.com

                    - and -

               William M. Audet, Esq.
               AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
               711 Van Ness, Suite 500
               San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
               Tel: (415) 568-2555
               Fax: (415) 568-2556
               E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com

Allison C. Steele v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05694 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07391

          Plaintiff's counsel:

               Alexandra T Steele, Esq.
               GIRARDI KEESE
               1126 Wilshire Blvd.
               Los Angeles, CA 90017
               Tel: (213) 977-0211
               E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com

                    - and -

               Joseph Robert Finnerty, Esq.
               GIRARDI AND KEESE
               1126 Wilshire Boulevard
               Los Angeles, CA 90017
               Tel: (213) 977-0211 x 339
               Fax: (213) 481-1554
               E-mail: jfinnerty@girardikeese.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
               Tel: (213) 229-9500
               Fax: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

Paul Karcsay v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05705 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Southern, 3:15-cv-02110

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
               CAPSTONE LAW APC
               1840 Century Park East, Suite 540
               Los Angeles, CA 90067
               Tel: (310) 556-4811
               Fax: (310) 943-0396
               E-mail: cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com

                    - and -

               Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
               CAPSTONE LAW APC
               1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
               Los Angeles, CA 90067
               Tel: (310) 556-4811
               Fax: (310) 943-0396
               E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com

                    - and -

               Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
               CAPSTONE LAW APC
               1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
               Los Angeles, CA 90067
               Tel: (310) 556-4811
               Fax: (310) 943-0396
               E-mail: robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com

                    - and -

               Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
               CAPSTONE LAWYERS, APC
               1840 Century Park East
               Suite 450
               Los Angeles, CA 90067
               Tel: (310) 556-4811
               Fax: (310) 943-0396
               E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Tel: (213) 621-9483
               Fax: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

Jorge Dell'Aquila v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05696 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 8:15-cv-01525

          Plaintiff's counsel:

               Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
               DONAHOO AND ASSOCIATES
               440 West First Street, Suite 101
               Tustin, CA 92780
               Tel: (714) 953-1010
               Fax: (714) 953-1777
               E-mail: jcamilleri@donahoo.com

                    - and -

               Sarah Louise Kokonas, Esq.
               DONAHOO AND ASSOCIATES
               440 West First Street Suite 101
               Tustin, CA 92780
               Tel: (714) 953-1010
               Fax: (714) 953-1777
               E-mail: skokonas@donahoo.com

                    - and -

               Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
               DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES
               440 W. First Street, Suite 101
               Tustin, CA 92780
               Tel: (714) 953-1010
               Fax: (714) 953-1777
               E-mail: rdonahoo@donahooandassoc.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN ROWE MAW LLP
               350 South Grand Ave, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Tel: (213) 621-9483

Elizabeth Crosson v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05708 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07475

          Plaintiff's counsel:

               Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
               KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P.
               1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
               Seattle, WA 98101-3200
               Tel: (206) 623-1900
               Fax: (206) 623-3384
               E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

                    - and -

               Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
               KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP
               1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
               Seattle, WA 98101-3052
               Tel (206) 623-1900
               Fax: (206) 623-3384
               E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com

                    - and -

               Matthew J Preusch, Esq.
               Keller Rohrback, L.L.P.
               1129 Spring St., Suite 8
               Santa Barbara, CA 93101
               Tel: (805) 456-1496
               E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

                    - and -

               Ryan McDevin, Esq.
               KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
               1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
               Seattle, WA 98101
               Tel: (206) 623-1900
               Fax: (206) 623-3384
               E-mail: rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
               Tel: (213) 229-9500
               Fax: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

                    - and -

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN ROWE MAW LLP
               350 South Grand Ave, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Tel: (213) 621-9483

Warren Manufacturing Incorporated et al. v. Volkswagen Group of
America Inc. Docket No. 3:15-cv-05670 (N.D. Cal., December 11,
2015)
Case in other court: Alabama Northern, 2:15-cv-01655

          Plaintiff's counsel:

               Christopher B Hood, Esq.
               HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
               2224 1st Avenue North
               Birmingham, AL 35203
               Tel: (205) 326-3336
               Fax: (205) 326-3332
               E-mail: chood@hgdlawfirm.com

                    - and -

               James Francis McDonough , III, Esq.
               HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
               3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
               Atlanta, GA 30339
               Tel: (404) 996-0869
               Fax: (205) 380-8076
               E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com

                    - and -

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

                    - and -

               W Lewis Garrison , Jr, Esq.
               HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
               2224 1st Avenue North
               Birmingham, AL 35203
               Tel: (205) 326-3336
               Fax: (205) 326-3332
               E-mail: pputman@hgdlawfirm.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               Harlan Irby Prater , IV, Esq.
               LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC
               400 20th St North
               Birmingham, AL 35203
               E-mail: hprater@lightfootlaw.com

                    - and -

               Patricia Rodriguez Britton, Esq.
               NELSON MULLINS RILEY SCARBOROUGH LLP
               201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700
               Atlanta, GA 30363
               Tel: (404) 322-6112
               E-mail: patricia.britton@nelsonmullins.com

                    - and -

               Sara Anne Ford, Esq.
               LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC
               The Clark Building
               400 20th Street, North
               Birmingham, AL 35203
               Tel: (205) 581-0700
               E-mail: sford@lfwlaw.com

Iris Stricklin et al., v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al,
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05701 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07431

          Counsel to Plaintiff:

               Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
               BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
               12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
               San Diego, CA 92130
               Tel: (858) 720-3188
               Fax: (858) 436-0188
               E-mail: beng@blbglaw.com

                    - and -

               David R Kaplan, Esq.
               BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER AND GROSSMANN LLP
               12481 High Bluff Drive Suite 300
               San Diego, CA 92130
               Tel: (858) 793-0070
               Fax: (858) 793-0323
               E-mail: davidk@blbglaw.com

                    - and -

               Lucas E Gilmore, Esq.
               BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER AND GROSSMANN LLP
               12481 High Bluff Drive Suite 300
               San Diego, CA 92130
               Tel: (858) 793-0070
               Fax: (858) 793-0323
               E-mail: lucas.gilmore@blbglaw.com

                    - and -

               Rachel Ann Felong, Esq.
               BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BEGER AND GROSSMANN LLP
               12481 High Bluff Drive Suite 300
               San Diego, CA 92130
               Tel: (858) 793-0070
               Fax: (858) 793-0323
               E-mail: rachel.felong@blbglaw.com

                    - and -

               Blair A Nicholas, Esq.
               BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER AND GROSSMANN LLP
               12481 High Bluff Drive Suite 300
               San Diego, CA 92130
               Tel: (858) 793-0070
               Fax: (858) 793-0323
               E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com

          Counsel to Defendants:

               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
               Tel: (213) 229-9500
               Fax: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

John Holton et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05848 (N.D. Cal., December 21, 2015)
Case in other court: Arkansas Eastern, 4:15-cv-00601

          Counsel to Plaintiff:

               Austin H. Easley, Esq.
               EASLEY & HOUSEAL, P.A.
               Post Office Box 1115
               Forrest City, AR 72336-1115
               Tel: (870) 633-1447
               E-mail: austin@ehtriallawyers.com

                    - and -

               B. Michael Easley, Esq.
               EASLEY & HOUSEAL, P.A.
               Post Office Box 1115
               Forrest City, AR 72336-1115
               Tel: (870) 633-1447
               E-mail: mike@ehtriallawyers.com

                    - and -

               John Irving Houseal , III, Esq.
               EASLEY & HOUSEAL, P.A.
               Post Office Box 1115
               Forrest City, AR 72336-1115
               Tel: (870) 633-1447
               E-mail: john@ehtriallawyers.com

                    - and -

               Timothy R. Holton, Esq.
               DEAL COOPER HOLTON PLLC
               296 Washington Avenue
               Memphis, TN 38103
               Tel: (901) 523-2222
               E-mail: THolton@dchlaw.com

                    - and -

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               Michael E. Hale, Esq.
               BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
               425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
               Little Rock, AR 72201
               Tel: (501) 707-6136
               Fax: (501) 375-2802
               E-mail: mhale@barberlawfirm.com

                    - and -

               Gail Ponder Gaines, Esq.
               BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
               425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
               Little Rock, AR 72201
               Tel: (501) 372-6175
               Fax: (501) 375-2802
               E-mail: ggaines@barberlawfirm.com

Dennis Shipley et al. v. Landers Auto Group LLC et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05855 (N.D. Cal., December 21, 2015)
Case in other court: Arkansas Eastern, 4:15-cv-00696

          Counsel to Plaintiff:

               Allison Elizabeth Ann Koile, Esq.
               SANFORD LAW FIRM
               Post Office Box 39
               Russellville, AR 72811
               Tel: (479) 880-0088
               Fax: (888) 787-2040
               E-mail: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com

                    - and -

               Joshua Sanford, Esq.
               SANFORD LAW FIRM
               One Financial Center
               650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
               Little Rock, AR 72211
               Tel: (501) 221-0088
               Fax: (888) 787-2040
               E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

                    - and -

               Maryna O. Jackson, Esq.
               63 Springwood Court
               Cabot, AR 72023
               Tel: (501) 606-0864
               E-mail: maryna@sanfordlawfirm.com

          Counsel to Landers Auto Group LLC:

               Daniel R. Carter, Esq.
               JAMES, CARTER AND COULTER, PLC
               Post Office Box 907
               Little Rock, AR 72203-0907
               Tel: (501) 372-1414
               E-mail: dcarter@jamescarterlaw.com

          Counsel to Defendant NP VKW LLC, doing business as:
North
          Point Volkswagen:

               Gail Ponder Gaines, Esq.
               BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
               425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
               Little Rock, AR 72201
               Tel: (501) 372-6175
               Fax: (501) 375-2802
               E-mail: ggaines@barberlawfirm.com

                    - and -

               Michael E. Hale, Esq.
               BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
               425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
               Little Rock, AR 72201
               Tel: (501) 707-6136
               Fax: (501) 375-2802
               E-mail: mhale@barberlawfirm.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               Mark Evan Stallings, Esq.
               BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
               425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
               Little Rock, AR 72201
               Tel: (501) 707-6120
               E-mail: estallings@barberlawfirm.com

Amber J. Handal v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05713 (N.D. Cal., December 15, 2015)
Case in other court: California Southern, 3:15-cv-02127

          Counsel to Plaintiff:

               Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
               Finkelstein & Krinsk, Esq.
               501 West Bradway, Suite 1250
               San Diego, CA 92101
               Tel: (519) 238-1333
               Fax: (619) 238-5425
               E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com

                    - and -

               Mark Leland Knutson, Esq.
               FINKELSTEIN AND KRINSK LLP
               501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
               San Diego, CA 92101-3593
               Tel: (619) 238-1333
               Fax: (619) 238-5425
               E-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com

                    - and -

               William Richard Restis, Esq.
               FINKELSTIEN & KRINSK LLP
               550 W. C Street, Suite 1760
               San Diego, CA 92101
               Tel: (619) 238-1333
               E-mail: wrr@classactionlaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
               Tel: (213) 229-9500
               Fax: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

Rich Hill v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05715 (N.D. Cal., December 15, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07517

          Counsel to Plaintiff:

               Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
               SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
               1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
               Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
               Tel: (310) 789-3100
               Fax: (310) 789-3150
               E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com

                    - and -

               Matthew R. Berry, Esq.
               SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
               1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
               Seattle, WA 98101-3000
               Tel: (206) 516-3880
               Fax: (206) 516-3883
               E-mail: mberry@susmangodfrey.com

                    - and -

               Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
               SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
               1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
               Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
               Tel: (310) 789-3100
               Fax: (310) 789-3150
               E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

Helen Bullard v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05737 (N.D. Cal., December 16, 2015)
Case in other court: Tennessee Eastern, 1:15-cv-00251

          Counsel to Plaintiff:

               David G. Scott, Esq.
               EMERSON SCOTT LLP
               1301 Scott Street
               Little Rock, AR 72202
               Tel: (501) 907-2555
               Fax: (501) 907-2556
               E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com

                    - and -

               Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
               BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
               2001 Market St
               3300 Two Commerce Sq
               Philadelphia, PA 19103
               Tel: (215) 963-0600

                    - and -

               Joe P. Leniski , Jr., Esq.
               BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
               227 Second Avenue North
               Nashville, TN 37201
               Tel: (615) 254-8801
               Fax: (615) 255-5419

                    - and -

               John G Emerson, Jr., Esq.
               EMERSON SCOTT LLP
               830 Apollo Lane
               Houston, TX 77058
               E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

                    - and -

               Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
               BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
               One America Plaza
               600 West Broadway, Suite 900
               San Diego, CA 92101
               Tel: (619) 230-0800
               Fax: (619) 230-1874
               E-mail: sward@barrack.com

                    - and -

               Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
               BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
               One America Plaza
               600 West Broadway, Suite 900
               San Diego, CA 92101
               Tel: (619) 230-0800
               Fax: (619) 230-1874
               E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com

                    - and -

               J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
               BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
               223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
               Nashville, TN 37203
               Tel: (615) 254-8801
               Fax: (615) 250-3937
               E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

          Counsel to Defendant:

               J Randolph Bibb, Jr., Esq.
               LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C.
               424 Church Street, Suite 2500
               P.O. Box 198615
               Nashville, TN 37215-8615
               Tel: (615) 259-1366
               Fax: (615) 259-1389

                    - and -

               Ryan Nelson Clark, Esq.
               LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C.
               424 Church Street, Suite 2500
               PO Box 198615
               Nashville, TN 37219-8615
               Tel: (615) 259-1366
               Fax: (615) 259-1389

Jeffrey Thomas Henderson v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc,
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05788 (N.D. Cal., December 17, 2015)
Case in other court: Tennessee Eastern, 1:15-cv-00248

          Counsel to Plaintiff:

               W Heath Brooks, Esq.
               SINIARD TIMBERLAKE & LEAGUE PC
               125 Holmes Ave
               P O Box 2767
               Huntsville, AL 35804
               E-mail: heath.brooks@law-injury.com

Cassie Walther v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al,
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05837 (N.D. Cal., December 18, 2015)
Case in other court: New York Eastern, 1:15-cv-06243

          Counsel to Plaintiff:

               Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
               NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES, LLP
               350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
               New York, NY 10118
               Tel: (212) 267-3700
               E-mail: hunter@napolibern.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc:

               Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Esq.
               CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
               354 Eisenhower Pkway Ste 1100
               Livingston, NJ 07039
               E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

David Millington et al v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al,
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05910 (N.D. Cal., December 21, 2015)
Case in other court: New York Eastern, 2:15-cv-06029

          Counsel to Plaintiff:

               Daniel Feist Schreck, Esq.
               LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
               99 Park Avenue, Suite 1100
               New York, NY 10016
               Tel: (212) 867-3838
               Fax: (212) 681-0810
               E-mail: DSchreck@Koppellaw.com

                    - and -

               G. Oliver Koppell, Esq.
               LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL AND ASSOCIATES
               99 Park Avenue, Suite 1100
               New York, NY 10016
               Tel: (212) 867-3838
               E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com

                    - and -

               Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
               LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN
               768 Plandome Road
               Manhasset, NY 11030
               Tel: (516) 426-6870
               E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com


MICHAELS STORE: Federal Judge Kills Data Breach Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New
York federal judge officially closed a case filed against arts and
crafts retailer Michaels over a 2014 data breach.

Judge Joanna Seybert, for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, filed an order Dec. 28 granting Michaels'
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit. She deemed the case
closed Jan. 8.

The judge said in her 16-page order that plaintiff Mary Jane
Whalen's allegations were "insufficient to confer standing."

Michaels notified its customers of "possible fraudulent activity"
in January 2014. According to a company press release, hackers
used a "highly sophisticated malware" to retrieve credit and debit
card information from the store's system and that of its
subsidiary, Aaron Brothers.

Michaels estimated that about 2.6 million cards may have been
affected between May 8, 2013 and Jan. 27, 2014. As a result, the
company offered free credit monitoring services for a year.

Whalen allegedly made purchases with her credit card at a Michaels
store in Manhasset, New York, on Dec. 31, 2013.

In her complaint, filed in December 2014, Whalen alleged she
suffered actual damages, including monetary losses, loss of time
and money, and lost value of her credit card information. She also
alleged she faces an increased risk of future harm because of the
breach.

The court noted, however, that Whalen did not allege she suffered
any unreimbursed charges.

"To the contrary, she asserts only that her credit card was
'physically presented for payment in Ecuador," Seybert wrote.
"There are no allegations that Whalen was required to pay the
charges made in Ecuador."

The judge concluded that Whalen's allegations of lost time and
money associated with credit monitoring and other mitigation
expenses do not constitute standing.

Seybert pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has dismissed
similar arguments, explaining that plaintiffs "cannot manufacture"
standing through credit monitoring.

"If the law were otherwise, an enterprising plaintiff would be
able to secure a lower standard for Article III standing simply by
making an expenditure based on a non-paranoid fear," the judge
wrote, quoting the nation's high court. "That conclusion rings
especially true here where Whalen cancelled her affected credit
card."

As to her arguments of future harm, Seybert said the allegations
were "too remote" to establish an injury-in-fact -- a requirement
that helps to ensure the plaintiff has a "personal stake" in the
outcome.

Allegations of future harm can establish standing only if the
threatened injury is "certainly impending," or there is a
"substantial risk" that the harm will occur, the judge noted.

"Although Whalen argues that she faces an increased risk of
identity theft, she admits that 'fraudulent use of cards might not
be apparent for years,'" Seybert wrote. "In fact, it has been
nearly two years since the Security Breach, and Whalen has
experienced no fraudulent charges after cancelling her credit
card."

The judge explained that a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit -- which Whalen cited in support of her
argument -- does not apply.

The Seventh Circuit, in its July ruling, found that the risk of
harm to the 300,000-plus people whose credit card numbers were
exposed as a result of a 2014 data breach suffered by Neiman
Marcus was "very real and immediate."

"There, hackers stole the credit card information of roughly
350,000 Neiman Marcus customers," Seybert wrote. "But one critical
distinction in that case is that 9,200 of those customers
experienced fraudulent charges following the breach."

"By contrast, Whalen's complaint only indicates that she was
affected, and even she did not suffer any out-of-pocket losses."

The federal court's ruling is the same for which similar data
breach class actions have been dismissed against P.F. Chang's,
Zappos and others.

It also is at least the second data breach class action dismissed
against Michaels.

In July 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois dismissed a very similar lawsuit, ruling that the
plaintiffs in Moyer v. Michaels Stores Inc. failed to plead the
required element of actual monetary damages.

Linn Freedman, chairwoman of the Data, Privacy and Security Team
at Providence law firm Robinson & Cole LLP, argues that plaintiffs
attorneys are looking for ways to get around such rulings.

"We are seeing plaintiffs attorneys starting to use state law
causes of action more and more in an attempt to find other causes
of action that may be recoverable when most data breach cases are
getting dismissed for lack of standing due to the inability to
show injury or harm," Freedman recently told Legal Newsline.

She expects data breach litigation to increase in 2016 as a
result.


MILKY WAY: Recalls Mandarin Oranges Light Syrup Due to Glass
------------------------------------------------------------
Milky Way International Trading Corp. announced the recall of
Nice! Mandarin Oranges in 8-ounce bottles due to potential glass
in the product. The affected product was distributed to Walgreens
stores nationwide and displays one of the lot numbers listed
below. Consumers could potentially be cut or injured if ingested.
To date there have been three complaints, and one alleged injury
reported.

The voluntary recall is limited to specific production codes of 8-
ounce Nice! Brand Mandarin Oranges in Light Syrup, as follows. The
lot codes are located at either the neck or the lid of the glass
bottles.

Product: Nice! Brand Mandarin Orange in Light Syrup 8oz
Item # 80895

  Lot number       Bottle Label UPC       Case UPC
  ----------       ----------------       --------
  H894K09A         01/11/2017             0-49022-80895-9
                                          100- 49022-80895-6
  4200/01039       01/16/2018             0-49022-80895-9
                                          100-49022-80895-6
  4200/01039       02/01/2018             0-49022-80895-9
                                          100-49022-80895-6

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of and in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
If you have any of the affected product(s) on hand, please contact
us immediately at 1.562.921.2800 Monday to Friday between 8am to
5pm PST.

The product has been removed from shelves in Walgreens stores.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/sJy4P5


MIMEDX GROUP: Consolidated Class Action in Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------
Mimedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a consolidated
amended class action complaint is in the discovery phase.

Following the publication of the Untitled Letter from the FDA
regarding the Company's micronized products in September 2013, the
trading price of the Company's stock dropped sharply and several
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and
certain of its executive officers asserting violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
with respect to various statements and alleged omissions related
to the Company's belief that its products were 361 HCT/Ps,
including its micronized products. These cases have now all been
removed to, and consolidated in, the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia. By order dated December 9,
2013, the Court approved the appointment of a lead plaintiff and a
lead counsel.

A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, containing
substantially the same causes of action and claims for relief as
the initial complaints, was filed on January 27, 2014. The
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the proposed class on March
16, 2015, which defendants opposed on May 15, 2015, while also
moving to exclude plaintiffs' expert.  No ruling on either motion
has been issued and the case is currently in the discovery phase.

The Company currently believes that the outcome of this litigation
will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial
position or results of operations.


MODEL SERVICE: Plaintiffs Can Sue COO Ivers, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to
add a claim for unjust enrichment and to add William Ivers, the
Chief Operating Officer of MSA Models, as an individually-named
defendant in the case captioned, EVA AGERBRINK, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MODEL
SERVICE LLC d/b/a MSA MODELS and SUSAN LEVINE, Defendants. MODEL
SERVICE LLC d/b/a MSA MODELS: and SUSAN LEVINE, Counter Claimants,
v. EVA AGERBRINK, Counter Defendant, Case No. 14 CIV. 7841 (JPO)
(JCF) (S.D.N.Y.).

Eva Agerbrink, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, brought the instant action against Model Service LLC and
Susan Levine. She seeks damages under the Federal Labor Standards
Act and New York State statutory and common law for alleged
violations arising out of her employment.

The plaintiff filed the action on September 26, 2014, and filed an
amended complaint on January 2, 2015. The defendants moved to
dismiss. The Honorable Paul Oetken, U.S.D.J., granted the
defendants' motion as to the plaintiff's declaratory judgment
claim, but denied it as to her wage and hour claims.

In the motion, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint for a second
time to (1) add a claim for unjust enrichment on behalf of a
putative class of all MSA models, and (2) add Mr. Ivers as a
defendant. The defendants argued that the proposed amendment has
been unduly delayed, is made in bad faith, and will be
prejudicial.

In his Memorandum and Order dated January 7, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/aWGyYnfrom Leagle.com, Judge Francis, IV concluded
that the plaintiff's motion should be permitted absent a finding
of undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility.

Eva Agerbrink is represented by Cyrus E. Dugger, Esq. --
cd@theduggerlawfirm.com -- THE DUGGER LAW FIRM, PLLC

Defendants are represented by Evan J. Spelfogel, Esq. --
espelfogel@ebglaw.com -- Jamie Fiedler Friedman, Esq. --
jfriedman@ebglaw.com -- Ronald M. Green, Esq. -- rgreen@ebglaw.com
-- EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.


MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit by Nashville Hospital
---------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that The
Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital
("NGH") filed on October 14, 2015, a class action suit against the
Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of
Lovenox or generic enoxaparin sodium injection.  The complaint
alleges that, by filing the September 2011 patent infringement
suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the Company and Sandoz sought
to prevent Amphastar from selling generic enoxaparin sodium
injection and thereby exclude competition for generic enoxaparin
sodium injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is
seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages. While the
outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company
believes the complaint is without merit, and it intends to
vigorously defend itself in this litigation.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend C&J Energy Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action
lawlsuit related to the merger of the Company's Completion &
Production Services business line with C&J Energy Services, Inc.
remains pending.

The Company completed the merger on March 24, 2015.  In the Merger
and related transactions, the Company's wholly-owned interest in
the Completion & Production Service business line was exchanged
for cash and an equity interest in the combined entity, C&J Energy
Services Ltd.

On July 30, 2014, the Comany and Red Lion, along with C&J Energy
and its board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder
class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  The plaintiff alleges that the members of the C&J
Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger, and that Red Lion and C&J Energy aided
and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff sought to enjoin
the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Merger and
the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for approval of the Merger and,
to the extent that the Merger was completed before any relief was
granted, to have the Merger rescinded.

On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of
Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on
November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J
Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period
alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling
stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii)
preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder
meeting until it complied with the foregoing.

C&J Energy complied with the order while it simultaneously pursued
an expedited appeal of the Court of Chancery's order to the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme
Court"). On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court
overturned the Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order.
This case remains pending.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: 3rd Cir. Tosses Ticket Pricing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
fans who sued the National Football League over its Super Bowl
ticket sales practices lack standing to bring their case, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled.

When the Super Bowl came to East Rutherford in 2014, 99 percent of
tickets went to NFL teams and league insiders, according to a
class action suit brought on behalf of people who bought tickets
for more than face value.  The remaining 1 percent of tickets are
sold to the public, with purchasers determined by lottery.
The suit claimed violations of New Jersey's Ticket Law, which bars
the withholding of more than 5 percent of available seating for an
event.

The suit's named plaintiffs are Josh Finkelman, who bought two
tickets on the resale market for $2,000 each, far in excess of the
named price of $800 each, and Ben Hoch-Parker, who wanted to buy
tickets for his family but decided not to because the only tickets
he could find were $4,200 each, the suit said.

U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan dismissed the suit after
finding that the plaintiffs failed to plead a viable claim under
the Ticket Law.  Judge Sheridan found Hoch-Parker lacked Article
III standing because he did not enter the lottery.  He also found
that Mr. Finkelman failed to plead causation by declining to enter
the NFL lottery because he could not plead any injury resulting
directly from the NFL's alleged misconduct.

On appeal, Judges Julio Fuentes, D. Brooks Smith and Maryanne
Trump Barry agreed with the court below that Hoch-Parker lacks
standing because he purchased no tickets.

"Because Hoch-Parker never purchased a ticket on the secondary
market, he suffered no more injury than any of the possibly tens
of thousands of people who thought about purchasing a ticket to
the Super Bowl and chose not to," the court said.

Mr. Hoch-Parker tried to recast his injury as a "lost opportunity"
suffered when he was unable to attend the Super Bowl, but the
appeals court said that argument was "completely unpersuasive."

The plaintiffs cited a 1981 Third Circuit ruling in Howard v.
New Jersey Department of Civil Service, in which women who claimed
they were denied police officer jobs based on gender were found to
have suffered an injury in fact as a result of the lost
opportunity.  But the analogy between the present case and Howard
was, "at best, extremely strained," Judge Fuentes wrote for the
court.

Mr. Finkelman likewise failed to suffer a cognizable injury, the
court found.  The suit argues that Mr. Finkelman paid more for his
tickets than he would have absent the NFL's alleged misconduct,
but that contention is a "bald assertion," unsupported by well-
pleaded facts, the court said.

His difficulties in alleging an injury-in-fact are
"insurmountable," the appeals court said.  Since the district
court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to reach the merits of
his claims, the appeals court vacated its dismissal of his claims
under the Ticket Law and for unjust enrichment.

The case was remanded to district court for a determination on
whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint.
Jonathan Pressment -- jonathan.pressment@haynesboone.com -- of
Haynes & Boone in New York, who represented the NFL, declined to
comment on the ruling.

Bruce Nagel of Nagel Rice in Roseland, who represented the
plaintiffs and the putative class, did not return a call about the
ruling.


NAT'L HOCKEY: Judge Orders Unsealing of Email in Concussion Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Muir, writing for Sports Illustrated, reports that a
Minneapolis judge presiding over the class action concussion
lawsuit brought by former players against the National Hockey
League has ordered the unsealing of a series of "embarrassing"
emails sent to and from league executives.

The documents are not yet public, but attorneys for the 100-plus
players revealed that they include a 2013 email in which NHL
Director of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell refers to an Ottawa
Senators athletic therapist as a "freaking idiot" after the
trainer laid out suggestions regarding the prevention and
treatment of concussions.

In her decision, Magistrate Judge Janie Mayeron notes that several
"unthoughtful and unkind" passages in Campbell's emails are
"relevant" to the players' claims in the master complaint that the
NHL has been "callously indifferent in its attitude to fighting
and violence."

SI.com legal expert Michael McCann says that while the judge's
ruling advances the players' case, the actual effect on the
question of whether the NHL broke the law is far less certain.

"On the surface, disclosure of insensitive emails supports the
players' argument that the league has not invested an appropriate
level of care in its players' neurological health," says McCann.
"In the unlikely event this litigation goes to trial, jurors would
see these emails and that would not help the league. But the
league's attorneys would have a strategy in place for this
occurrence. They would stress that the question of whether the
league broke the law is a more complicated consideration than
whether the league could have been kinder and more humane. Along
those lines, the league can assert that insensitive communications
between league officials and broadcasters, while damaging in terms
of public relations, do not establish the necessary elements for
proving liability."

The bigger issue, McCann suggests, is the growing toll on the
NHL's reputation, having not yet settled the litigation.
"The NFL sought a settlement with retired players even though the
NFL was 100% convinced it would win on the legal arguments should
they have ever gotten to trial," he said. "The NFL pursued a
settlement largely for public relations considerations: It did not
want additional information to surface during pretrial discovery
that would harm the NFL's already tattered image with the public,
lawmakers and media. I suspect NHL attorneys are similarly
convinced that their legal arguments are strong. They can argue
the players' claims are preempted by the CBA. They can also insist
that it is impossible for players to prove legal causation when
NHL players played hockey for years (and suffered many hits and
injuries along the way) prior to becoming NHL players and thus it
is uncertain whether playing in the NHL led to their long-term
neurological problems.

"But public relations concerns may ultimately win out as NHL
executives debate the concussion litigation. If so, it will
convince the NHL to offer more favorable settlement terms to the
players."

Those concerns may become a factor as the process continues. The
emails ordered unsealed by the judge were just a handful from
among the more than 2.5 million pages of documents turned over by
the league in this case. The majority of these have been sealed by
court order at the request of the league, which cited concerns
about confidential business matters coming into public view.
But after hearing arguments from lawyers for the former players as
well as a Canadian TV show that insist the public should have the
right to review an initial batch of 54 documents, the judge issued
her ruling in their favor.

Not all of the documents ordered unsealed were damaging to the
league. According to TSN's Rick Westhead, an email chain from Aug.
3, 2011, between NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Montreal
Canadiens owner Geoff Molson, will also be unsealed. In them,
Bettman and Molson discussed an article about the NFL concussion
lawsuits and Bettman's assessment of the NHL's potential
liability.

"Bettman's statements simply reflect his observation that NFL
concussion lawsuits do not place the NHL at risk, and in fact, his
description of what the NHL is doing in connection with
concussions is flattering to the NHL," Mayeron wrote.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an
amended complaint has been filed in a shareholder class action
lawsuit.

On June 2, 2015, a shareholder class action complaint captioned
City of St Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v.
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., 15 Civ. 61170. (S.D. Fla.) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against us and certain of our executive
officers asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

"On October 16, 2015, an amended class action complaint was filed
that adds (i) claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended and (ii) additional defendants,
comprising our former Chief Financial Officer, certain directors
and underwriters for our secondary public offering of our common
stock on March 26, 2015," the Company said. "The amended complaint
alleges that the offering materials contained materially false and
misleading statements and material omissions regarding the
negative impact of declining interest rates on our overall
financial results and the contrasting impact of declining interest
rates on our servicing business on the one hand and our
originations business on the other. The amended complaint also
alleges that between May 8, 2014 and May 4, 2015, the Company and
certain of the individual defendants made materially false and
misleading statements to investors designed to create the
perception of growth in our originations business."

"The plaintiff seeks class certification for purchasers of our
common stock and unspecified damages and other relief. We intend
to vigorously defend the action."


NAUGATUCK VALLEY: Amended Complaint Filed in Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint in a
shareholder class action lawsuit.

Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed in Maryland,
Morris Goldstein v. Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation et al.,
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C15003203,
Lenard Cohen v. Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation et al., in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C15003391, Angelo
J. Falco v. Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation et al., in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C15003392, and Dallas
Faulkner v. Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation et al., in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C15003602. The
lawsuits name as defendants Naugatuck Valley, the members of the
Company's board of directors and Liberty. A demand for jury trial
has been made in each case. The court has consolidated all four of
these lawsuits into one case, In re: Naugatuck Valley Financial
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 24C15003203.

On August 28, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint alleging a breach of fiduciary duty due to
inadequate merger consideration, the process leading to the
proposed transaction and potential conflicts of interest. The
lawsuits also allege that Liberty aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duty. The consolidated class action complaint also
alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to disclose allegedly material information
related to the proposed merger in the Schedule 14A Proxy
Statement, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The relief sought includes, among other things, class
certification, an injunction against the merger until all alleged
breaches have been cured, damages if the merger has been completed
prior to the entry of final judgment, costs and attorney's fees.
The Company believes the factual allegations in the complaint are
without merit and is defending vigorously against these
allegations.


NISKA GAS: Consolidated Amended Complaint to be Filed
-----------------------------------------------------
Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that counsel to
the Plaintiffs in the case, In re Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC
Public Unitholders Litigation, intend to file a consolidated
amended complaint.

Subsequent to the announcement of the proposed acquisition of the
Company by Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P. and its
institutional partners (the "Brookfield Merger") on June 14, 2015,
alleged unitholders of Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC (the
"Plaintiffs") filed four class action lawsuits against Niska Gas
Storage Partners LLC, Niska Gas Storage Management LLC
("Management Co"), Niska Sponsor Holdings Co‚ÄĚperatief U.A. ("Swan
Sponsor") (collectively "Niska"), Brookfield Infrastructure
Partners L.P. ("Brookfield"), Swan Holdings LP ("Parent"), Swan
Merger Sub LLC ("Merger Sub"), and the members of Niska's board of
directors (collectively with Niska, the "Defendants") in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These lawsuits are styled
(a) Eddie Barringer vs. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al.
(Case No. 11210); (b) David Raul vs. Niska Gas Storage Partners
LLC, et al. (Case No. 11220); (c) Nathan Peterson vs. Niska Gas
Storage Partners LLC, et al., (Case No. 11234); and (d) Fred
Pappey vs. William H. Shea, Jr. et al., (Case No. 11238)
(collectively, the "Litigation"). The lawsuits have been
consolidated for all purposes an captioned In re Niska Gas Storage
Partners LLC Public Unitholders Litigation, CONSOL. C.A. No.
11210-CB (the "Action").

The Plaintiffs allege causes of action challenging aspects of the
Brookfield Merger, including that Niska's board of directors
breached their alleged fiduciary duties to Niska's unitholders and
that Niska and Brookfield aided and abetted the board of
director's breaches of alleged fiduciary duties. In general, the
Plaintiffs allege the Brookfield Merger (a) provides inadequate
consideration to Niska unitholders; (b) contains contractual terms
(e.g. the no-solicitation, information rights, matching rights,
and termination fee provisions) that dissuade other potential
merger partners from making competing proposals; and (c) is not
subject to a "majority of the minority" voting requirement.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs request relief
enjoining Niska from proceeding with or consummating the
Brookfield Merger. To the extent that the Brookfield Merger is
consummated before injunctive relief is granted, the Plaintiffs
seek to have the Brookfield Merger rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek
damages and experts' and attorneys' fees.

The Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise
respond to the Litigation has not yet been set as Plaintiffs'
counsel has advised that Plaintiffs will be moving to consolidate
the Litigation into one action and file a consolidated amended
complaint. At that point, the parties will negotiate a schedule
for Defendants to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond.
The Defendants believe the Litigation is without merit and intend
to vigorously defend against it.


NV ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Solar Program Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Divit Nehru, writing for The Indian Republic, reports that the
changes introduced by the Public Utilities Commission has caused
concern among solar energy advocates, especially among developers
that have active projects in the state.

Sunrun is now suing the state of Nevada over its lack of
transparency in relation to NV Energy.  Two law firms filed a
class-action lawsuit in Clark County District Court.

They are angry because late a year ago the PUC made a big decision
to increase monthly fees for solar customers; they also reduced
the amount of credit those customers get for producing electricity
for NV Energy.  But Chandler Sherman, spokeswoman for Solar City,
said the decision unfairly makes rooftop solar more expensive and,
for now, has forced the company to stop selling systems in Nevada
and lay off 550 installers.

Since the decision, those changes have come under scrutiny from
advocates of the solar industry.  Furthermore, the Public
Utilities Commission decided to make these changes retroactive,
which lead to Lyndon Rive, CEO of SolarCity, suggesting that the
move would "destroy the rooftop solar industry".  Other law firms
have been considering similar action.

NV Energy is the state's largest provider of electricity.

PV Tech writes, the class-action lawsuit alleges NV Energy
conspired to "unlawfully reduce the incentives provided via the
Solar Program, increasing base rates or service charges only for
solar customers in order to reduce competition and increase their
own revenues".  At a recent meeting, commissioners added that if
NV Energy were to generate a profit as a result of the new
tariffs, the commission would collect it in an account and
disburse it to customers.

During the legislative session, lawmakers tasked the commission
with setting new rates for solar customers.

Randall also responds to claims made by NV Energy that solar users
are not paying their fair share for the electrical grid.

Advocates of the industry instead argue that the commission should
weigh the benefits of solar.


NV ENERGY: PUC Issues Decision on Rooftop Solar Customer Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Perkins, writing for PopHerald.com, reports that the Nevada
Public Utilities Commission voted on Jan. 20 not to delay
implementation of new fees and lower net metering rates for
rooftop solar customers.

MGM Resorts Spokesman Clark Dumont told the Nevada Review Journal
that the state's largest utility customer wanted to exit NV Energy
because of consistent decisions from the public utilities
commission "against the objectives of sustainability in our energy
supply and costs".

Advocates of clean power in Nevada have rallied together to
condemn the state's anti-solar energy endeavors.

In late December, the commission approved new rates for solar
customers.  But Chandler Sherman, spokeswoman for Solar City, said
the decision unfairly makes rooftop solar more expensive and, for
now, has forced the company to stop selling systems in Nevada and
lay off 550 installers.  NV Energy is now purchasing energy from
homeowners at a third of the going rate, forcing many to struggle
with their initial investments.

This class-action lawsuit stands as the first attempt to challenge
the NPUC decision in court.

The lawsuit seeks restitution for "anticompetitive actions,
deceptive and unfair trade practices resulting in a restraint of
trade, monopolization and maintenance of a monopoly over the
electric utility in Nevada, price discrimination between different
buyers, artificial price inflation, conspiracy to cause the
aforementioned results through illegal means, and negligence".

NV Energy has said in the past that the new rates would not
increase its profits. Instead of reducing rates, the company asked
for a new rate class for solar customers in order to protect its
new profit margin.

Plaintiffs say NV Energy didn't do a scientific study on the
benefits of net metering and lied about the cost of serving solar
customers, although the complaint doesn't offer further details
about what plaintiffs say were knowingly false statements.

The lawsuit argues that NV Energy pressured the commission to
approve the new rates.

Randall also responds to claims made by NV Energy that solar users
are not paying their fair share for the electrical grid.  In a
filing, the consumer advocate, arguing for a more moderate
approach, said any alleged cost shift must be balanced with the
benefits of solar to all ratepayers.


OOMA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Ooma, Inc. ("Ooma" or the "Company")
(NYSE:OOMA) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Ooma securities in or traceable to the Company's
July 17, 2015 initial public stock offering (the "IPO").  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act").

A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Ooma provides communications solutions and other connected
services to small business, and home and mobile users in the
United States and Canadian markets.  The Company offers the Ooma
Office Mobile HD app that allows users to remotely access their
business communications system to make, receive, and transfer
phone calls; Ooma Telo, a home communications solution designed to
serve as the primary phone line in the home; and the Ooma Mobile
HD app, which allows Ooma Telo users to make and receive phone
calls and access Ooma features and settings with iOS or Android
device over a Wi-Fi or cellular data connection.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: at the time of Ooma's IPO, the
Company's Registration Statement concealed that: (i) certain
outsized prior fiscal year sales to its largest outside
reseller -- who was emphasized in the Company's Offering Documents
to be a very important Ooma partner -- were not recurring or being
replaced in the fiscal year leading into the IPO; (ii) the
Company's customer churn rate -- emphasized repeatedly throughout
the Offering Documents as being at an industry low rate of
0.55% -- had increased significantly as of the IPO as a result of
customers having endured eight-hour service outages in April and
May 2015; (iii) technological difficulties in the Company's lead
generation business were causing leads to get lost in the Internet
before reaching their intended targets, thus negatively impacting
sales of that service and the Company's business; (iv) Ooma's
subscription revenue growth and operating and pretax profit
margins were both falling; and (v) all of these problems had
caused the Company's subscription retention rate to plummet and
net losses to double on a year-over-year basis, as of the IPO.

On July 17, 2015, utilizing false and misleading Offering
Documents, Ooma successfully raised $65 million in its IPO, having
priced its stock at $13 per share.  Ooma's stock has been trading
at approximately half the IPO price and as of the filing of this
Complaint traded at approximately $6 per share, leading to tens of
millions of dollars in losses for investors.

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


PACIFIC PREMIER BANCORP: To File Demurrer in "Parshall" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company intends to file a demurrer seeking to dismiss a purported
class action filed by Paul Parshall.

The Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit brought in
California state court (Riverside County) entitled, Parshall v.
Security California Bancorp, et al.  This lawsuit was brought by
Paul Parshall, a shareholder of SCAF, parent corporation of
Security Bank.  Mr. Parshall is challenging the share price and
other financial benefits to shareholders in the Company's proposed
acquisition of SCB.  Mr. Parshall purports to bring this claim on
behalf of a class of similarly-situated SCB shareholders, although
he has not yet filed a motion to certify a class action.  The
Company has not been served with the lawsuit yet, but likely will
be served with the lawsuit in the short term, at which time the
Company likely will file a demurrer seeking to dismiss the
litigation.  Mr. Parshall does not articulate any damages in his
complaint, but reserves the right to seek to unwind any
acquisition in favor of one that is more favorable and/or to seek
injunctive relief, as well as to pursue attorney's fees.


PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Pizza Delivery Fee Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reports that a
Madison County man is seeking class-action status for his lawsuit
over the taxing of fees imposed upon pizza delivery charges by
Papa John's.

Zachary Tucker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed the suit on Jan. 13 in Madison County Circuit
Court against Papa John's International Inc. and Papa John's USA
Inc.

Papa John's allows customers to pick up their pizza at one of its
stores or have it delivered.  The delivery includes a fee listed
separately on the receipt.  Mr. Tucker alleges Papa John is
collecting taxes on this fee, which is against the law in Illinois
since businesses are not allowed to tax delivery fees if the cost
of delivery is equal to or exceeds the delivery fee.

As a result, the suit says, every customer who has ordered food
for delivery from any Papa John's location in Illinois has paid
excess sales tax that the defendants and their franchisees were
not entitled to collect.

The plaintiff brings this suit because he says he was illegally
charged 6.85 percent, or an additional 16 cents tax, for the non-
taxable delivery service.  He seeks class action for any person or
entity in the state that ordered Papa John's food for delivery and
was charged sales tax on said delivery fee.

The suit alleges negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach
of contract/breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing,
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and violation of the
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

In addition to a jury trial and the certification of a class
action, among the plaintiff's relief sought are: an order
preventing defendants from charging the sales tax on delivery
fees, damages, restitution of all monies paid in connection with
the wrongfully charged sales tax, attorney fees and court costs.

Mr. Tucker is represented by Francis J. Flynn Jr. and Tiffany M.
Yiatras of Carey, Danis & Lowe of St. Louis; and Alan Wagner and
Jason Whittemore of Wagner McLaughlin P.A. in Tampa, Florida.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-49


PEOPLES BANCORP: Expects Appeals Court Ruling after Q2 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp Of North Carolina, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the bank does not expect a decision in a class action
appeal to be given before the second quarter of 2016.

On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was
filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina.  The complaint alleged
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.  The Plaintiff sought to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.

On June 10, 2015, the North Carolina Business Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Bank on all claims and ordered
the case dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff has appealed to
the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

"Given the current briefing schedule, the Bank does not expect a
decision to be given before the second quarter of 2016," the
Company said.  "The Bank continues to believe that the allegations
in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend the lawsuit on appeal."


PERRIGO COMPANY: Recalls Guaifenesin Grape Liquid
-------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc (NYSE: PRGO; TASE) of Dublin, Ireland,
announced that, following the recent recall of certain dosing cups
by its supplier, it has initiated a voluntary product recall in
the US to the retail level of 2 batches of its children's
guaifenesin grape liquid (100mg/5 mL) and 3 batches of its
children's guaifenesin DM cherry liquid (100mg guaifenesin and 5mg
dextromethorphan HBr/ 5 ml) sold in 4 oz. bottles with dosage cup
in a box under the store brand products listed below. This recall
is being initiated because some packages contain an oral dosing
cup with incorrect dose markings.

Use of these products according to labeled instructions with an
affected dosing cup is unlikely to result in serious side effects,
and no reports related to overdose have been received to date.
Consumers should be aware that an overdose of Guaifenesin DM may
cause hyper excitability, rapid eye movements, changes in muscle
reflexes, ataxia, dystonia, hallucinations, stupor, and coma.
Other effects have included nausea, vomiting, tachycardia,
irregular heartbeat, seizures, respiratory depression, and death.
Gastric decontamination is recommended after acute ingestion of
greater than 10 mg/kg, if administered soon after ingestion. At
risk populations such as those who are poor metabolizers of
dextromethorphan may experience an overdose by a factor of 3, if
incorrect measuring levels are used. Additionally, small children
who are poor metabolizers of dextromethorphan and use the product
regularly over a period of several days at the mistaken dose, may
develop cumulative toxicity. Moreover, adverse reactions to
guaifenesin when given in high or excessive dosage may include
nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, and/or abdominal pain. Therefore, an
extreme overdose in an at risk population may need medical
intervention, but in most cases adverse health consequences are
temporary and reversible.

Commenting on this market action, Perrigo's Chairman and CEO
Joseph C. Papa stated, "There have been no reports of adverse
events to Perrigo as a result of the incorrect dosage markings.
Perrigo is taking this action to maintain the highest possible
product quality standards for our retail customers and consumers.
We are taking this action because it is the right thing to do."

These OTC products are indicated for helping loosen phlegm (mucus)
and thin bronchial secretions and making coughs more productive,
as well as in the case of the DM product to temporarily relieve:
coughs due to minor throat irritations, the intensity of coughing,
and the impulse to cough. These recalled products are sold by
distributors nationwide and distributed through retail stores.

Perrigo is notifying its distributors and customers by verbal and
e-mail communication, followed by formal FedEx-delivered
communication. It also is arranging for return of all recalled
products. Distributors/retailers that have the affected batches of
children's guaifenesin grape liquid and/or children's guaifenesin
DM cherry that is being recalled should stop distribution and
return product.

Consumers that have product with the corresponding labels and
batch numbers listed below should discard the dosing device and
product and may call Perrigo, toll free, Monday through Friday
from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM EST, at 1-888-345-0479, or visit
mucusreliefrecall.comdisclaimer icon. Consumers should contact
their physician or healthcare provider if they have any questions,
or if they or their children experience any problem that could
possibly be related to this drug product.

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.

Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail: use postage-paid FDA form 3500 available at:
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm, then complete and return to the
address on the pre-addressed form.
Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.
Recalled lots, along with their corresponding branded labels, are
listed below:

GUAIFENESIN GRAPE LIQ 4 OZ

  Label         Lot number         Expiry
  -----         ----------         ------
  H.E.B         5LK0592           08/2017
  CVS           5MK0340           08/2017

GUAIFENESIN DM CHRY LIQ 4 OZ

  Label            Lot number                   Expiry
  -----            ----------                   ------
  Sunmark          5LK0528, 5LK0630             03/2017
  Rite-Aid         5LK0528, 5LK0630             03/2017
  Topcare          5LK0528, 5LK0630, 5LK0779    03/2017
  Kroger           5LK0528, 5LK0630             03/2017
  GoodSense        5LK0528                      03/2017
  Dollar General   5LK0630                      03/2017
  Care One         5LK0630                      03/2017
  CVS              5LK0630                      03/2017

Perrigo Company plc is a top five global over-the-counter ("OTC")
consumer goods and leading specialty pharmaceutical company,
offering patients and customers high-quality products at
affordable prices. From the Company's beginning in 1887 as a
packager of home remedies, it has grown to become the world's
largest manufacturer of OTC healthcare products and supplier of
infant formulas for the store brand market. The Company is also a
leading provider of generic extended topical prescription
products, and it receives royalties from sales of the multiple
sclerosis drug Tysabri(R). The Company provides "Quality
Affordable Healthcare Products(R)" across a wide variety of
product categories and geographies, primarily in North America,
Europe and Australia, as well as in other markets, including
Israel and China. Visit Perrigo online at
(http://www.perrigo.comdisclaimericon).


PET VALU: Ontario Court Dismisses Franchisee's Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
McCarthy Tetrault LLP reports that the recent decision of the
Ontario Court of Appeal in 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada
Inc., 2016 ONCA 24 clarifies and narrows the scope of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing imposed on franchisors under section 3
of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) ("AWA") and
expressly cautions against zealous judicial intervention in the
framing and amendment of common issues in class action
proceedings.

In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the
franchisor, Pet Valu Canada Inc. ("Pet Valu"), dismissing the
remaining common issue in a class action proceeding commenced by a
group of former franchisees alleging, among other claims, that Pet
Valu breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing in the
performance and enforcement of its obligations under the franchise
agreement, contrary to Section 3 of the AWA, by failing to
disclose information relating to its receipt and sharing of volume
rebates.

Background

In a summary judgment decision released October 31, 2014
(discussed here), the motion judge, Justice Belobaba, dismissed
five of the seven common issues certified at an earlier hearing,
holding that Pet Valu had, in fact, passed on and shared with its
franchisees volume rebate discounts received from its suppliers.
The plaintiffs' arguments in the course of the initial
certification hearing focused on the extent of the defendant's
purchasing power and the significance of the rebates received.  As
a result, Justice Belobaba suggested that the plaintiff consider
amending the statement of claim to add an eight and new common
issue to address this issue.  In December 2014, on the basis of
the judge's earlier comment, the plaintiff franchisees brought a
motion to amend the statement of claim and add a new common issue
centered around allegations that Pet Valu had misrepresented the
nature and extent of its purchasing power and that it, in fact,
did not receive "significant volume discounts" from suppliers.

In reasons released January 7, 2015 (discussed here), Justice
Belobaba declined to allow the plaintiffs' motion to amend on
grounds of prejudice occasioned, in part, by his misapprehension
of certain affidavit evidence and judicial intervention in
encouraging an amendment of the statement of claim.

Justice Belobaba proceeded to deal with the remaining two common
issues, which raised the question of whether the duty of good
faith and fair dealing provided by s. 3 of the AWA could be used
to impose ongoing disclosure from a franchisor (common issue 6),
and what damages, if any, a franchisor would be required to pay
for breach of such a duty (common issue 7).  Justice Belobaba
answered both questions in the affirmative, but only after reading
language into common issue 6, which modified the originally cast
question of whether Pet Valu received volume rebates to whether
Pet Valu received a "meaningful or significant measure of volume
discounts".  On this basis, Justice Belobaba concluded that the
duty of good faith and fair dealing in s. 3 of the AWA did impose
on Pet Valu an ongoing duty to disclose the amount of volume
rebates it received as part of the performance and enforcement of
its obligations under the franchise agreement, and that Pet Valu
had breached that duty.  Pet Valu appealed this decision.  On
January 14, 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal found in favor of
Pet Valu, dismissing the class action in its entirety.

The Court of Appeal Decision

The Court highlighted the following key findings in support of its
decision to dismiss the action:

Greater Restraint Required When Judicial Intervention May Unfairly
Prejudice One Party Over Another or Unduly Curtail the Adversarial
Process

The motion judge's dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to amend
the statement of claim to add new allegations and an 8th common
issue was correct; to have ruled otherwise would have been
fundamentally unfair and prejudicial to Pet Valu given that, but
for the motion judge's suggestion that the plaintiff amend its
pleading, Pet Valu was in a position to secure summary judgment on
all common issues.  On this instance of judicial intervention, the
Court expressly noted that "while the . . . judge in a class
proceeding unquestionably plays an important (and challenging)
role in guiding the evolution of the proceedings, that role does
not permit him to descend into the arena and make a suggestion at
the conclusion of an otherwise dispositive summary judgment motion
as to how a plaintiff might improve its position . . ." [para. 38]
The motion judge's affirmative answer to Common Issue 6 and
finding that Pet Valu had breached s. 3 of the AWA was founded on
an impermissible amendment of that common issue.  By reading in
the words "significant volume discounts", the motion judge recast
the question and effectively "gave judgment on an issue that was
never certified.  Doing so was fundamentally unfair to Pet Valu."
[para. 49].  Further, the Court held that by unilaterally reading
in language that modified the theory of liability without
affording the parties the opportunity to make submissions resulted
in the theory, which was ultimately flawed, not being "tested in
the crucible of the adversarial process". [para. 52]

Non-Disclosure of Material Facts Does Not Automatically Equate to
Bad Faith and Unfair Dealing in the Performance of a Franchise
Agreement

The motion judge erred by applying the pre-contractual disclosure
obligation imposed by section 5 of the AWA to an assessment of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing imposed on parties under s. 3
of the AWA in the discharge of their obligations under a franchise
agreement.  The Court clarified that the duty of good faith and
fair dealing imposed on Pet Valu by section 3 of the AWA arises in
the "performance and enforcement" of the franchise agreement.  If
information relating to the amount of volume discounts was
material and ought to have been disclosed, that obligation arose
under s. 5 of the AWA, which requires franchisors to provide a
disclosure document before a franchisee signs the franchise
agreement, not under s. 3 of the AWA, which deals with the parties
performance under the franchise agreement once it has been signed.
The Court noted that there are remedies available to franchisees
under ss. 6 and 7 of the AWA if a franchisor fails to disclose
material facts or otherwise comply with its obligations under s. 5
of the AWA.

In making this important distinction, the Court emphasized that
there was no contractual or statutory obligation to provide
ongoing disclosure, nor could a finding of bad faith and unfair
dealing be supported in the absence of any evidence being adduced
by the plaintiffs that the alleged non-disclosure adversely
affected them in any way once they became franchisees.  Thus,
non-disclosure of material facts in a disclosure document will not
automatically equate to bad faith and unfair dealing in the
performance of a franchise agreement.

In the instant case, the Court found that the motion judge
effectively ruled that Pet Valu had breached s. 3 of the AWA by
failing to disclose information necessary for the franchisees to
verify whether or not Pet Valu had breached a representation under
the franchise agreement that it received "significant volume
discounts", which was akin to the pre-litigation oriented duty of
disclosure rejected in Spina v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., 2012 ONSC
5563.

Conclusion and Takeaways

The Court circumscribed the duty of fair dealing and good faith
under the AWA, emphasizing that a breach of section 3 arises only
in the context of the performance and enforcement of a franchise
agreement: this does not include disclosure that should have
occurred before the franchise agreement was signed when there is
no contractual obligation to provide ongoing disclosure and the
non-disclosure does not have an adverse effect on parties once
they become franchisees.  Section 3 cannot be used to burden
franchisors with a duty to disclose information that simply
verifies whether they are meeting their franchise agreement
obligations.

The Court also provided guidance on the amendment of common issues
in class action proceedings, cautioning motion judges in class
action proceedings to exercise restraint in amending the statement
of claim and rewording certified issues.

Case Information

1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc., 2016 ONCA 24
Docket: C59956
Date of Decision: January 14, 2016


PHARMERICA CORPORATION: Settlement of Pines Nursing Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmerica Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court was slated
to hold a final hearing on November 12, 2015, to approve the
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by Pines Nursing Homes
(77), Inc.

On October 29, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Pines
Nursing Homes (77), Inc. as a putative class action against the
Corporation. The complaint alleged that the Corporation sent
unsolicited advertisements promoting the Corporation's goods or
services by facsimile to individuals or entities, and that such
communications did not include an opt-out clause, all in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  The
Complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, but the
TCPA provides a statutory remedy of $500 per facsimile
communication sent in violation of the statute, which may be
trebled in the event of a willful violation.

On August 18, 2014, the Corporation entered into a Settlement
Agreement with the putative class and class counsel resolving all
claims raised in the complaint.  The parties moved on September 8,
2014 for, among other things, certification of the putative class
for the purposes of effectuating the settlement and preliminary
approval of the parties' settlement, and have requested a hearing
on that motion.

On June 26, 2015 the court granted the Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the parties' settlement and the court
scheduled the final approval hearing for November 12, 2015.


PHILIP MORRIS: Class Action Finally Goes to Jury Trial
------------------------------------------------------
Denise Lavoie, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
decade after a group of smokers from Massachusetts sued Philip
Morris USA to try to force the cigarette maker to pay for lung
cancer screenings, the case will finally be heard by a jury.

Smokers in the class-action lawsuit allege Philip Morris
manufactured a defective cigarette knowing it could have made a
safer product with fewer carcinogens. The closely watched case
heads to trial in federal court in Boston.

They are not seeking money, but instead want to compel Philip
Morris to pay for highly detailed, three-dimensional chest scans
that can detect signs of early-stage lung cancer that may be too
small to show up on traditional X-rays.

The jury will be asked to decide whether Philip Morris made
Marlboro cigarettes that are unreasonably dangerous. If the jury
finds in favor of the smokers, a second phase will be held to
determine how a medical monitoring program will be administered.

No smokers are expected to testify during the first phase.
Instead, it will be a trial of dueling experts.

The plaintiffs plan to call a former Philip Morris employee to
testify that feasible alternative designs of Marlboros have
existed for decades. They also plan to call a psychologist who
will testify that given a choice between Marlboros or a safer
cigarette, a non-addicted, informed person would choose the safer
alternative.

Philip Morris is expected to call experts in cigarette design and
marketing who are likely to testify that the company's lower-tar
and lower-nicotine cigarettes --  on the market since the late
1970s  -- have failed to gain a significant market share among any
group of smoker.

Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University and
anti-smoking activist, said past lawsuits seeking to force tobacco
companies to provide medical monitoring have failed. But Daynard
said he believes the Massachusetts case has a stronger chance of
succeeding because recent studies have found that the
sophisticated screening can save lives.

"What's happened is you have better technology which captures the
tumors at a much earlier stage where there's a very good chance
that if you get them that the person ... is probably not going to
die from it," Daynard said.

A Philip Morris spokesman declined to comment, and lawyers for the
company did not respond to messages.

In court documents, the company denied that its cigarettes are
defectively designed and argued that three-dimensional chest scans
would not be effective or necessary for every person covered by
the lawsuit.

The case covers Massachusetts smokers who, as of February 2013,
were at least 50, had at least a 20 pack-year history of smoking
Marlboros and have not been diagnosed with lung cancer. Pack-years
are calculated by multiplying the average number of packs per day
by the number of years a person has smoked.

The two sides agree that the chest scans are "reasonably and
periodically necessary" for smokers 55 to 74 with at least a 30
pack-year history. They disagree on the rest of the smokers in the
lawsuit.

Since the case was filed in 2006, insurers have begun to cover the
screenings for certain smokers. In 2015, Medicare announced it
would pay for annual screenings for beneficiaries 55 to 77 with at
least a 30 pack-year history.

U.S. District Judge Denise Casper rejected a request to exclude
evidence about insurers agreeing to pay for three-dimensional
chest scans, but said she'll instruct jurors that they are not
allowed to consider whether any of the smokers have insurance
coverage for screening.

"The fact that insurance now covers it and it's recognized for
certain groups as being efficacious may have some evidentiary
value in the case, but it does not change the fact that Philip
Morris could be liable for the cost of the scans," said
Christopher Weld, an attorney for the smokers.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Class Suits Seek Damages over 2015 Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
seven class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company
before the United States District Court for the Central District
of California related to last year's oil spill, the Line 901
Incident.

"During May 2015, we experienced a crude oil release from our Las
Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California," the Company said.  "A portion of the released crude
oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a
drainage culvert. Following the release, we shut down the pipeline
and initiated our emergency response plan. A Unified Command,
which includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the
California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa
Barbara Office of Emergency Management was established for the
response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations and
contamination monitoring continue, and the cause of the release is
currently under investigation."

"Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims
line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release
to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a
number of claims through the claims line and we are processing
those claims as we receive them.

"In addition, we have also had seven class action lawsuits filed
against us, all of which have been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. In general,
these lawsuits have been brought by various plaintiffs seeking to
establish different classes of claimants that have allegedly been
damaged by the release, including potential classes such as
persons that derive a significant portion of their income through
commercial fishing and harvesting activities in the waters
adjacent to Santa Barbara County or from businesses that are
dependent on marine resources from Santa Barbara County, retail
businesses located in historic downtown Santa Barbara, certain
owners of oceanfront and/or beachfront property on the Pacific
Coast of California, and other classes of individuals and
businesses that were allegedly impacted by the release."


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Investors Sue over Oil Spill
-------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
there have been two securities law class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership and/or
PAGP against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their
respective officers, directors and underwriters.  Both of these
lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants
violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the
integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities
through false and misleading statements, omission of material
facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill.  The
plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction
in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which
they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the plaintiffs. The
Partnership and PAGP deny the allegations in these lawsuits and
intend to respond accordingly.


QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Case Proceeds as Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the case, Lorenzo
Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al., is proceeding
as a class action after a December 2014 mediation failed to yield
a settlement.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Benton
seeks to represent a class of workers that includes all persons
who worked on TNS projects between June 2002 and the present,
including individuals that TNS retained through 29 staffing
agencies. An amended complaint was filed in August 2007, naming
two additional class representatives, one of whom has since
settled directly with his employer. The plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was heard and denied in May 2012; however,
that decision was appealed, and the case was ultimately remanded
for reconsideration. The parties attended mediation in December
2014, but there was no resolution.

In September 2015, after a hearing in the remanded proceeding, the
trial court certified the class as to workers from the various
staffing companies at issue. The plaintiffs seek approximately $16
million for class damages and $5 million in attorneys' fees.
Quanta retained any liability associated with this matter
following its sale of TNS in December 2012.


R THOMAS: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Sildenafil
-------------------------------------------------------
R Thomas Marketing LLC is voluntarily recalling all lots of the
following products to the consumer level:

  --- Black Ant: BIG BOX (20 small boxes / 4 capsules per box /
      80 capsules total)
  --- Herb Viagra: BIG BOX (20 small boxes / 4 capsules per box /
      80 capsules)
  --- Real Skill: BIG BOX (20 small boxes / 4 capsules per box /
      80 capsules)
  --- Stree Overlord: BIG BOX (20 small boxes / 4 capsules per
      box / 80 capsules)
  --- Weekend Prince: BIG BOX (24 individual cards / 2 capsules
      per card / 48 capsules)
  --- African Black Ant: BIG BOX (8 small boxes / 6 capsules per
      box / 48 capsules)

These products were tested by the FDA and found to contain
Sildenafil, a PDE-5 Inhibitor which is the active ingredient in an
FDA-approved drug for erectile dysfunction (ED) making this
tainted dietary supplement and unapproved drug. Sildenafil is not
listed on the product labels.

Risk Statement: This undeclared active ingredient poses a threat
to consumers because Sildenafil may interact with nitrates found
in some prescription drugs such as nitroglycerin and may lower
blood pressure to dangerous levels. Consumers with diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take
nitrates. Additionally, the product may cause side effects, such
as headaches and flushing.

Out of an abundance of caution, R. Thomas Marketing is also
recalling all lots of the following products previously sold at
the consumer level because these products were sourced from the
same vendors as the above-mentioned products and may have resulted
in similar misbranding or the likelihood for misbranding to occur
in the future:

  --- Bull: CASE (10 packs / 3 capsules per can / 30 capsules)
  --- Bulls Genital: CASE (10 Cans / 10 capsules per can / 100
      capsules)
  --- Zhonghua Niu Bian: BIG BOX (6 small boxes / 6 capsules per
      box / 36 capsules)
  --- African Superman: BIG BOX (6 small boxes / 8 capsules per
      box / 48 capsules)
  --- Bigger Longer More Time More Sperms: BIG BOX (6 small boxes
      / 6 capsules per small box / 36 capsules)
  --- Black Ant King: BIG BOX (10 capsules / can / 12 cans per
      box / 120 capsules)
  --- Black Storm: SMALL BOX (6 capsules)
  --- Germany Niubian: BIG BOX (10 small boxes / 24 capsules per
      box / 240 capsules)
  --- Happy Passengers: BIG BOX (30 small boxes / 1 capsule per
      box / 30 capsules)
  --- Plant Vigra: BIG BOX / (18 cans / 6 capsules per can / 108
      capsules)
  --- Hard Ten Days: BIG BOX (6 small boxes / 6 capsules per box
      / 36 capsules)
  --- Man King: BIG BOX (8 small boxes / 5 capsules per box / 40
      capsules)
  --- Mojo Risen: BIG BOX (24 individual cards / 2 capsules per
      card/ 48 capsules)
  --- Night Man: SMALL BOX (6 capsules)
  --- Tiger King: BIG BOX (10 small bottles / 10 capsules per
      bottle / 100 capsules)
  --- Samurai-X: BIG BOX (24 individually wrapped capsules)
  --- Super Hard: BIG BOX (20 small boxes / 6 capsules per box /
      120 capsules)
  --- Zhen Gong: BIG BOX (16 small boxes / 2 capsules per box /
      32 capsules)

These products were marketed as dietary supplements for male
sexual enhancement. The products are packaged in accordance with
the respective identifiers listed above. All lots of the specified
products sold by R Thomas Marketing via internet sales from
September 2013 to present are included in this recall. The
products were mainly sold through the following websites:
http://streeoverlord.us/disclaimericon
http://herbsviagra.com/disclaimericon
http://realskill.org/disclaimericon
http://www.blackantpills.us/disclaimericon
http://africanblackantpills.org/disclaimericon
http://africanblackantpills.com/disclaimericon
http://buddypills.com/disclaimericon
http://hobuck.com/disclaimericon
http://maleenhancers.net/disclaimericon
http://www.raffu.com/disclaimericon
http://africablackantking.net/disclaimericon

The products were sold through numerous websites (approximately
80), but these were the most commonly used. R Thomas Marketing is
notifying its customers by issuing a press release and by direct
notification via email.

Consumers and retailers that have any of these above mentioned
products should stop using and/or distributing this product
immediately and arrange return of the products to:

Attn: RECALL NOTICE
R Thomas Marketing LLC
20 Passaic St.
Trenton, NJ 08618

Consumers with questions regarding this voluntary recall can
contact R Thomas Marketing LLC by email at
rthomasmarketingbiz@gmail.com and/or calling at 914-278-0212.
Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking
or using these drug products.

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 reporting form, then complete and return to the address on
the pre-addresses form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
This recall and market action are being conducted with the
knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.


RAMS: Faces Class Action Over Seat Licenses
-------------------------------------------
Rhodes Milton, writing for vehicle.pro, reports that seat license
holders filed a class action against Rams.

The suit alleges that the PSL agreement is valid through 2025, but
does not stipulate where the games are played.  Overall, their are
30,000 people who hold PSL's for the Rams and the lawsuit hopes to
move this to class-action status in the near future.  Later,
another group of personal seat licensees said they should be able
to keep their seat licenses and season tickets even as the Rams
relocate to Los Angeles.

"It's our position that the PSL holders should be allowed to
either purchase tickets in L.A., or to transfer their PSLs to
those who want to purchase season tickets in L.A.", said attorney
David Bohm.  If the season ticket holders win, theoretically they
could continue to buy tickets and put those tickets up for sale on
the secondary market and turn a nice profit.  Licensee understands
and acknowledges the possibility that the Rams may not play its
gams in the Stadium or St. Louis for the entire term contemplated
by this License.

That suit said the deception violated Missouri's Merchandising
Practices Act.


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Ruling May Spurt Arbitration Clause Changes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a recent New Jersey Appellate Division ruling finding an
arbitration clause printed in an employee handbook unenforceable
will likely require some companies to change the way they present
such agreements to workers, employment lawyers said.

But the ruling also appears to hold employers to a different
standard than employees, which may be grist for future appeals,
according to one lawyer.

A clause in an employee handbook requiring arbitration of job
disputes is unenforceable where the handbook also contains a
disclaimer stating that it is not a binding employment contract, a
New Jersey appeals court ruled in a published Jan. 7 opinion in
Morgan v. Raymours Furniture Company Inc.  The court also found
that an employee's signature on a rider stating that the employee
"received" and "understood" the contents of the handbook does not
allow the employer to contend that the employee agreed to a waiver
of the right to sue.

In Morgan, according to the appeals court's opinion, plaintiff
Grant Morgan, who worked for defendant Raymours Furniture Company
Inc., claimed that after he complained about age discrimination in
the workplace, he was told to either sign a standalone arbitration
agreement or be terminated.  He refused to sign and Raymours
carried out its threat of termination.

But a Burlington County trial judge denied a motion by Raymours --
the parent company of the Raymour & Flanagan furniture store chain
-- to arbitrate Morgan's claims for age discrimination and
wrongful termination.

The appeals court affirmed, finding that the disclaimer of
contractual intent in Raymours' handbook rendered the arbitration
clause unenforceable.

Employers whose handbooks contain similar disclaimers will now
need to "carve out the arbitration if they want to have a
mandatory arbitration policy" in order to comply with the court's
holding in Morgan, said Kevin Donovan of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker in Florham Park, who was not involved in the
case.  Mr. Donovan added that this requirement "can be addressed
several different ways" and "should not be a big problem" for
employers.

But Mr. Donovan also said the ruling's requirement that workers
sign an arbitration agreement in order for it to be binding seems
to hold employees to a different standard than employers.  The
U.S. Supreme Court has held that mandatory arbitration policies
should be enforced in the same manner as any other type of
contract, Mr. Donovan said.

"If a handbook, once issued, can be a unilateral contract, binding
against the employer, why shouldn't that same issuance be binding
against the employee?" Mr. Donovan asked.

"I think, because of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, there is an
argument that can be made that the Appellate Division is holding
mandatory arbitration policies to a higher standard, in terms of
when they're formed, than might be appropriate," he said.

The decision "gives people who want to get out of arbitration
agreements another tool to use," said Alan Schorr, the Cherry Hill
lawyer representing the plaintiff.

According to Mr. Schorr, the case was notable because the court
said a motion to enforce a mandatory arbitration agreement is, in
essence, an injunction.  Therefore, Mr. Schorr said, the court
found that the case can be decided on equitable grounds.

One thing is certain: The case is yet another reminder of the need
to regularly review the content of employee manuals, employment
applications and other documents presented to new hires to ensure
consistency with changing law, said Benjamin Widener, chairman of
the employment law group at Stark & Stark in Princeton, who also
was not involved in the case.

He said the Morgan decision suggests that an arbitration clause
should be presented to an employee as a "standalone document,"
separate from an employment manual.

"It's absolutely imperative that employers stay as current as
reasonably possible not only with the state of New Jersey law but
federal law as well.  I'm constantly reminding my clients, 'We
need to change those documents,'" Mr. Widener said.

Kevin Costello of Costello & Mains in Mount Laurel, another
employment lawyer who had no involvement in the case, said the
decision is significant because "there has been a trend on the
part of employers to take away the right to a trial by jury
through arbitration."

"This decision reconfirms that in order for someone to waive their
right to a jury trial on a substantive civil rights claim, there
needs to be an affirmative, knowing and intelligent waiver of that
right," Mr. Costello said.

"In this case, the employer attempted to utilize a handbook as a
representation of that waiver, while at the same time arguing that
the handbook was not a contract.  The employer cannot have its
cake and eat it too," he said.

Employment lawyer Ravi Sattiraju of the Sattiraju Law Firm in
Princeton, who also had no involvement in Morgan, said the
decision was "important in a practical sense."

"If an employer wants to get consent for arbitration, it has to be
done in a clear way," he said.  "What the court is saying is the
employer can't simultaneously argue that the handbook is not a
contract but it is an enforceable agreement for the purpose of
compelling arbitration."

Raymours' attempt to seek the benefit of its disclaimer of the
contractual nature of the handbook, while also insisting that the
handbook is contractual when it suits the company's purposes, was
rejected "for no other reason than it runs counter to the English
proverb: 'Wold ye both eate your cake, and haue your cake,'" as
well as its corollary, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for
the gander," said Appellate Division Judge Clarkson Fisher Jr.,
joined by Judges Marianne Espinosa and Garry Rothstadt.

Judge Fisher wrote that Raymours likely included the disclaimer in
its handbook because of Wooley v. Hoffman-LaRoche, a 1985 state
Supreme Court case that said employee manuals may create implied
contractual rights and duties if there is no disclaimer of the
manual's contractual nature.

In this setting, the appeals court in Mr. Morgan said, "it is
simply inequitable for an employer to assert that, during its
dealings with its employee, its written rules and regulations were
not contractual and then argue, through reference to the same
materials, that the employee contracted away a particular right."

The lawyer representing Raymours, Voorhees solo James Fannon, did
not return a call seeking comment on the ruling.


RESOURCE CAPITAL: Defending "Levin" Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Capital Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Daren Levin filed
in September 2015 a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
all persons who purchased Company common stock between March 2,
2015 and August 4, 2015. The complaint alleges that the Company
and certain of its officers and directors materially
misrepresented certain risks of the Company's commercial loan
portfolio and its processes and controls for assessing the quality
of its portfolio. The complaint seeks unspecified damages as well
as costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the complaint
is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.


RETROPHIN INC: Filed Reply Briefs in Support of Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Retrophin, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the defendants
have filed reply briefs in support of their motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action complaint.

On October 20, 2014, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint in federal court in the Southern
District of New York against the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Marc
Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No.
14-cv-8376).

On December 16, 2014, a second, related complaint was filed in the
Southern District of New York against the same defendants (Sandler
v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9915).

The complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants'
public disclosures during the period from November 13, 2013
through September 30, 2014.

In December 2014, plaintiff Kazanchyan filed a motion to appoint
lead plaintiff, to approve lead counsel, and to consolidate the
two related actions.

On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions,
appointed lead plaintiff, and approved lead counsel. Lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 4, 2015,
which again named the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Mr. Panoff, and Mr.
Paley as defendants, but which also named Steven Richardson,
Stephen Aselage, and Cornelius Golding as additional defendants.

On May 26, 2015, with the consent of the lead plaintiff, the court
ordered that the claims against Mr. Paley be dismissed. The
remaining defendants, including the Company, filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 26, 2015.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated opposition to the motions on July
27, 2015. Defendants filed their reply briefs in support of the
motions on October 28, 2015.


ROCKET FUEL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California ruled on motions to
dismiss filed in the case captioned, IN RE ROCKET FUEL, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 14-CV-3998-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, Rocket Fuel said that on September 3, 2014 and
September 10, 2014, respectively, two purported class actions were
filed in the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors. The actions are Shah v.
Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03998, and Mehrotra v.
Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-04114. The underwriters
in the Company's initial public offering on September 19, 2013
(the "IPO") and its secondary offering on February 5, 2013 (the
"Secondary Offering") are also named as defendants. These actions
were consolidated and a consolidated complaint, In re Rocket Fuel
Securities Litigation, was filed on February 27, 2015.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements about the ability of the Company's
technology to detect and eliminate fraudulent web traffic, and
about Rocket Fuel's future prospects. The consolidated complaint
also alleges that the Company's registration statements and
prospectuses for the IPO and the Secondary Offering contained
false and misleading statements on these topics. The consolidated
complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, and for violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock
between September 20, 2013 and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as well
as those who purchased stock in its initial public offering on
September 19, 2013, and a claim for violation of Section 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act in connection with the Secondary Offering.
The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages in an
unspecified amount.

The operative consolidated class action complaint asserts seven
causes of action:

     (1) violation of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, asserted
         against the Company and the Insider defendants;

     (2) violation of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, asserted
         against the Insider defendants;

     (3) violation of section 20A of the Exchange Act, asserted
         against the Insider defendants;

     (4) violation of section 11 of the Securities Act, in
         connection with the IPO, asserted against all defendants
         other than Goldman Sachs;

     (5) violation of the Securities Act in connection with the
         secondary public offering, asserted against all
         defendants other than LUMA;

     (6) violation of section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act in
         connection with the secondary public offering, asserted
         against the Company and the Underwriter defendants other
         than LUMA; and

     (7) violation of section 15 of the Securities Act, asserted
         against the Insider defendants and the Director
         defendants.

The Defendants are:

     -- Rocket Fuel Inc., George H. John, J. Peter Bardwick,
        Susan L. Bostrom, Ronald E.F. Codd, William Ericson,
        Richard Frankel, John Gardner, Clark Kokich, and Monte
        Zweben; and

     -- Credit Suisse Securities, Citigroup Global Markets,
        Needham & Company, Oppenheimer & Co., Piper Jaffray &
        Co., BMO Capital Markets, LUMA Securities, and Goldman
        Sachs.

There are two pending motions to dismiss -- one brought by the
Company, the Insider defendants, and the Director defendants; and
one brought by the Underwriter defendants to dismiss the complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) arguing
insufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint.

In the Order dated December 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/xnzMVLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hamilton ruled that:

     -- the Underwrriter defendants' motion to dismiss is
        granted; and

     -- the Rocket Fuel defendants' motion is granted in part
        and denied in part.

Specifically, the Rocket Fuel defendants' motion is granted to the
extent that it seeks dismissal of all claims asserted against the
Director defendants, and to the extent that it seeks dismissal of
the Securities Act claims asserted against the Insider defendants
and the Company defendant. To the extent that the Rocket Fuel
defendants' motion seeks dismissal of the Exchange Act claims
asserted against the Insider defendants and the Company defendant,
the motion is denied, the judge said.

The court noted that a related case (Veloso v. John, 15-4625) was
filed during the pendency of the present motions, and stayed
pending the outcome of the motions. The Veloso parties have
stipulated to meet and confer and submit a proposed schedule
within 30 days of the dismissal order, and the court also directed
the parties in this case to meet and confer with the Veloso
parties, and to submit a joint stipulation as to a date for a case
management conference to include all parties in both cases. The
parties may find available dates for a case management conference
on the court's website.

Defendant Rocket Fuel is a company that offers advertising
solutions over web, mobile, video, and social media channels, and
claims that its technology is better than its competitors' at
detecting "digital ad fraud" -- including the viewing of ads by
computer programs, such as "bots," rather than by real people.

Plaintiffs are represented by Laurence D. King, Esq. --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- Mario Man-Lung Choi, Esq. --
MChoi@kaplanfox.com -- KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP, Ramzi Abadou,
Esq. -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Alexander Louis Burns, Esq.
-- Alexander.Burns@ksfcounsel.com -- KAHN SWICK FOTI LLC

Defendants are represented by Evan L. Seite, Esq. --
eseite@wsgr.com -- Joni L. Ostler, Esq. -- jostler@wsgr.com, Nina
F. Locker, Esq. -- nlocker@wsgr.com -- Rodney Grant Strickland,
Jr., Esq. -- rstrickland@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Defending Lanier Trust Case
----------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Mississippian Trust I continues to defend a class action
by the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, Trust I said in its Form 10-
Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation"). The
complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on behalf
of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the Trust
in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April
7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 17, 2012.  The claims are based on
allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, including the
Trust, are responsible for making false and misleading statements,
and omitting material information, concerning a variety of
subjects, including oil and gas reserves. The plaintiffs seek
class certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial
public offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.


SANOFI: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Meitav Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint filed by
Plaintiffs Meitav DS Provident Funds and Pension Ltd. and Joel
Mofsenson in the case captioned, In Re Sanofi Securities
Litigation, No. 14-cv-9624 (PKC)(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Meitav DS Provident Funds and Pension Ltd. and Joel
Mofsenson bring this putative class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased Sanofi American Depositary Shares between
February 7, 2013 and October 29, 2014. They allege that defendants
Sanofi and its former Chief Executive Officer Christopher
Viehbacher violated section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 when they misstated and
omitted material information regarding sales of Sanofi's diabetes
product line and matters of corporate integrity.

Plaintiffs allege that Sanofi engaged in an illegal marketing
scheme to artificially boost the sales of its diabetes product
line and hid those illegal practices from investors while touting
the product line's incredible sales growth and publicizing
Sanofi's commitment to corporate integrity. Plaintiffs also allege
that Viehbacher knew, or recklessly disregarded information, about
the illegal marketing scheme and made false or misleading
statements to the public. According to plaintiffs, the eventual
abandonment of Sanofi's illegal marketing scheme caused a slowing
of diabetes sales, which in turn led to a significant decline in
Sanofi's share price.

Defendants argue that the Consolidated Amended Complaint does not
allege actionable misstatements and omissions, does not plead
scienter with sufficient particularity to satisfy the pleading
threshold of the the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act  and
Rule 9(b), and does not allege "loss causation" and that the
plaintiffs' section 20(a) claim fails because the CAC does not
allege a primary violation of section 10(b), or, alternatively,
does not allege defendant Viehbacher's "culpable participation" in
any section 10(b) violation.

In his Memorandum and Order dated January 6, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/eDLNBNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Castel found that did
not plead sufficient factual matter to show that the basis for
their securities fraud claim existed beyond a "speculative level."

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Louis Carey Ludwig, Esq. --
lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Joshua B. Silverman, Esq. --
jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM &
GROSS

Defendants are represented by John A. Neuwirth, Esq. --
john.neuwirth@weil.com -- Joshua Sanders Amsel, Esq. --
joshua.amsel@weil.com -- Stefania Di Trolio Venezia, Esq. --
stefania.venezia@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP


SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Faces FLSA Class Action in Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
Louisiana man is suing Schlumberger Tech Corp., an oil well
completion and project management firm, claiming it failed to pay
him overtime.

Conrad Levy filed a class-action lawsuit Jan. 12 in U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division,
against Schlumberger Tech Corp., alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  Class members are defined as those who
worked for the defendant as a completion specialist in the past
three years, the suit says.

According to the complaint, Schlumberger Tech pays its completion
specialists a hybrid salary and job bonus to avoid paying overtime
as required by the FLSA.  The suit says Levy and others like him
routinely worked 12-hour shifts seven days a week, or 44 hours of
overtime without time-and-a-half compensation for hours beyond 40
per week.  Mr. Levy states that the labor duties performed by him
and other plaintiffs are non-exempt, and should therefore be
compensated for overtime.

Mr. Levy and other class members seek an award of unpaid overtime,
benefits and penalties required by law, plus litigation costs.
They are represented by attorney Kenneth W. DeJean of the Law
Office of Kenneth W. DeJean in Lafayette; Matthew S. Parmet and
Richard J. Burch of Bruckner Burch PLLC in Houston; and Michael A.
Josephson and Andrew W. Dunlap of Fibich, Leebron, Copeland,
Briggs & Josephson in Houston.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Case
number 6:16-cv-00043


SERVICESOURCE INT'L: No Class Status Bid Filed in "Weller"
----------------------------------------------------------
Servicesource International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that no
motion to certify a class has been filed in the "Weller" class
action lawsuit.

On July 8, 2015, a single plaintiff filed a putative securities
class action lawsuit, Weller v. ServiceSource International, Inc.
et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Weller Lawsuit") against the Company and the
Company's former Chief Executive Officer. The Weller Lawsuit was
brought on behalf of purchasers of Company stock during the period
January 22, 2014 through May 1, 2014, and alleges violations under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act").

In connection with the mandatory lead plaintiff appointment
process under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA), various law firms issued press releases between July 2015
and September 2015 to search for additional shareholders that
would be willing to serve as lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
This solicitation period ended on September 29, 2015 and no other
shareholders came forward, leaving only the named plaintiff as the
sole shareholder seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff.

The court appointed Weller a lead plaintiff on October 21, 2015.
At this time, no motion to certify a class has been filed. The
Company believes that the claims are meritless, and will
vigorously defend itself against such claims.


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Fraud, Breach of Contract Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Hanley, writing for Music Week, reports that SFX
Entertainment has settled one of the two outstanding lawsuits
against it.

Last August, Paolo Moreno, who claimed he was behind the original
idea for SFX, filed a class action lawsuit against the firm's CEO
Robert Sillerman, alleging fraud and breach of contract. Moreno,
along with two other men, claimed Sillerman had cut him out of the
business once it began to take off.

However, documents obtained by Mixmag, show the class action
lawsuit has now been dismissed.

The EDM promoter still faces a separate lawsuit seeking
compensation for allegedly misleading investors in Sillerman's bid
to take the company private.

The lawsuit refers to the acquisition proposal as a "sham process"
designed to make the firm attractive to a third-party purchaser
and maintain the share price before it was caught by its liquidity
problems.

SFX recently secured $20 million in new financing, later revealed
to have come from Canadian private equity firm Catalyst Capital
Group. SFX stock slid 12.01% to $0.10 on January 25.


SHAKTI GROUP: Recalls Asafoetida Powder Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------
Shakti Group USA LLC of New Brunswick, NJ is recalling 50 gm and
100 gm sizes of L.G Compounded Asafoetida Powder, both coded with
Lot Number: 2323 because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

L.G COMPOUNDED ASAFOETIDA POWDER was distributed to OH, NJ, VA,
NH, and PA through retail stores.

The product is packaged in a white screw cap plastic bottle with
UPC 840222000149, Lot Number: 2323.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was as a result of a sampling conducted by the FDA
which revealed that the finished products contained the bacteria.
Shakti Group has ceased the production and distribution of the
product.

Consumers who have purchased L.G COMPOUNDED ASAFOETIDA POWDER are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-609-357-9181
between the hours of 8am - 5pm EST from Monday - Saturday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Kh7eex


SIGNATURE RETAIL: Court Sends "Castaldi" FLSA Suit to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned,
PAUL CASTALDI, Plaintiff, v. SIGNATURE RETAIL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-00737-JSC (N.D. Cal.).

On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed the collective action
complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of all persons who worked as Merchandisers for Signature
Retail since February 2012. The complaint alleged that Signature
Retail failed to pay overtime wages and failed to compensate
Plaintiff and the other Merchandisers for all hours worked in
violation of the FLSA.

Before beginning his job with Signature Retail, Plaintiff signed
his hiring documents including the Arbitration Agreement which
provides that "all common law claims shall apply Illinois law" and
"all federal anti-discrimination or other federal claims shall
apply the then applicable law within the United States 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Signature Retail moved to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay
Action pursuant to an arbitration agreement under which
participating employees and Signature Retail agreed to submit
employment-related disputes to binding arbitration. Signature
Retail sought to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims solely
on an individual, and not collective or representative, basis
pursuant to the Agreement. Plaintiff, for his part, urged that the
Agreement permits Plaintiff to bring a collective action but that
it is nonetheless unenforceable as both procedurally and
substantively unconscionable.

In her Order dated January 7, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/tXDKzPfrom Leagle.com, Judge Corley found that
Illinois law governed the enforceability of the Arbitration
Agreement and that under Illinois law the Agreement's internal
grievance procedure and cost-splitting provision were
substantively unconscionable but nonetheless severable. Upon
severance the Court understands the AAA rules to require Signature
Retail to pay all the arbitration costs, other than the filing
fee.

Paul Castaldi is represented by Joshua Geoffrey Konecky, Esq. --
jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- Nathan Piller, Esq. --
npiller@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY
WOTKYNS LLP

Signature Retail Services is represented by Thomas G. Oddo, Esq.
-- toddo@lilliglaw.com -- LILLIG & THORSNESS, LTD.

          - and -

     Allan J. Gomes, Esq.
     Anne Leinfelder, Esq.
     ANDERIES & GOMES
     485 Pacific Ave
     San Francisco, CA 94133
     Tel: (707)837-7310


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Grabowski/Morga Accord to Resolve "Tomlinson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the settlement
reached in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely
to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in the case,
Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

"On January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson filed a lawsuit against our
company in Circuit Court in Washington County, Arkansas, Case No.
CV11-121-7," the Company said. "The complaint alleges, on her
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that our
advertising for Shape-ups violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, constitutes a breach of certain express and implied
warranties, and is resulting in unjust enrichment (the "Tomlinson
action"). The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class,
compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs."

"On February 18, 2011, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where it was
pending as Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., CV 11-05042
JLH. On March 21, 2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the action
back to Arkansas state court, which motion we opposed. On May 25,
2011, the Court ordered the case remanded to Arkansas state court
and denied our motion to dismiss or transfer as moot, but stayed
the remand pending completion of appellate review.

"On September 11, 2012, the District Court lifted its stay and
remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Washington County,
Arkansas. On October 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parties, the
state Circuit Court issued an order staying the case.

"On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the
nationwide consumer class action settlement in Grabowski v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Case No. 3:12-CV-00204, and Morga v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:12-CV-00205 (the
"Grabowski/Morga class actions"), and issued a preliminary
injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of the Tomlinson
action, among other cases.  On May 13, 2013, the Court in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order finally approving
the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for
any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the
class claims brought by the plaintiff in Tomlinson.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Grabowski/Morga Accord to Resolve "Boatright"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the settlement
reached in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely
to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in the case,
Elma Boatright and Sharon White v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group.

"On February 15, 2012, Elma Boatright and Sharon White filed a
lawsuit against our company in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, Case No. 3:12-cv-87-S," the
Company said. "The complaint alleges, on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, that our advertising
for Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby constituting a
breach of contract, breach of implied and express warranties,
fraud, and resulting in unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks
certification of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs."

On March 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed a motion to
consolidate this action with In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products
Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR.

On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the
consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga
class actions (described above), and issued a preliminary
injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of this action.

On May 13, 2013, the Court in the Grabowski/Morga class actions
entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class
action settlement, and the time for any appeals therefrom has
expired. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is
expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the
plaintiff in Boatright.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Settlement Funds Distributed in "Angell" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that settlement funds
have been distributed to eligible class members in the case, Jason
Angell v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and
Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc.

On April 12, 2012, Jason Angell filed a motion to authorize the
bringing of a class action in the Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal.  Petitioner Angell seeks to bring a class
action on behalf of all residents of Canada (or in the
alternative, all residents of Quebec) who purchased Skechers
Shape-ups footwear.

"Petitioner's motion alleges that we have marketed Shape-ups
through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide health
benefits to users," the Company said. The motion requests the
Court's authorization to institute a class action seeking damages
(including damages for bodily injury), punitive damages, and
injunctive relief.  Petitioner's motion was formally presented to
the Court on June 29, 2012.

At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Angell action (as well as the
Niras and Dedato actions) through authorization by the Quebec
Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class.  That agreement
was finalized by the parties in December 2013 and thereafter
presented to the Quebec Superior Court for approval.  On November
5, 2014, the Court issued its formal judgment approving the
settlement and the time for appealing the judgment has now expired
without any appeal.

On July 31, 2015, the settlement funds were distributed to
eligible class members.

"In the event that there are unforeseen circumstances which upset
the settlement, we cannot predict the outcome of this action or a
reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of
this action would have a material adverse impact on our results of
operations, financial position or result in a material loss in
excess of the settlement or a recorded accrual," the Company said.

                     Davis/Smith Class Action

On September 5, 2012, Brenda Davies filed a Statement of Claim in
the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear.
The Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed Shape-ups
through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide fitness
benefits to users.  The Statement of Claim seeks damages
(including damages for bodily injury), restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief.

On or about November 21, 2013, an Amended Statement of Claim was
filed to substitute a new representative plaintiff, Kourtney
Smith, in place of Ms. Davies and to allege substantially the same
claims as in the original Statement of Claim with respect to all
Skechers toning footwear sold to residents of Canada.

On or about February 28, 2014, representative plaintiff Smith
agreed to the terms and conditions of the settlement reached in
the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions (described above and
below), and agreed to discontinue the Davies/Smith action once the
settlement in the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions is
finally approved by the Court and affirmed on appeal in the event
an appeal is taken.

On November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court issued its formal
judgment approving the settlement in the Angell class action and
the time for appealing the judgment has now expired without any
appeal.

On January 16, 2015, the Court in the Davies/Smith action issued
an order effectively dismissing that action.  On July 31, 2015,
the settlement funds were distributed to eligible class members in
the Angell action.

The case is, Brenda Davies/Kourtney Smith v. Skechers U.S.A.,
Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.

                          Niras Action

On September 21, 2012, George Niras filed a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all residents
of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Resistance Runners, Shape-ups
Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups. The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers marketed these toning shoes through the use of false and
misleading advertisements and representations about the products'
ability to provide health benefits to users.  The Statement seeks
damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Niras action (as well as the
Angell action and the Dedato action) through authorization by the
Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class.  That
agreement was finalized by the parties in December 2013 and
thereafter presented to the Quebec Superior Court for approval.

On November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court issued its formal
judgment approving the settlement and the time for appealing the
judgment has now expired without any appeal.  On November 20,
2014, the Ontario Superior Court issued an order effectively
dismissing the Niras action.  On July 31, 2015, the settlement
funds were distributed to eligible class members in the Angell
action.

The case is, George Niras v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.

                          Dedato Action

On or about November 5, 2012, Frank Dedato filed a Statement of
Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Tone-ups or
Resistance Runners footwear.  The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers has allegedly made misleading statements about its
footwear products' ability to provide fitness benefits to users.
The Statement of Claim seeks damages, restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief.  At a mediation held on February
28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle
the Dedato action (as well as the Angell and Niras actions
described above) through authorization by the Quebec Superior
Court of a nationwide settlement class.  That agreement was
finalized by the parties in December 2013 and thereafter presented
to the Quebec Superior Court for approval.

On November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court issued its formal
judgment approving the settlement and the time for appealing the
judgment has now expired without any appeal.  On November 19,
2014, the Ontario Superior Court issued an order effectively
dismissing the Dedato action.  On July 31, 2015, the settlement
funds were distributed to eligible class members in the Angell
action.

The case is, Frank Dedato v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers
U.S.A. Canada, Inc.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Angell Settlement to Resolve "Cooper" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the settlement
reached in the case, Jason Angell v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc., is
expected to resolve another case, Susan Cooper et al. v. Ontrea
Inc. et al.

On October 22, 2014, Skechers was named as a third-party defendant
in a lawsuit pending in the Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary,
Alberta, Case No. 1301 10673.  The third party notice asserts
claims for indemnification and contribution arising from injuries
plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of wearing Shape-ups
shoes.

The class action settlement in the Angell action, is expected to
resolve the Cooper action.  "However, in the event there are
unforeseen circumstances that upset the settlement, we cannot
predict the outcome of the Cooper action or a reasonable range of
potential losses or whether the outcome of the Cooper action would
have a material adverse impact on our results of operations,
financial position or result in a material loss in excess of the
settlement or a recorded accrual," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Finalized Deals with 460 LASC Case Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Skechers has
finalized a settlement with 460 plaintiffs in cases filed in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers
Fitness Group have been named as defendants in a total of 72
personal injury actions filed in various Superior Courts of the
State of California that were brought on behalf of 920 individual
plaintiffs (360 of whom also submitted MDL court-approved
questionnaires for mediation purposes in the MDL proceeding). Of
those cases, 68 were originally filed in the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles (the "LASC cases").

On August 20, 2014, the Judicial Council of California granted a
petition by our company to coordinate all personal injury actions
filed in California that relate to Shape-ups with the LASC cases
(collectively, the "LASC Coordinated Cases"). On October 6, 2014,
three cases that had been pending in other counties were
transferred to and coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases.

On April 17, 2015, an additional case was transferred to and
coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases.

Four of the actions originally filed as LASC cases, brought on
behalf of a total of 6 plaintiffs, have been dismissed. The claims
of 44 additional plaintiffs have been dismissed entirely from
certain of the lawsuits, either voluntarily, on motion by
Skechers, or pursuant to a settlement agreement. The claims of 21
additional persons have been dismissed in part, either voluntarily
or on motions by Skechers. Thus, the LASC Coordinated Cases
currently involve 68 pending personal injury lawsuits brought on
behalf of a total of 870 plaintiffs.

On March 12, 2014, the Superior Court selected twelve plaintiffs
as bellwether cases to be set for one or more trials starting in
March 2015. To date, extensive written discovery and document
productions have taken place in the LASC cases. Over 20 fact
witness depositions have been taken (all of which were cross-
noticed in the MDL), as have eight expert depositions. Two of the
bellwether cases have settled and one bellwether plaintiff
dismissed her action after Skechers filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On January 7, 2015, the Court vacated the March 2015 initial
bellwether trial date and granted Skechers' motions for summary
adjudication in five bellwether cases with respect to those
plaintiffs' advertising-related claims, including their claims for
breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of consumer protection
laws.

On February 25, 2015, the Court granted Skechers' motions for
summary adjudication in the four remaining bellwether cases with
respect to those plaintiffs' advertising-related claims, including
their claims for breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of
consumer protection laws; the Court also granted Skechers' summary
adjudication motions as to two of the four plaintiffs' products
liability claims for an alleged failure to warn, and took under
submission the portion of Skechers' motions seeking summary
adjudication of all four plaintiffs' products liability claims for
alleged design defects.

On November 3, 2015, Skechers finalized a settlement with 460
plaintiffs in the LASC cases, including all of the bellwether
plaintiffs.

On August 26, 2015, the Court vacated the pending trial dates.  On
October 27, 2015, the Court opened discovery in the remaining LASC
cases.  No new trial dates have been set.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Deals Reached with Counsel for 2,650 Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that settlements in
principle have been reached with attorneys who claim to represent
over 2,650 current or potential personal injury claimants.

A total of 11 personal injury actions (some on behalf of numerous
plaintiffs) have been filed that have not been removed to federal
court and transferred to MDL No. 2308. Ten of those actions have
been resolved and dismissed. The remaining action includes the
claims of 65 plaintiffs, all of whom had submitted court-approved
settlement questionnaires in the MDL. No discovery has taken place
in this action. The claims in this remaining state court case are
expected to be resolved by the group settlements.

The personal injury cases in the MDL and LASC Coordinated Cases
and in other state courts are in many instances solicited and
handled by the same plaintiffs law firms. Mediations were held
with these laws firms on May 18, June 18, and July 24, 2015.
Settlements in principle have been reached with attorneys who
claim to represent over 2,650 current or potential claimants.

"The settlements involve complex monetary and non-monetary terms
that still have to be negotiated and documented. If the group
settlements are not finalized and the litigation proceeds, it is
too early to predict the outcome of any case, whether adverse
results in any single case or in the aggregate would have a
material adverse impact on our operations or financial position,
and whether insurance coverage will be adequate to cover any
losses," the Company said.  "Notwithstanding, we believe we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations and intend
to defend each of these cases vigorously. In addition, even if the
global settlement is finalized, it is too early to predict whether
there will be future personal injury cases filed which are not
covered by the settlement, whether adverse results in any single
case or in the aggregate would have a material adverse impact on
our operations or financial position, and whether insurance
coverage will be available and/or adequate to cover any losses."


ST. LOUIS, MO: Municipalities Sued Over Florissant Court Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Fenske, writing for Riverfront Times, reports that in 2015,
the legal beagles at Arch City Defenders brought a host of class-
action lawsuits against St. Louis-area municipalities, alleging
that the extra fees they tacked on to court cases were illegal --
a way to raise revenue on the backs of lower-income residents.

Those suits have, for the most part, survived motions to dismiss
and continue to be fought in the courts, says Michael-John Voss,
the co-founder of Arch City Defenders and also an attorney there.

And now Mr. Voss and his colleagues have set their sites on a new
target -- Florissant.  In a new suit they filed, they're asking
the court to grant their case class-action status so that anyone
who's paid one of three extra fees charged by Florissant would be
reimbursed.

The fees include a "letter fee," a "failure to appear fee," and a
"warrant cancellation fee."  For Mr. Voss' client Stanley Watkins,
who serves as the plaintiff in the new case, standing in for all
others in a similar situation, those fees ended up adding more
than $150 to a $175 fine.

"We believe that these fees are in conflict with what's authorized
in state law, and are assessed for the purpose of revenue
generation," Mr. Voss says.

The suit seeks to represent anyone who's paid such fees in
Florissant from 2009 to the present, Mr. Voss says.

Florissant passed new ordinances in the wake of Senate Bill 5
barring such fees, but it's not clear whether they continue to be
charged to people who wind up in court, Voss says.


STATOIL USA: Faces Class Action Over Lease Royalty Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Penn Record, reports that a Meshoppen
woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against Statoil USA in a
dispute surrounding royalty calculations for oil and gas leases.

Cheryl B. Canfield filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Statoil USA
Onshore Properties Inc., Statoil Natural Gas LLC and Statoil ASA,
alleging fraud.

According to the complaint, Ms. Canfield signed an oil and gas
lease in 2006 with Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. on property she owns in
the Marcellus region.  Cabot was subsequently acquired by Statoil
USA.  Ms. Canfield is bringing the suit on behalf of all oil and
gas lease holders in Pennsylvania who are paid a fixed percentage
based on the amount of gas sold from wells on their land.  The
suit seeks to determine whether Statoil used an artificial index
price to calculate royalties or whether it sold the gas to
affiliated companies at an artificial price.

Ms. Canfield and members of the plaintiff class seek compensatory
damages to be determined at a jury trial, disgorgement of the
defendant's alleged unjust enrichment and all legal costs.  They
are represented by attorneys Gerard M. Karam of Mazzoni, Karam,
Petorak & Valvano in Scranton; and by Douglas A. Clark of The
Clark Law Firm of Peckville.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Case
number 3:16-cv-00085


STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Suit Will Have Merits Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that there will be
additional merits discovery in an antitrust class action complaint
filed in federal court in Chicago, Illinois.

The company is involved, along with two other remaining steel
manufacturing company defendants, in a class action antitrust
complaint filed in federal court in Chicago, Illinois in September
2008, originally against eight companies. The Complaint alleges a
conspiracy on the part of the original defendants to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold
in the United States during a specified period between 2005 and
2007, by artificially restricting the supply of such steel
products. All but one of the Complaints were brought on behalf of
a purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel
products.  The other Complaint was brought on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel
products within the same time period.  In addition, another
similar complaint was filed in December 2010 purporting to be on
behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee. All
Complaints have been consolidated in the Chicago action and seek
treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre-
and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief.

Following a period of discovery relating to class certification
matters, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification in May
2012, and on February 28, 2013, Defendants filed their Joint
Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification. Following a three-day hearing on the pending motion
during March and April of 2014, the Court took the motion under
advisement. On September 9, 2015, the Court certified the class,
limited, however, to the issue of the alleged conspiracy, and
denied class certification on the issue of antitrust impact. There
will be additional merits discovery, but the extent thereof is
currently being discussed.

In the meantime, the defendants have appealed the court's class
certification ruling on the conspiracy issue, and Plaintiff has
cross-appealed on the impact issue. Steel Dynamics has also filed
a motion for summary judgment, as has co-defendant SSAB.


SUNTRUST BANK: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Overdraft Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that the
Georgia Supreme Court is considering whether to save a class
action lawsuit challenging the right of a bank to charge its
customers $36 if they overdraft their accounts by even one dollar.

Michael Terry of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, representing the
plaintiff, told the justices in oral arguments that if they block
this case, they will shut down all future class actions in
Georgia.

William Withrow Jr. of Troutman Sanders, representing SunTrust
Bank, framed the case in similarly stark terms.  He told the
justices if they allow the class action to go forward, they will
signify that customer contracts in Georgia are worthless.

Based on how half of the people in the packed courtroom left as
soon as the Jan. 4 argument concluded, with several cases still to
be heard, the case is being watched closely by business and legal
interests.  Law professors and consumer groups have filed amicus
briefs siding with the plaintiff.  Bankers and big businesses have
spoken in favor of SunTrust.

At issue is Jeff Bickerstaff Jr., who filed his lawsuit in July
2010, alleging that SunTrust's $36 overdraft fees for small
amounts of money loaned to cover overdraft amounts on debit cards
amounted to an annual percentage rate exceeding 1,000 percent and
violated Georgia's usury laws.  Mr. Bickerstaff alleged that
approximately 400,000 Georgians had been overcharged in the same
way and are "well suited for class treatment."

Mr. Bickerstaff's bid for class status was rejected at the trial
court and Court of Appeals, and he took the case to the state high
court.

Two months ago, Mr. Bickerstaff died.  SunTrust asked the Supreme
Court to dismiss his appeal, arguing that a deceased person cannot
pursue a lawsuit. B ut the high court rejected that motion and
allowed Mr. Bickerstaff's lawyers to substitute his mother as the
plaintiff.

According to briefs from both sides, when he opened his personal
checking account in 2009, Mr. Bickerstaff signed the same
agreement presented to all the bank's customers, saying that any
dispute would be resolved by arbitration and not a lawsuit.  In
June 2010, SunTrust amended the agreement after a federal court
ruled in another case that the mandatory arbitration provision was
"unconscionable" under Georgia law.  SunTrust gave customers the
right to reject arbitration if they provided written notice by
Oct. 1, 2010.

SunTrust has argued that Mr. Bickerstaff failed to opt out of
arbitration by the deadline, but Mr. Bickerstaff's lawyers say his
filing the lawsuit before the deadline constitutes opting out.
Regardless, SunTrust maintains that Bickerstaff had no right to
opt out of arbitration on behalf of other customers who did not
meet the deadline.

Mr. Bickerstaff's lawyers say that SunTrust set the deadline
secretly, only sending customers notice that they could read new
rules online or at the bank, and that legal precedent demands that
the deadline be tolled to allow the matter to be resolved by the
courts.

A Fulton County judge declined to certify the class for
Mr. Bickerstaff's lawsuit.  The Georgia Court of Appeals upheld
that decision in March 2015, affirming the trial court's denial of
class certification.  Court of Appeals Judge Billy Ray wrote the
opinion, with a full concurrence by Judge Christopher McFadden,
but Presiding Judge Gary Andrews concurred in judgment only.
Ray's ruling became the focus of Bickerstaff's appeal to the
higher court.  "If left to stand, the opinion not only will
eliminate the claims of 400,000 Georgians who have been wronged by
SunTrust, but also will severely impair Georgia's class action
law," Terry's brief asking for the high court's review said.
"Georgians will thus be without any ability to assert many
legitimate claims that may only be realistically brought on a
classwide basis."

Nine law professors from Georgia and other states signed an amicus
brief in support of Mr. Bickerstaff.  "We believe the lower courts
made a mistake that, if taken to its logical conclusion, could
make Georgia the first jurisdiction in the United States to turn
its back altogether on the class action tolling rule," the legal
scholars' brief said.  They said the practice of postponing of
deadlines to allow courts to make rulings on whether a class can
be certified has been followed for more than 40 years without
controversy across the country, and "for good reason: to save
litigants and courts from wasteful filings and to save class
actions from disabling obstacles. Georgia should not abandon it."
The legal scholars said that the lower court's denial of the class
certification misinterprets the due process clause of the U.S.
Constitution.  "The U.S. Supreme Court may feel compelled to
correct the error itself if this court does not," wrote the
scholars.


SUPERVALU INC: Minn. Judge Dismisses Consolidated Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ann D. Montgomery of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in the case
captioned, IN RE: SuperValu, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation. This Document Relates to: All Actions, Case No. 14-MD-
2586 ADM/TNL (D. Minn.).

In the multidistrict litigation case, 16 named plaintiffs alleged
they were harmed by hackers gaining access to and installing
malicious software on the payment-processing network for payment
card transactions at Defendants' retail grocery stores. Plaintiffs
alleged the malicious software released and disclosed the Personal
Identifying Information (PII) of Plaintiffs and Class Members who
used their payment cards for purchases at the affected stores. On
August 14, 2014, Defendants announced in press releases that from
June 22, 2014 to July 17, 2014, hackers had gained unauthorized
access to and installed malicious software on the portion of
SuperValu's computer network that processes payment card
transactions for Defendants' retail stores.

The Amended Complaint stated claims for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations
of various state consumer protection and data breach notification
laws. Plaintiffs asserted their claims as class actions.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' wrongful conduct, the resulting
Data Breach, and the potential disclosure of Plaintiffs' and other
Class Members' PII have caused them to suffer harm including: (i)
diminished value of their PII; (ii) untimely and inadequate
notification of the Data Breach; (iii) increased risk of future
losses, economic damages, and other harm; (iv) opportunity cost
and value of lost time spent monitoring financial accounts and
payment card accounts; (v) invasion of privacy and breach of the
confidentiality of their PII by Defendants' unauthorized release
and disclosure; and (vi) lost benefit of the bargain.

In the motion, Defendants argued the Amended Complaint must be
dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) for Plaintiffs' failure
to allege facts establishing Article III standing, which is a
prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 7, 2016
available at http://is.gd/IsLAzpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Montgomery
concluded that the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to
determine whether the Amended Complaint states a claim for relief
under Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiffs lack standing under Article
III.

Plaintiffs are represented by Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. --
ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP

          - and -

     Ben Barnow, Esq.
     BARNOW & ASSOCIATES PC
     1 N LaSalle St # 4600,
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312)621-2000

Defendants are represented by David T. Cohen,
Esq.David.Cohen@ropesgray.com -- Harvey J. Wolkoff, Esq. --
Harvey.Wolkoff@ropesgray.com -- Kathryn E. Wilhelm, Esq. --
Kathryn.Wilhelm@ropesgray.com -- Sunil Shenoi, Esq. --
Sunil.Shenoi@ropesgray.com -- ROPES & GRAY LLP, Stephen P.
Safranski, Esq. -- SSafranski@RobinsKaplan.com -- Katherine S.
Barrett Wiik, Esq. -- Kwiik@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP


SYMETRA FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in "Stein" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Symetra Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in a class action lawsuit by Shiva Stein have entered into
a memorandum of understanding.

On August 20, 2015, Shiva Y. Stein, a purported stockholder of
Symetra ("Plaintiff"), filed a class action complaint (the
"complaint") against Symetra, each of the members of the Board of
Directors and each of the Sumitomo Parties (together, the
"defendants") in the Superior Court of Washington, King County
(the "Washington Court"), purportedly on behalf of certain
stockholders of Symetra. The complaint alleges that the members of
the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their approval of the Merger Agreement. It further
challenges the decision of the Board of Directors to adopt a forum
selection bylaw designating the state and federal courts in the
State of Delaware for the resolution of intracorporate disputes.
Finally, the complaint alleges that the Sumitomo Parties aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiff asks
the Washington Court to (i) declare that the lawsuit can be
maintained as a class action, (ii) declare that the Merger is
unfair, unjust and inequitable to Plaintiff and the other members
of Plaintiff's class, (iii) enjoin the defendants from taking any
steps necessary to accomplish the Merger at an inequitable and
unfair price, (iv) in the event that the Merger occurs, rescind
the Merger or award rescissory damages, (v) direct the defendants
to account for the damages sustained, (vi) award Plaintiff costs
and fees relating to the lawsuit and (vii) grant such other and
further relief as the Washington Court may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
added a claim to the complaint that the members of the Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure by filing a
materially deficient preliminary proxy statement and added an
additional request of relief to enjoin the defendants from
soliciting stockholder votes on the Merger until such alleged
material deficiencies are remedied, and a motion for preliminary
injunction, which sought to enjoin the Special Meeting of
Stockholders from taking place.

Symetra and the Board of Directors believe these claims are
without merit and have been filed in an improper forum, in
violation of Symetra's forum selection bylaw.

On October 28, 2015, counsel for the Company, the Board of
Directors and the Sumitomo Parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with counsel for Plaintiff, pursuant to
which the Company agreed to make certain disclosures concerning
the Merger. In accordance with the terms of the MOU, the Plaintiff
agreed to stay the proceeding in the Washington Court and to
withdraw its request for a preliminary injunction. In addition,
the MOU contemplates that, subject to the completion of
confirmatory discovery by Plaintiff's counsel, the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement contemplated by the parties will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to
Symetra stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will take place at which the
Washington Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved
by the Washington Court, it will resolve and release all claims
that were or could have been brought in any actions challenging
any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure
made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be
disclosed to Symetra stockholders prior to the Washington Court's
final approval of the settlement. In connection with the
settlement, subject to the ultimate determination of the
Washington Court, Plaintiff's counsel may receive an award of fees
in an amount not to exceed $275,000 and be reimbursed for expenses
of up to $15,000. This payment will not affect the amount of the
consideration to be received by any Company stockholder in the
Merger. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately
enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the Washington
Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation. The MOU may be rendered null and
void, if, among other reasons, (i) the Washington Court fails to
enter a final order and judgment approving the settlement, or (ii)
the Merger Agreement is terminated by the parties thereto or the
Merger is not consummated for any reason.

The defendants in the action each have denied, and continue to
deny, all of the allegations of wrongful or actionable conduct
asserted in the complaint, and the Board of Directors vigorously
maintains that it diligently and scrupulously complied with its
fiduciary duties, that the definitive proxy statement was complete
and accurate in all material respects and that no further
disclosure was required under applicable law. The defendants
entered into the MOU and the contemplated settlement solely to
eliminate the cost, burden, distraction and expense of having to
defend the litigation further.


TC PIPELINES: Defending Suit by St. Louis Retirement System
-----------------------------------------------------------
TC PipeLines, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is
defending the case, Employees Retirement System of the City of St.
Louis v. TC PipeLines GP, Inc., et al.

On October 13, 2015, an alleged unitholder of the Partnership
filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against the General Partner, TransCanada
American Investments, Ltd. (TAIL) and TransCanada, and the
Partnership as a nominal defendant.   The complaint alleges direct
and derivative claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting breach of
contract, and tortious interference in connection with the 2015
GTN Acquisition, including the issuance by the Partnership of $95
million in Class B Units and amendments to the Partnership
Agreement to provide for the issuance of the Class B Units.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin future issuances of
Class B Units to TransCanada or any of its subsidiaries,
disgorgement of certain distributions to the General Partner,
TransCanada and any related entities, return of some or all of the
Class B Units to the Partnership, rescission of the amendments to
the Partnership Agreement, monetary damages and attorney fees.
The Partnership intends to defend vigorously against the claims
asserted.


TESCO CORP: Discovery to Commence in Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Tesco Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery is
scheduled to commence in a class action lawsuit over unpaid
overtime.

The Company is currently participating in an arbitration, based on
the Company's dispute resolution process, with 29 current and
former employees (the "Employees") who had worked or are working
in various states. The Employees claim that they are owed unpaid
overtime wages including liquidated damages under the Federal
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the applicable state laws of
various states, including New Mexico and Colorado. The case is
assigned to a three-judge panel of arbitrators. The parties
litigated the issue of whether or not a Rule 23 style opt-out
class action is appropriate in this case and the arbitration panel
has determined it is not appropriate for FLSA claims but is
available for state law wage claims.

On October 22, 2015, an arbitration panel certified the case as a
class action. After the class is certified, discovery will begin.

"At September 30, 2015 and as of the date of this report we
maintain an estimated reserve for potential exposure, which we
consider adequate," the Company said.


TOWERJAZZ: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
TowerJazz, the global specialty foundry leader, on Jan. 25
disclosed that it has become aware of the filing of a purported
class action by one private shareholder, who held ordinary shares
of the Company the day before a short-selling focused firm issued
a short sell thesis report by a self-styled analyst with false and
misleading information about the Company's strategy, business
model and financials.  This analyst acknowledged at the time of
the report that he shall be assumed to be in a short position in
TowerJazz's shares.

TowerJazz will vigorously oppose all claims.  The Company enforces
stringent system controls and accounting procedures to satisfy
applicable SOX requirements and proper internal controls over
financial reporting.  All financial statements are reviewed and
confirmed by external independent auditors, namely Deloitte, one
of the Big Four worldwide audit and accounting firms.

Russell Ellwanger, the Company's Chief Executive Officer,
commented: "We have reviewed the claims made with our independent
auditors and counsels.  The conclusion is that the report is
deceptive, demonstrative of a broad lack of understanding of
generally accepted accounting principles and of our strategy and
business model.  The alleged claims are totally without merit and
we will forcefully pursue this matter until dismissal of all
claims."

Mr. Ellwanger continues, "Our financial statements are accurate
and in full compliance with US GAAP and applicable regulatory
requirements.  We continue to focus on our business and financial
performance which remains positive and growing, based upon strong
customer demand, with a financial model of sustainable and growing
GAAP net profit.  We look forward to the upcoming completion of
the previously disclosed San Antonio fab acquisition and the
scheduled release of our annual financials, demonstrating the
strength of our business model and its profitability."

                        About TowerJazz

Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (NASDAQ: TSEM, TASE: TSEM) -- and its
fully owned U.S. subsidiary Jazz Semiconductor, Inc. operate
collectively under the brand name TowerJazz, the global specialty
foundry leader.  TowerJaz -- http://www.towerjazz.com--
manufactures integrated circuits, offering a broad range of
customizable process technologies including: SiGe, BiCMOS, mixed-
signal/CMOS, RF CMOS, CMOS image sensor, integrated power
management (BCD and 700V), and MEMS.  TowerJazz also provides a
world-class design enablement platform for a quick and accurate
design cycle as well as Transfer Optimization and development
Process Services (TOPS) to IDMs and fabless companies that need to
expand capacity.

To provide multi-fab sourcing and extended capacity for its
customers, TowerJazz operates two manufacturing facilities in
Israel (150mm and 200mm), one in the U.S. (200mm) and three
additional facilities in Japan (two 200mm and one 300mm) through
TowerJazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co. (TPSCo) --
http://www.tpsemico.com-- established with Panasonic Corporation
of which TowerJazz has the majority holding.  Through TPSCo,
TowerJazz provides leading edge 45nm CMOS, 65nm RF CMOS and 65nm
1.12um pixel technologies, including the most advanced image
sensor technologies.


TRUGREEN INC: Averts TCPA Class Action, Compels Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Krueger, Esq. -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch, in
an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that in Stevens-
Bratton v. TruGreen, Inc., No. 15-cv-2472, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
3365 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 12, 2016), the District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee denied class certification of a
putative class action against TruGreen, Inc. ("TruGreen") for
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. 227 ("TCPA"), and ordered that the plaintiff's claim was
subject to mandatory individual arbitration.

In May of 2013, the plaintiff, Kasie Stevens-Bowen, signed a
contract for the services of TruGreen, a national lawn care
service provider.  The agreement provided, amongst other
provisions, that TruGreen retained the right to contact the
plaintiff regarding "current and possible future services," and
that any dispute between plaintiff and TruGreen would be subject
to mandatory arbitration.  The agreement also contained a class
action waiver prohibiting the plaintiff from prosecuting or
joining in any class action.  After the plaintiff's contract
expired, TruGreen contacted her several times on her cellular
telephone, seeking to contract for new services.  The plaintiff,
whose telephone number was already on the national do-not-call
registry, instructed TruGreen not to call her again, yet allegedly
continued to receive calls.

The plaintiff filed suit against TruGreen, alleging that
TruGreen's calls violated the TCPA because (1) TruGreen used an
automatic telephone dialing system to contact the plaintiff on her
cell phone; (2) the plaintiff's telephone number was on the
national do not call list; and (3) the plaintiff made specific
requests to TruGreen not to receive additional calls, which
TruGreen allegedly did not honor.  The plaintiff sought to
represent a class of similarly situated individuals.

TruGreen successfully moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiff's individual claim on the grounds that the arbitration
agreement (and class action waiver) survived the termination of
the agreement between the parties.  The plaintiff argued that her
consent to receive calls about "current and possible future
services" was limited to future services that she could have, but
was not yet receiving, under the contract, and that the provision
did not confer consent to receive additional calls after the
termination of the agreement.  The plaintiff likewise argued that
the arbitration provision and class action waiver did not apply
because the conduct which gave rise to the action all post-dated
the expiration of the agreement.

The district court rejected the plaintiff's arguments.  The court
noted that the plaintiff's consent to receive calls about "future"
services was reasonably construed to include calls after the
expiration of the agreement.  Similarly, the district court noted
that there is a presumption in favor arbitration even after the
termination of a contract "unless negated expressly or by clear
implication," of the parties.  Because the contract did not
contain clearly indicate that its provisions were to expire with
the agreement, the court concluded that both the class action
waiver and arbitration agreement were enforceable, denied the
plaintiff's motion for class certification, and dismissed the
claims.


TWITTER INC: Edelson Drops Wiretapping Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that attorneys at
Edelson on Jan. 14 dropped a proposed class action alleging that
Twitter Inc. violates a federal wiretapping law through its
handling of direct messages between users.

Edelson's Alexander Nguyen -- anguyen@edelson.com -- filed suit in
September on behalf of a Texas man claiming that Twitter reads the
contents of direct messages without user consent.  The suit sought
damages under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the
California Invasion of Privacy Act, which both carry statutory
penalties of thousands of dollars per class member.

In court papers filed on Jan. 14, Mr. Nguyen indicated that the
suit was being dropped voluntarily after the deposition of an
unnamed Twitter official on Jan. 6.  "Based on the information
obtained in discovery, including by way of the deposition
referenced above, plaintiff has decided to no longer pursue his
claims in this action," Mr. Nguyen wrote.

Twitter's lawyers at Cooley had argued in court filings that the
company had done nothing wrong and urged U.S. District Judge
William Alsup to dismiss the case.  "Twitter's processing is
entirely automated with no human review; applies without regard to
the meaning of any message; and is done for legitimate business
purposes that are critical to Twitter's services," wrote Cooley's
Michael Rhodes in a motion to dismiss the case filed in November.
"We're pleased the case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
without us paying anything or entering into a settlement," a
Twitter spokesman said in an emailed statement.


UDR INC: Sued for Recording Phone Calls Without Consent
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California woman is the named plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit
filed against a real estate company over claims it recorded a
telephone conversation without her consent.

Sally Pineda, individually and for all others similarly situated,
filed a class-action lawsuit Jan. 13 in U.S. Superior Court for
the Central District of California against UDR Inc. and Does 1-10,
alleging violations of California Penal Code.

According to the suit, UDR contacted Pineda several times
regarding an alleged debt. During these calls the parties
allegedly discussed Pineda's sensitive financial information.

On several occasions, Pineda claims she asked UDR's agents to stop
calling her. One agent was allegedly rude to Pineda, leading her
to ask if the call was being recorded after which UDR's agent
allegedly confirmed the call was being recorded.

The suit alleges UDR recorded its telephone conversations with
Pineda without her knowledge or consent, in violation of the
California Penal Code, which prohibits one party from
intentionally recording a telephone conversation without the
knowledge or consent of the other party.

Pineda and other class members claim to have suffered an invasion
of privacy as a result of the practice.

Pineda and others in the class seek statutory damages of $5,000
per violation or three times actual damages per violation,
injunctive relief, exemplary or treble damages, interest, attorney
fees, and other damages and costs of the suit. They are
represented by attorneys Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of
the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman in Beverly Hills.


UNITED STATES: Approval of "Haggart" Settlement Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Evan J. Wallach of the Court of Appeals, Federal
Circuit, reversed the Claims Court's approval of the settlement
agreement and remanded for further proceedings in the case
captioned, DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART, FOR THEMSELVES AND AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GORDON ARTHUR WOODLEY, DENISE LYNN
WOODLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-
Appellee, No. 2014-5106 (Fed. Cir.).

In February 2009, Daniel and Kathy Haggart filed a complaint
alleging that they and other landowners held interests in the
railroad corridor and the National Trails Systems Act Amendments
of 1983, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1247(d) effected an uncompensated taking,
in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, when King
County acquired an interest in the land. Before the class was
certified, 64 class members signed contingent fee agreements with
class counsel, providing for a 35% fee of the "common fund."  The
Haggarts sought to define the common fund to include land values,
interest, and statutory fees under section 304(c) of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970 (URA).

The parties commenced settlement negotiations for the 253 class
members and reached a settlement agreement in the amount of
$110,000,000 and $2,580,000 as statutory attorney fees. The Claims
Court granted class counsel's motion for approval of the attorney
fees and division of the common fund. However, the court rejected
class counsel's request that the statutory fee under the URA
should be included in the common fund for purposes of calculating
the contingent fee.

On appeal, Appellants Gordon and Denise Woodley challenge the
decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims approving a
settlement agreement in a class action takings suit and awarding
attorney fees to class counsel under the common fund doctrine.
They assert that the Claims Court erred in approving the
settlement agreement and awarding class counsel attorney fees
under the common fund doctrine.

In the Decision dated January 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/zvhtbgfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wallach found that the
Claims Court erred in approving a settlement agreement where class
counsel withheld critical information not provided in the mailed
notice to class members, but which had been produced and was
readily available. Thus, the court abused its discretion by
failing to consider the accessibility or availability of
information necessary for the Woodleys and other class members to
make an informed decision about the settlement agreement. The
Court held that the fact that a common fund has been created is
not sufficient to establish a finding that the common fund
doctrine must be applied when awarding attorney fees, an assertion
implicit in the Haggarts' argument.

Plaintiffs are represented by Carter Glasgow Phillips, Esq. --
cphillips@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Jacqueline G. Cooper,
Esq. -- Cooper@swm.legal -- Thomas Scott Stewart, Esq. --
Stewart@swm.legal -- Elizabeth Mcculley, Esq. --
McCulley@swm.legal -- STEWART WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC & J. Robert
Sears, Esq. -- sears@bscr-law.com -- BAKER, STERCHI, COWDEN &
RICE, LLC


UTAH: Sued for Indigent Public Defense System
---------------------------------------------
Jessica Miller, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that a
proposed class-action lawsuit was filed against the state of Utah
and Washington County on behalf of thousands of criminal
defendants who are represented in court by public defenders.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, claims the county's
current public defender system is broken, and that the attorneys
who work those contracts are overworked, underpaid and are not
given the proper support to defend their clients. The lawsuit
claims this is violating the accused's constitutional rights --
which requires states to provide an attorney for those who can't
afford them.

"[The county] enters into fixed-price contracts with local
attorneys to provide indigent defense services to those charged
with criminal wrongdoing in the district court," the lawsuit
reads. "The contracts are structured and administered in a manner
that impede the ability of the attorneys to provide
constitutionally adequate legal representation to their clients."

The suit, filed by Ogden-based attorney Michael Studebaker, names
two plaintiffs: William Cox, who is accused of working as an
unlicensed broker or agent and is facing a third-degree felony;
and Edward Paulus, who is charged with first-degree felony
aggravated sexual abuse.

In Paulus' case, the lawsuit claims Washington County officials
did not renew his public defender's contract -- and now that
contract sits open, just a month before Paulus' case is supposed
to go to trial. The complaint alleges that the county has been
"forcing/coercing" another public defender to take on multiple
contracts in the meantime.

Studebaker notes in Cox's case that he is being prosecuted by the
Utah Attorney General's Office -- but receives zero funding from
the state for his public defense.

The lawsuit further alleges that public defenders in Washington
County can't meet with their clients in a "meaningful manner"
before they go to court, can't adequately investigate the charges
against their clients and do not, or rarely use, expert witnesses
or forensic testing at trial.

Studebaker said that now was the time to file the lawsuit, in the
wake of a study released four months ago by the Sixth Amendment
Center, which was critical of Utah's indigent defense system.

"The time to study has ended," he said. "It's time for action.
I've heard the Legislature wants to form another study. That's a
waste for those who are stuck in the system. We filed now because
it's time."

State legislators are expected to receive a bill proposing the
formation of an Indigent Defense Commission, which would provide
statewide oversight of the services being offered to indigent
Utahns, as well as provide training, economic assistance and other
resources to local jurisdictions. That bill had not been filed
yet.

Washington County administrator Dean Cox said that he had not seen
the federal lawsuit, so he could not comment specifically about
the allegations.

But he said the county will wait to make any changes to its
current public defender system until the legislative session is
over.


VECTREN CORPORATION: Defending Class Suit by SIGECO Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vectren Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of
claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees
("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan").  That plan was
merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.
The claims relate to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula in effect prior to
the formation of Vectren.

On March 12, 2015, certain claimants filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Vectren Combined Plan and the Company in
federal district court requesting that a class be certified and
for various relief including that the Combined Plan be reformed
and benefits thereunder be recalculated. The Company denied the
allegations set forth in the Complaint.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: South Koreans to File Class Suit in US
--------------------------------------------------------
Yonhap News Agency reports that customers of Volkswagen vehicles
in South Korea plan to file a class-action lawsuit against the
German carmaker in the United States for deceiving them on
emissions results of cars with 3-liter diesel engines, their legal
representative said.

This is in addition to the ongoing class-action suit filed by
customers of the carmaker's 2-liter diesel models whose emissions
results were proved to be faked by using the so-called defeat
device.

"As (Volkswagen) admitted to its wrongdoing related to the 3-liter
diesel engines in the U.S., we plan to gather victims here and
file a lawsuit with a court there first," said Ha Jong-sun, a
lawyer of local law firm Barun.

The lawyer said that there are more than a few Volkswagen
customers making inquiries about a possible legal action in
relation to the damage they claim to have suffered due to
manipulated emissions results.

The lawsuit is likely to be filed in the middle of February in the
U.S. A similar suit will be sought in South Korea later, he added.

Vehicles newly found in the U.S. to have faked emissions through
the engine electronic control unit are the A6, A7, A8, Q5 and Q7
that were produced from 2009-2016, along with the Porsche Cayenne
and the Volkswagen Touareg.

Some market estimates put the number of the cars of the same
models sold in South Korea at 50,000-100,000.

The environment ministry in South Korea asked the prosecution to
investigate the head of the local unit of Volkswagen for failing
to provide sufficient data related to its recall plan for around
125,000 emissions-faked vehicles.

In November, the ministry ordered Volkswagen to recall the
vehicles whose emissions were found to be manipulated through the
defeat device. The carmaker was also asked to provide data related
to how it would maintain fuel efficiency even after removing the
device.

Customer complaints are growing in South Korea as Volkswagen has
not provided any compensation measures for its customers in the
wake of the emissions-cheating scandal as opposed to its offering
of around US$1,000 worth of vouchers and other benefits to those
in the U.S. and Canada.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Greenwald Named to Plaintiff's Steering Panel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin L. Greenwald, a former senior attorney within the U.S.
Department of Justice and now head of the Weitz & Luxenberg
Environmental, Toxic Tort & Consumer Protection litigation unit,
has been appointed to an important leadership role in the
multidistrict federal court litigation currently advancing against
Volkswagen, Weitz & Luxenberg on Jan. 22 announced.

Ms. Greenwald was named to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee on
Jan. 21 by the Hon. Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Weitz & Luxenberg said.

Consumers in this multidistrict litigation are alleging that
Volkswagen sold them diesel vehicles programmed to pass smog tests
by cheating, a capability that not only causes significant
pollution but also substantially lessens the value of these
expensive cars, the law firm said.

The matter is known as In Re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing,
Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2672
CRB JSC), according to Weitz & Luxenberg.

'Defeat Device' Said Installed in VW Diesels:

The litigation against Volkswagen traces back to mid-September
when it was revealed that the company had outfitted nearly half a
million diesel vehicles in the U.S. with a device to enable them
to appear compliant with air pollution emissions standards when in
fact they were not, law firm indicated.

Weitz & Luxenberg said it then initiated a class action lawsuit
against Volkswagen on behalf of defrauded consumers across the
country.

The complaint brought by Weitz & Luxenberg alleged in part that
purchasers of the affected Volkswagen cars paid a premium to own
these diesel vehicles, a premium attributable to their alleged
environmental benefits and performance, the law firm said.

The Volkswagen lawsuit is not the first multidistrict litigation
in which Greenwald has held a leadership position, Weitz &
Luxenberg said.

Earlier, she served as plaintiffs' liaison counsel in In Re:
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MBTE") Products Liability Litigation
(MDL 1358) and for the past five years she has been a member of
the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee for the BP Oil Spill litigation
(MDL 2179), the law firm said.

A History of Championing Consumers:

Ms. Greenwald began her career in law as an assistant U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.  She later became
assistant chief of the Environmental Crimes Section of the
Department of Justice, in charge of Legislation, Policy and
Special Litigation, Weitz & Luxenberg said.

Ms. Greenwald then was appointed as General Counsel for the
Inspector General of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the law
firm said.

From there, she served as executive director of an international
not-for-profit water protection organization and as a clinical
professor of law at Rutgers Law School before joining Weitz &
Luxenberg in 2005, according to the law firm.

                   About Weitz & Luxenberg:

Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.  -- http://www.weitzlux.com/-- is a
personal injury and consumer protection law firm.  Weitz &
Luxenberg's numerous litigation areas include: mesothelioma,
defective medicine and devices, environmental pollutants, products
liability, consumer protection, accidents, personal injury, and
medical malpractice.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Has Kept Leadership Amid Emission Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Ludo Van der Heyden, INSEAD Chaired Professor in Corporate
Governance and Academic Director of the INSEAD Corporate
Governance Initiative, reports that with regulator fines, various
class action lawsuits by customers and investors, and a global
product recall; the full costs of Volkswagen's diesel emissions
crisis remains unfathomable (although some analysts tip it to
exceed $86 billion).  Of equal concern is the shredding of the
company's carefully honed image of technical excellence and
commitment to "safe and environmentally sound vehicles".

Since the scandal broke a lack of consistent messaging has failed
to reassure stakeholders, and the company's persistence in
retaining insiders to manage its way out of the storm is doing
little to help its cause.  Recent research indicates that 64
percent of U.S. vehicle owners no longer trusted Volkswagen, and
only 25 percent hold a positive view of the company.

Initially it seemed the company was moving in the right direction
to handle the crisis.  Within 48 hours of the EPA accusing
Volkswagen of deliberately rigging its "defeat device" to cheat
emissions tests, the car manufacturer had released a statement
from then CEO, Martin Winterkorn, who took full responsibility and
promised action (only to step down three days later).  However,
subsequent actions show Volkswagen's ability to manage the fallout
remain deeply compromised by the absence of a strong leadership
structure.

History has shown that when a strong, competent and independent
chair is able to step in and assume responsibility (and maybe act
as interim CEO), a company in a crisis is better placed to
navigate the storm.  This was the case with BP when, managing the
fallout from BP's Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster in 2010,
company chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg had to take over from CEO
Tony Hayward, whose gaffes and public blaming of partners had only
exacerbated the crisis.  Being newly appointed, Mr. Svanberg could
afford to be less defensive of BP's past than Hayward and more
focused on moving forward.  Mr. Svanberg pledged to create a $20
billion victim compensation fund and apologized to the American
people. His decisions started the turnaround for BP, which
accelerated after the board appointed U.S.-born BP veteran Bob
Dudley as CEO.

Mixed priorities

When the recent Volkswagen crisis struck, the car manufacturer had
yet to formally replace its former chairman, Dr. Ferdinand Piech
who resigned in April 2015 after losing a showdown with
Winterkorn.  Dr. Piech was a long-serving former CEO of the
Volkswagen group and a member of the Porsche family -- the two
branches of which own 31.5 percent of the Volkswagen group and
over 50 percent of voting rights.

It seemed that the Volkswagen board's priority was not so much to
guarantee good governance of VW but to reconcile the goals of key
stakeholders and local officials, including the labor
representatives and the State of Lower Saxony (which owns 17
percent of the company's shares and has 20 percent of voting
rights), who shared the common goal of preserving jobs in the
group's main plants in Germany.  At this time Dr. Piech had been
obsessed with achieving global market share dominance, and
expanding the company's presence in the U.S., creating economies
of scale that would enable the group to keep the jobs in
Wolfsburg; aligning both sides on what proved to be a Faustian
bargain.

After Dr. Piech resigned, Berthold Huber, a former chairman of the
powerful IG Metall labor union, had taken on the role of interim
chairman, with the Volkswagen group's supervisory board's
executive and nomination committees nominating long-time CFO
Hans Dieter Poetsch as chair on September 3rd, just 15 days before
the EPA served formal notice on the company.

Mr. Poetsch, was confirmed as head of the board on October 7th,
two weeks after Mr. Winterkorn's resignation, but gave little
comfort that the company was drawing important lessons from the
debacle with comments such as: "We must overcome the current
crisis.  But we must also ensure that Volkswagen continues to
grow." This suggests that he saw the scandal as a hiccup on the
road, not a wake-up call about a culture and organization that had
gone seriously astray.

Hoping for the best

It seems that Mr. Poetsch and the VW board are now hunkering down
to ride out the crisis, believing that, in Germany, Volkswagen may
be considered "too big to fail".  It is probable that the German
federal government, with the help of the state government of Lower
Saxony and perhaps even the family owners and Qatar Holding (which
has 15 percent of shares and 17 percent of votes), will come to
the company's aid.  However this may only encourage U.S. and other
national regulators to impose even harsher penalties.  And then
there are the class-action lawsuits that are sure to follow given
the deep pockets of the shareholders and government involved.  The
challenges will be further exacerbated by reports that the ECB
isn't allowing the Volkswagen group to fully benefit from the
central bank's "cheap" money.

The company may then have to consider alternatives such as
breaking up Volkswagen into separately managed units providing
options of selling off some of these divisions to cover the huge
financial cost of the "moral and political disaster".

Society is expecting regulators, government officials and
corporate boards to take more responsibility.  The buck has to
stop somewhere and corporate responsibility is the domain of
boards of directors.  To regain stakeholders' support and turn the
company around, Mr. Poetsch and his supervisory board need to
direct the group's management to institute major cultural,
organizational, and strategic change.


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Orders Reinstatement of 16 Former Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a National Labor Relations Board
judge has ruled that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. unlawfully disciplined
workers who staged protests in May and June of 2013 and ordered
the retailer to reinstate 16 former employees, as well as give
them back pay.

Judge Geoffrey Carter ruled that the employee actions were
protected under the National Labor Relations Act and that Wal-Mart
violated labor laws by "disciplining or discharging several
associates because they were absent from work while on strike."

The judge also ordered Wal-Mart to hold a meeting in 29 stores
throughout the country to inform employees of their right to
strike, and to promise not to threaten or discipline employees for
doing so.

The complaint was filed on behalf of the labor-backed group "Our
Walmart," which called it a huge victory.

The decision, posted on the labor board's website on Jan. 21,
arrived one day after the nation's largest private employer
announced raises for more than 1.2 million U.S. hourly workers,
which is most of them.  The Bentonville, Arkansas, retailer said
in October that it would invest $2.7 billion in its workforce over
two years.

In a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press, Wal-Mart
spokesman Kory Lundberg said that it disagreed with the judge's
findings and that it will pursue all of its options to defend the
company.  It called its actions "legal and justified."

"We are focused on providing our hard working associates more
opportunity for success and career growth by raising wages,
providing new training, education and expanded benefit options,"
Lundberg wrote.


WALT DISNEY: Laid Off Workers Sue Over H1-B Visa Abuse
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Schaeffer, writing for Newsmax, reports that two former IT
employees at Walt Disney World in Orlando who were laid off after
being forced to train their foreign replacements have filed
federal lawsuits against the entertainment giant and two other
companies, claiming a conspiracy to oust them in favor of cheaper
labor brought about by abuse of the nation's H1-B visa system.

Leo Perrero and Dena Moore were two of the 250 Disney tech workers
let go in 2015.

Attorney Sara Blackwell says the lawsuits, which claim class-
action status, are meant to "kick [outsourcing companies] at their
business model, to stop them from systemically abusing the
immigration system," the Orlando Sentinel reports.

HCL Inc. and Cognizant Technologies are the other two companies
named in the suit.

An outsourcing firm in India shipped over 250 data technicians
with temporary visas to replace American IT workers at Disney --
including some who wound up with the humiliating task of training
their replacements, The New York Times reported last summer.

"I just couldn't believe they could fly people in to sit at our
desks and take over our jobs exactly," one laid off worker told
The Times. "It was so humiliating to train somebody else to take
over your job. I still can't grasp it."

Attorney Blackwell in an interview with Breitbart News said the
two consulting firms named in the suits  --  HCL and Cognizant  --
are motivated by nothing more than "corporate greed."

Blackwell says the companies are required by law to attest that
the foreign workers they provide to corporations will not
"adversely affect the . . . conditions of workers similarly
situated."

"Cognizant and HCL - their business model is to lie on these
applications," she told Breitbart's Caroline May. "It's their
business model to falsify these documentations so they can
contract hundreds of thousands of jobs with all these companies."

"Then these companies hire them to do exactly what they're not
supposed to do," take the place of "similarly situated" U.S.
workers.

"I don't have to be angry or cause drama," said plaintiff Moore,
who had been with Disney for 10 years, the Times reports. "But
they are just doing things to save a buck, and it's making
Americans poor."

Citing the requirement that American employees are not to be
adversely impacted by the importation of H1-B visa workers, Moore
rhetorically asked, "Was I negatively affected?"

"Yeah, I was. I lost my job."


WILLBROS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Restatement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a motion by the
Company to dismiss a class action lawsuit related to a restatement
of its financial statements remains pending.

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on October 28, 2014
seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from
the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants
in the case are the Company and its former chief executive officer
and current chief financial officer.

On January 31, 2015, the court named two employee retirement
systems as Lead Plaintiffs. On March 31, 2015, a consolidated
complaint was filed in which the current chief executive officer
of the Company was added as a defendant.

On June 15, 2015, a second amended consolidated complaint was
filed. The complaint in the case, now entitled In re Willbros
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, arising out of the restatements of the Company's first
and second quarter 2014 financial statements, its statements
regarding debt compliance and liquidity, the decision to shut down
the regional business, the delay in filing the 2014 10-K, and the
determination that a material weakness existed as of December 31,
2014, and seeks undisclosed damages.

On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case,
which the platiffs oppose. The Company is not able at this time to
determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter. The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Denies Liability in "Epstein" Case
----------------------------------------------------
World Acceptance Corporation has filed its answer to the complaint
in the case, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint
alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in
various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of
federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a
Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received the CID from
the CFPB. The original complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

The lead plaintiff's amended complaint contains similar
allegations to the original complaint, but expands the class
period and includes additional allegations that the Company's loan
growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in
the Company's internal controls relating to its accounting
treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings. The Company
and the individual defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On May 18, 2015, the Court issued an order denying the Company's
motion to dismiss. On May 28, 2015, the Company filed a motion
asking the Court to certify its May 18, 2015 order for immediate
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), and to stay
proceedings pending the resolution of that appeal, on grounds that
the Court's decision involves a controlling question of law over
which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an
immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination
of the litigation. This motion is still pending before the Court.

On July 1, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint, denying all liability.


ZILLOW INC: Judge Rejects Proposed Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that the flood of class
action litigation against Wall Street merger deals may be at a
turning point after a top Delaware judge laid out new standards
for settling such cases.

The ruling involves a class action lawsuit challenging the $3.5
billion takeover of Trulia Inc. by Zillow Inc., two companies that
offer online information to home buyers.

In rejecting a proposed class settlement, Andrew Bouchard, the
chancellor or chief judge of Delaware's Court of Chancery set a
tough standard for approval of so-called "disclosure-only
settlements" in his court.

"Given the rapid proliferation and current ubiquity of deal
litigation," wrote Bouchard, "the court's historical
predisposition toward approving disclosure settlements needs to be
reexamined."

Most U.S. companies are incorporated in Delaware, and the bulk of
the merger class actions are filed in the Court of Chancery.

Merger class actions have flooded state courts over the last
decade, becoming so common that business groups and academics have
labeled them a "deal tax," driving up the cost mergers. Judges
have noted real wrong-doing by directors and bankers may never be
investigated in the rush to settle.

Bouchard said the court will no longer approve a settlement that
provides information, and no money, to shareholders unless the
information meets the tough "clearly material" standard.

The 2014 Trulia merger is typical of how the case and disclosure-
only settlements work.

Several shareholders filed class actions opposing the deal
beginning in late September 2014 and settled less than two months
later. The board of directors got a release that protects against
future lawsuits and the shareholder attorneys sought a fee of up
to $375,000.

Trulia shareholders only got information, such as the methods used
by bankers to value deal synergies, which Bouchard said was not
material, or "even helpful."

Shareholder attorneys have defended the cases, saying they ensure
that minority shareholders are fairly treated. Several cases in
recent years have fetched more than $100 million for investors.

"Companies will face more injunctions if they don't disclose
material information," said Juan Monteverde, a Faruqi & Faruqi
attorney who represented Trulia investors, in an email.

Sean Griffith, a Fordham Law School professor, filed an amicus
brief in the Trulia case and has been a critic of the cases.

"Because those settlements fuel the merger litigation frenzy, this
may well be the beginning of the end of the deal tax as well," he
said.

Zillow, which acquired Trulia, declined to comment.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Parties in "Reyes" Case in Settlement Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a district court
judge has directed the parties in a class action lawsuit to
participate in a settlement conference.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company was subject to a class
action case, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al., which was
brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in early 2010.

"This case relates to our banking relationships with customers
that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices," the
Company said.

The plaintiff is seeking a trebled monetary award under the
federal RICO Act. In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes
case. The plaintiff appealed the District Court decision to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the third quarter of 2015, the Third Circuit vacated the
District Court's decision denying class certification and remanded
the matter to the District Court with instructions to reconsider
the class certification determination in light of particular
standards articulated by the Third Circuit in its opinion. The
District Court judge has directed the parties to participate in a
settlement conference with a federal magistrate judge in the
fourth quarter of 2015.


* Canadian Courts Criticize Copycat Credit Card Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
W. Michael G. Osborne, Esq., of Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, report that courts have begun to criticize
plaintiff lawyers who file multiple overlapping class actions
across the country.  In Ontario, Perell J. refused to approve an
agreement by two BC firms to share their fee with a Saskatchewan-
based firm, Merchant Law Group ("MLG") in Bancroft-Snell v. Visa
Canada Corporation.  More than one year after the BC firms had
filed class actions in Ontario and BC alleging conspiracies in
relation to credit card interchange fees, MLG started copycat
actions in Alberta and Saskatchewan.  The BC firms agreed to pay a
share of their fee to MLG in return for MLG agreeing to stay its
actions.


* Law Firms Among Top Campaign Donors to State Sup. Ct. Justices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hammersly, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that
high-profile class-action lawyer John Goodson, his Texarkana law
firm and five law firms headquartered outside Arkansas rank among
the biggest campaign donors to state Supreme Court justices, an
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette analysis of public records shows.

The campaigns of Justices Courtney Goodson, Karen Baker,
Robin Wynne, Paul Danielson, Josephine Hart and Rhonda Wood
accepted an estimated $296,000 in total contributions from the law
firms, most of it since 2009, the newspaper's review of campaign-
finance disclosure records found.

Since 2004, 11 state Supreme Court candidates have reported
receiving an estimated $452,000 from the law firms, which have
worked together on class actions in Arkansas.

Campaign contributions to judges are a sensitive issue, as
evidenced by American Bar Association recommendations on judicial
ethics.  That's especially true when the donor stands to benefit
from a judge's court decision.

"Eighty-seven percent of the American public believe campaign
contributions influence judges' decisions," said Mark Harrison, a
national judicial ethics expert and Phoenix attorney.

Whether the donations "actually influence or not, the
contributions arguably undermine the impartiality, or the
appearance of impartiality, the public has a right to expect," he
said.  Mr. Harrison was chairman of the American Bar Association
committee that wrote the group's suggested code of ethical conduct
for all state court judges.

Arkansas Supreme Court justices have heard cases in which clients
were represented by members of the class-action law firms that
contributed to the justices' election campaigns.

Since mid-2008, state Supreme Court opinions have favored clients
represented by John Goodson and his co-counsels in at least eight
proceedings, which have translated into millions in legal fees,
court records show.

A search of CourtConnect, the state's online court records system,
didn't find any Supreme Court cases in that time that Goodson
clients lost.

The Arkansas Supreme Court also sets rules and procedures for all
state courts that are among the nation's most favorable to class-
action plaintiffs' lawyers like Goodson and the other donor law
firms, according to law journals and federal court documents.

In a 2010 Arkansas Bar Association magazine article, University of
Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law professor
Kenneth Gould said Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil
Procedure is "among the most favorable" of all states to class-
action plaintiffs and their lawyers.

As interpreted by the Arkansas Supreme Court, Rule 23 also is more
friendly to plaintiffs than are federal court class-action
procedures, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville law professor
John Watkins wrote in a different 2010 Arkansas Bar Association
article.

The biggest chunk of donations from the six law firms -- $142,500
-- found its way to Justice Courtney Goodson's 2010 campaign, her
campaign contribution reports show.

In late 2011, about 18 months after her election victory and a
divorce, she married John Goodson. She is running for chief
justice in 2016.

Court records show that Courtney Goodson disqualifies herself from
hearing her husband's cases, as state law dictates.

She does decide other cases that help set and interpret Arkansas'
class-action procedures.

Even without a clear link between class-action lawyers' campaign
donations and the Arkansas Supreme Court's decisions, "you've
created the impression that money is buying your court," said
David Stewart, retired executive director of the Arkansas Judicial
Discipline and Disability Commission.

"Unless you have a smoking gun, you don't know what kind of impact
the money really does have," said Mr. Stewart, now a University of
Arkansas at Fayetteville adjunct law professor.  "But you still
have the problem of the appearance, when the system is set up the
way it is."

Justices interviewed by the Democrat-Gazette say there is no
improper connection between the six law firms' campaign
contributions and the justices' opinions in those firms' cases and
the court's rules for class actions.

That's because, the justices say, they purposely avoid learning
who their campaign donors are, as the state code of judicial
conduct instructs.

"I do not know what attorneys from which law firms contributed to
my campaigns," Justice Baker said in a written response to the
Democrat-Gazette's questions.  She says she does not look at
contribution reports.

Even if the justices remain uninformed, public records still raise
questions when a judge accepts campaign money, then decides a case
in favor of a contributor, judicial ethics experts say.


* Securities Class Suits Highest Since 2008, NERA Study Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the
number of federal securities class action cases filed against
businesses reached its highest level last 2015 since 2008, says a
survey.

Securities class action cases totaled 234, which was an 8%
increase over 2014's 216 and 6% higher than the average rate of
the preceding five years, according to the annual survey issued by
the New York-based NERA Economic Consulting, in its report,
"Recent Trends in Securities Class action Litigation: 2015 Full-
year Review."

The 234 federal securities class action suits filed in 2015
represent about 4.4% of the 5,305 companies listed on major U.S.
securities exchanges as of October 2015, said the report.

The report said filings continue to be concentrated in the San
Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the New
York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ninth Circuit filings grew by more than 58% to 76 filings from 48
in 2014, while 2nd Circuit filings, which totaled 59, have
remained relatively steady of the past five years, according to
the survey.

More than one out of every five securities class action cases in
2015 were filed in the electric technology and technology services
sector, which eclipsed those in any other sector, according to the
survey.

Among other survey findings, about 22% of filings contained
accounting allegations, down from 29% in 2014, which correlates
with both a short- and long-term reduction in cases with
accounting co-defendants. Most complaints include a wide variety
of allegations, said the report.


* Stock Market Volatility May Spur Securities Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that stock
market volatility is among factors that could fuel the filing of
securities class action litigation.

New York-based NERA Economic Consulting said in a report that
federal securities class action cases totaled 234 in 2015, an 8%
increase from 2014's 216 and the highest level since 2008.

The securities class actions have increased despite a decline in
the number of publicly held companies.  For instance, 5,305
companies were listed on major U.S. securities exchanges as of
October 2015, down 40% from 8,783 in 1996, according to NERA.

The rise in class action filings also has come despite a decline
in the number of initial public offerings.  According to London-
based Ernst & Young L.L.P., U.S. exchanges saw 139 IPOs raise
proceeds of $25.4 billion during the first nine months of 2015,
compared with 220 deals with proceeds of $47.9 billion for the
same period in 2014.

Concerns about China's economy and cheap oil prices have fueled
stock market volatility in recent weeks.

It is unclear how much IPO activity there will be this year
because of the stock market uncertainty and, especially, because
this is an election year, said Deirdre Finn, a new York-based
underwriter at Beazley P.L.C.

Experts say they generally do not expect a significant change in
the amount of litigation filed.

The modern era of securities litigation "takes place in a rather
narrow band," with usually around 200 cases filed, "plus or minus
20," said Joseph P. Monteleone, a partner at Rivkin Radler L.L.P.
in Hackensack, New Jersey.  "From that perspective, you don't have
a very large database to begin with."

However, higher IPO activity of earlier years probably will
contribute to an active level of litigation because there usually
is a delay between the IPO date and the time a lawsuit is filed,
said Kevin LaCroix, executive vice president of RT ProExec, a
division of R-T Specialty L.L.C. in Beachwood, Ohio.

Another trend likely to continue this year is litigation against
non-U.S.-domiciled companies, which "has been an important factor
over the past several years," he said.

Several experts also say litigation against smaller entities has
increased.

A small group of law firms has been targeting smaller issuers that
experienced stock price declines, said Glenn K. Vanzura, a partner
at Irell & Manella L.L.P. in Los Angeles.  Whether that will
continue "remains to be seen" and depends on the law firms'
success, he said.

Greater stock market volatility will result in more litigation
"because there will be some significant drops" in certain
companies' stock prices, said Jacqueline Urban, Chicago-based
senior managing director and practice leader of Aon Risk
Solutions' financial services group.

Meanwhile, two positive trends for publicly held companies include
improved corporate governance and favorable case law, said Steve
Boughal, New York-based vice president and chief underwriting
officer of Hartford Financial Products, a unit of Hartford
Financial Services Group Inc.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Dura
Pharmaceuticals et al. v. Michael Broudo et al., established an
improved loss-causation standard for securities fraud plaintiffs.

Barring a new development or tactic by the plaintiffs bar or a
financial crisis, "I don't think we will see a spike" in
litigation, said Brenda Shelly, New York-based directors and
officers product leader at Marsh L.L.C.'s FINPRO practice.

Securities lawsuits "have largely followed the fortunes of the
economy," said Patrick M. Kelly, a partner at Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker L.L.P. in Los Angeles.  "If the economy
continues to prosper, we'll probably see a flat year in terms of
securities suits."

However, any dip in securities class action litigation "should not
be read as some kind of sign that the D&O liability landscape has
gotten less risky," warned Carl E. Metzger --
cmetzger@goodwinprocter.com -- a partner at Goodwin Procter L.L.P.
in Boston.  "Overall, that landscape has just as many land mines
as it has had in the past.  They may just be in different shapes
and forms."


* Ohio Shuts Down Sebring Schools Over Tainted Tap Water Concerns
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Faith Karimi, writing for CNN, reports that following on the heels
of the tainted water crisis in Flint, Michigan, Ohio officials
have shut down schools in a small town over concerns about its
drinking water.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has warned some residents
not to drink tap water after samples from homes and schools showed
unsafe lead levels in Sebring, a town 70 miles southeast of
Cleveland.

Schools in Sebring was scheduled to be closed on Jan. 25 and Jan.
26 as the state EPA conducts additional water testings.

Tests showed lead levels at 21 parts per billion in some homes,
according to Heidi Griesmer, spokeswoman for the Ohio EPA.  The
feds require the levels not to exceed 15 parts per billion.
Health officials found lead levels as high as 27 parts per billion
in Flint, according to CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

The Ohio EPA said it's taking steps to revoke the license of the
Sebring water treatment operator in the wake of the water crisis.

"We have asked for assistance from the federal EPA's criminal
investigation division," Ms. Griesmer said.



                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Continues to Face Suits in California
----------------------------------------------------------
D/C Distribution Corporation, a subsidiary of Kaanapali Land LLC,
continues to face a substantial number of asbestos cases allegedly
based on the sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior
distribution business operations primarily in California,
according to Kaanapali's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2015.

Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to other entities, and D/C
Distribution Corporation, a subsidiary of Kaanapali Land, have
been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly
based on exposure to asbestos. While there are relatively few
cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of
cases that were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland.  Cases
against Kaanapali Land are allegedly based on its prior business
operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on
the sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior
distribution business operations primarily in California.  Each
entity defending these cases believes that it has meritorious
defenses against these actions, but can give no assurances as to
the ultimate outcome of these cases. The defense of these cases
has had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of
D/C as it has been forced to file a voluntary petition for
liquidation. Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has
liability, directly or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those
cases. Kaanapali Land does not presently believe that the cases in
which it is named will result in any material liability to
Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no assurance in this regard.

Kaanapali Land, LLC engages in agriculture and property
businesses. It operates coffee farms; and develops land in West
Maui and Lahaina Town areas. The company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Continues Settlement Payments Talks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land LLC continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's
Fund Insurance Company in an attempt to resolve issues relating to
payments of settlement funds for the Company's asbestos cases,
according to Kaanapali's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2015.

On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's Fund, the carrier that
has been paying defense costs and settlements for the Kaanapali
Land asbestos cases, stated that it would no longer advance fund
settlements or judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due
to the pendency of the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies. In its
communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's Fund expressed its
view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C bankruptcy case
bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to resolve the
Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution is also
alleging a right to coverage under those policies for asbestos
claims against it. However, in the interim, Fireman's Fund advised
that it presently intends to continue to pay defense costs for
those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights may be in
effect and subject further to the policy terms. Fireman's Fund has
also indicated that to the extent that Kaanapali Land cooperates
with Fireman's Fund in addressing settlement of the Kaanapali Land
asbestos cases through coordination with its adjusters, it is
Fireman's Fund's present intention to reimburse any such payments
by Kaanapali Land, subject, among other things, to the terms of
any lift-stay order, the limits and other terms and conditions of
the policies, and prior approval of the settlements. Kaanapali
Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund in an
attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is unable
to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or judgments in
the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by insurance.

Kaanapali Land, LLC engages in agriculture and property
businesses. It operates coffee farms; and develops land in West
Maui and Lahaina Town areas. The company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Appeals Lift of Stay on D/C Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land LLC, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, and the
United States Government, on behalf of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Navy, have appealed the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division's decision in lifting the stay of pending litigations
against D/C Distribution Corporation, according to Kaanapali's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants who filed asbestos
claims in California state court filed a motion for relief from
the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy.  Under relevant
provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of the D/C
bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against D/C were
stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action. In their
motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the stay in
the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate entities as
defendants in their respective California state court asbestos
actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance policies
that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate entities. The
Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has as an objective
ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other things, insurance
policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of both the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates. Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy
are claimants in the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the Fireman's Fund
policies are allegedly among the assets of the Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy estate as well. For this and other reasons, Kaanapali,
the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion to lift stay. After
briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States
Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 07-
12776, issued an order lifting the stay. In the order, the court
permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable
nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in
accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. Claimants are
entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon
any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in accordance
with applicable nonbankruptcy law. No recovery may be made
directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the
bankruptcy estate." Kaanapali, Fireman's Fund, and the United
States government on behalf of the EPA and the Navy have appealed
the decision.

Kaanapali Land, LLC engages in agriculture and property
businesses. It operates coffee farms; and develops land in West
Maui and Lahaina Town areas. The company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Land Has 2,000 Personal Injury Claimants
-------------------------------------------------------------
D/C Land Corporation continues to face approximately two thousand
asbestos-related claims filed by a personal injury law firm based
in San Francisco, according to Kaanapali's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015.

Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing. Kaanapali Land filed
claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately $26.8
million, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts
owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In addition, a personal injury law
firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-
related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of approximately
two thousand claimants. While it is not likely that a significant
number of these claimants have a claim against D/C that could
withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the trustee will
deal with these claims. It is not expected, however, that the
Company will receive any material additional amounts in the
liquidation of D/C.

Kaanapali Land, LLC engages in agriculture and property
businesses. It operates coffee farms; and develops land in West
Maui and Lahaina Town areas. The company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lawyers Pursue Global Settlement of Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys for the trustee in the D/C Distribution Corporation
bankruptcy continues to reach out to various clients of asbestos-
related claims to determine if there is any interest in pursuing a
global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar and D/C
bankruptcies, according to Kaanapali's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

The attorneys for the trustee in the D/C bankruptcy have reached
out to the various claimants to determine if there is any interest
in pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar
and D/C bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman's Fund insurance
policies are concerned. If such discussions take place, they may
involve some form of resolution of Kaanapali's interest in various
of the Fireman's Fund insurance policies for Kaanapali's various
and future insurance claims. Kaanapali may consider entering into
such discussions, but there is no assurance that such discussions
will take place or prove successful in resolving any of the claims
in whole or in part.

Kaanapali Land, LLC, engages in agriculture and property
businesses. It operates coffee farms; and develops land in West
Maui and Lahaina Town areas. The company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Settlement Proceedings Concluded in "Arnold"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In re RICHARD L. ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-04456-EMC (N.D. Calif.), is one of six
related cases in which pro se prisoner-plaintiffs asserted claims
based on an alleged exposure to asbestos and lead paint during the
clean-up of the mattress factory in May-June 2012 at San Quentin
State Prison.  Summary judgment motions were filed in most of the
cases although not in this case because of service of process
issues.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the pending summary judgment motions in the
other cases and referred all six related cases for settlement
proceedings.  The Court appointed counsel for the limited purpose
of representing the plaintiffs in connection with settlement
proceedings.  Magistrate Judge Spero thereafter held settlement
conferences, during which four of the cases were settled were
settled.  The parties in this case were unable to reach a
settlement agreement.

Accordingly, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California set a case
management conference to discuss moving this case toward
resolution.

The settlement proceedings have concluded for this case and
counsel has not requested further appointment.  Accordingly, the
representation of Plaintiff Richard L. Arnold by the appointed
attorneys has concluded for this case.

From this point forward, the Plaintiff will be representing
himself and must file all his own papers, including the case
management conference statement, Judge Chen held.  The defense
counsel must serve all papers directly on the Plaintiff, rather
than on the attorneys whose representation has concluded, the
Court held.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's Order dated December 9, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/8gpYtbfrom Leagle.com.

Richard L. Arnold, Plaintiff, represented by Dylan Ian Ballard,
Esq. -- dballard@sheppardmullin.com  --Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Esq. --
jmcginnis@sheppardmullin.com  -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP & Nadezhda Nikonova,, Esq. -- nnikonova@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP.

Philip Earley, Defendant, represented by Carol B. Ho, Esq. -- Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Gary Loredo, Defendant, represented by Carol B. Ho, Esq. -- Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Joe Dobie, Defendant, represented by Carol B. Ho, Esq. -- Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Jeremy Young, Indust. Supervisor, Defendant, represented by
Kenneth Robert Williams, Esq. -- kwilliams@eastburngray.com --
Kenneth R. Williams, Attorney at Law.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Supreme Court Allows Railway Co. to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, v. DEBORAH JACKSON,
SURVIVING SPOUSE AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF CHARLES D.
JACKSON, JR., DECEASED, No. 2014-IA-00814-SCT, Deborah Jackson
sued Illinois Central Railroad Company under the Federal
Employers' Liability Act for the wrongful death of her husband,
Charles Jackson.

Jackson alleged that her husband's death from lung cancer was
caused by his exposure to asbestos while working for the railroad.
After the close of discovery, Illinois Central filed a motion for
summary judgment and a motion to strike Jackson's expert, Michael
J. Ellenbecker.  Later, Illinois Central moved to strike improper
evidence from Jackson's response to the motion for summary
judgment.  When Jackson attempted to supplement Ellenbecker's
designation at the summary-judgment hearing, Illinois Central
moved ore tenus to strike the supplementation.

The Circuit Court of Pike County denied all of Illinois Central's
motions.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi, in a decision dated December 10,
2015, reversed the denial of summary judgment and granted Illinois
Central's petition for an interlocutory appeal finding that
Jackson's expert designation of Ellenbecker was improper summary-
judgment evidence because it was not sworn to upon personal
knowledge and constituted inadmissible hearsay.  Because the
supplemental response was unsworn and never was filed, it also was
improper summary-judgment evidence, the Supreme Court further
held.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/LGigIUfrom Leagle.com.

THOMAS BENTON YORK, Tanya D. Ellis,  Esq. -- Attorneys For
Appellant.
Wayne Dowdy, Esq. -- DUNBAR DOWDY WATT, Attorneys For Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Grant in "Segroves" Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Segroves filed an action seeking workers' compensation
benefits for hearing loss and breathing problems in 2003.  In
2005, the hearing loss claim was settled, and the breathing
dysfunction claim was dismissed with prejudice.  In 2011, Jimmy
Segroves was diagnosed with asbestosis-related lung disease.  He
filed an action, seeking benefits for that condition.  The trial
court granted his employer Union Carbide Corporation and Martin
Marietta Energy System, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment,
finding that the claim was barred by the 2005 settlement and
judgment.  Jimmy Segroves appealed, which was referred to the
Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a
report of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
This case is before the Supreme Court of Tennessee upon the motion
for review filed by Employer.

It appears to the Court that the motion for review is not well
taken and is, therefore, denied, the Supreme Court of Tennessee,
Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, at Knoxville, held in
an Opinion dated December 10, 2015, a full-text copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/Fae9BPfrom Leagle.com.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by granting
Summary Judgment to the Employer.  The Special Workers'
Compensation Appeals Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of
law, which are incorporated by reference, are adopted and
affirmed.  The decision of the Panel is made the judgment of the
Court.

Costs are assessed to Union Carbide Corporation and Martin
Marietta Energy System, Inc., for which execution may issue if
necessary.

The case is JIMMY SEGROVES, v. UNION CARBIDE ET AL, No. E2015-
00572-SC-R3-WC, No. E2015-00572-SC-R3-WC.

Timothy M. McLaughlin, Esq. -- tmclaughlin@nmknoxlaw.com  --
Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jimmy Segroves.

Laurie C. Ball, Esq. -- laurie.ball@leitnerfirm.com  -- Knoxville,
Tennessee, for the appellees, Union Carbide Corporation, and
Martin Marietta Energy System, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Discovery in "Terry" to Resume
------------------------------------------------------------
In re DEWEY TERRY, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 13-cv-01227-EMC is one of six related cases in which pro
se prisoner-plaintiffs asserted claims based on an alleged
exposure to asbestos and lead paint during the clean-up of the
mattress factory in May-June 2012 at San Quentin State Prison.

Summary judgment motions were filed in most of the cases although
not in this case because of service of process issues. The Court
dismissed the pending summary judgment motions in the other cases
and referred all six related cases for settlement proceedings. The
Court appointed counsel for the limited purpose of representing
the plaintiffs in connection with settlement proceedings.
Magistrate Judge Spero thereafter held settlement conferences,
during which four of the cases were settled were settled. The
parties in this case were unable to reach a settlement agreement.

Accordingly, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California set a case
management conference to discuss moving this case toward
resolution.

The settlement proceedings have concluded for this case and
counsel has not requested further appointment. Accordingly, the
representation of Plaintiff Dewey Terry by the appointed attorneys
has concluded for this case.

From this point forward, the Plaintiff will be representing
himself and must file all his own papers, including the case
management conference statement. Defense counsel must serve all
papers directly on Plaintiff, rather than on the attorneys whose
representation has concluded.

The Court has received a letter from the Plaintiff indicating that
he is temporarily out-to-court in Los Angeles. The Court has set
the deadlines in this order anticipating that he will return to
San Quentin State Prison (or be reunited with his legal property)
in sufficient time to file a case management conference statement
and participate in the case management conference.

The stay of discovery imposed in the order filed July 21, 2015 is
lifted. The parties may resume their discovery efforts.

A full-text copy of the Order dated December 9, 2015 is available
at http://is.gd/JtDlXSfrom Leagle.com.

Dewey Terry, Plaintiff, represented by Dylan Ian Ballard,  Esq. --
dballard@sheppardmullin.com  --Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Esq. --jmcginnis@sheppardmullin.com  -
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Nadezhda Nikonova,, Esq.
-- nnikonova@sheppardmullin.com --  Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton LLP.

Phillip Earley, Defendant, represented by Kyle Anthony Lewis,
Department of Justice, Matthew M. Grigg, Esq. --
mmg@hudginslaw.com  -- Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, Carol B.
Ho,  Esq. -- Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins & Nancy Eaton
Hudgins, Esq. -- neh@hudginslaw.com  -- Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins.

Gary Loredo, Defendant, represented by Kyle Anthony Lewis,
Department of Justice, Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins, Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins & Nancy
Eaton Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Joe Dobie, Defendant, represented by Kyle Anthony Lewis,
Department of Justice, Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins, Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins & Nancy
Eaton Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Jeremy Young, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Robert Williams,
Esq. -- kwilliams@eastburngray.com  -- Kenneth R. Williams,
Attorney at Law & Kyle Anthony Lewis, Department of Justice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Wong Takes Over as SF Presiding Judge
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Pietrykowski, Esq. -- mpietrykowski@gordonrees.com --
and Megan F. Clark, Esq. -- mfclark@gordonrees.com -- at Gordon &
Rees LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that Judge Garrett L.
Wong formally replaced the Hon, Teri L. Jackson as the San
Francisco Superior Court Asbestos Presiding Judge on January 11,
2016. Judge Wong is a San Francisco native and graduate of the
University of California, Berkeley and the University of
Pennsylvania Law School.

Judge Wong has a diverse professional background, with experience
in civil and criminal litigation in both the public and private
sector. He has worked as a deputy public defender, a commercial,
criminal and environmental litigator in private practice, and as
in-house counsel for SBC Communications. In 2005, he was appointed
to the San Francisco Superior Court by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
For eight years, he served as both a misdemeanor and trial judge
at the Hall of Justice in San Francisco. In 2014, Judge Wong began
serving as an Associate Judge for the Appellate Panel at San
Francisco Superior Court. He is now the Presiding Judge for the
Appellate Panel. Although Judge Wong has only served as a civil
judge for two years, he already has presided over several asbestos
cases.

The San Francisco Superior Court carries the largest asbestos
litigation caseload of any of California's 58 Superior Courts. In
2009, the Court created a single asbestos case management
department to handle asbestos cases. Like his predecessor, Judge
Wong will continue the Court's efforts to efficiently move
asbestos cases towards trial and resolution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Jailed, Fined for Infractions
---------------------------------------------------------
Daily Commercial News reported that a contractor has been fined
$45,000 and sentenced to 30 days in jail after failing to comply
with health and safety measures and procedures for asbestos
removal work.

Daniel Lane of Bolton, Ont., who operated a business under the
name HomeSeal, offered asbestos removal services in the Kingston,
Greater Toronto, Barrie and Hamilton areas.

According to the Ministry of Labour (MOL), in August 2014, on two
separate occasions, Lane and at least one other worker he hired
went to a home in Gananoque to remove asbestos-containing
insulation from the 1,500-square-foot attic.

During the removal the work area was not separated and sealed off
from the rest of the home. The removal itself was being done with
a large vacuum system, the MOL reports, and no decontamination
facilities were in place to prevent the spread of dust.

No signs were in place in the work area warning of an asbestos
dust hazard and no protective clothing was worn by Lane and the
worker. They were wearing jeans and T-shirts, the MOL states, and
containers for the dust and waste were not dust tight or
identified as asbestos waste. The respirators worn by Lane and the
worker were also not fit-tested and they were not trained on their
use.

Lane told the homeowner that the removal was being done in
accordance with the MOL regulation and that he was certified to do
the work. Neither of these statements were true, the MOL claims.

"Lane had not completed the required training for asbestos work.
The homeowner was present in the home along with two other
individuals during part of the removal," a release states.

The MOL had not been told about the removal work, which is
required under the regulations and Lane did not have a copy of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act posted in the workplace as
required, nor was there a written health and safety policy for the
workplace.

An MOL investigation, carried out with Ontario's Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change, along with the Kingston Police
Force, ensued when two separate incidents of illegal dumping were
reported to police.

Investigators found 13 large vacuum bags, each measuring five to
six feet in length and weighing several hundred pounds that had
been dumped on private property. These bags were full of asbestos-
containing insulation and were not properly sealed, the release
explains.

The court convicted Lane after a trial on nine counts under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Asbestos Regulation,
Ontario Regulation 278/05.

On Jan. 14 Justice of the Peace John Doran found this was a case
of "clear deceit and misrepresentation by Lane to the homeowner,
and that Lane had shown a total disregard not only for the health
and safety of his workers but also for the public," the release
reads.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Lecturer With Mesothelioma Fails in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish Legal News reported that a retired academic who
contracted a rare form of cancer which he claimed was the result
of exposure to asbestos during the course of his employment at a
university has had an action for GBP180,000 damages dismissed.

A judge in the Court of Session assoilzied the defenders after
ruling that the pursuer had "failed to prove that he was exposed
to dangerous levels of asbestos dust".

Lord Pentland heard that in July 2012 the pursuer Dr Robert
Prescott was diagnosed as suffering from a localised peritoneal
malignant mesothelioma and sought damages from the defenders, the
University of St Andrews, for the injury and loss he has suffered
as a result of having developed that disease.

The pursuer alleged that he contracted the disease due to asbestos
exposure while working as a lecturer in the school of psychology
at the university.

He claimed that the exposure occurred when he visited the Old
University Library in St Andrews while renovation works were
taking place there between about 1976 and 1979.

Quantum of damages was agreed between the parties, but liability
was contested.

The court was told that between 1964 and 1966 the Cambridge
University natural sciences graduate was a NATO research fellow in
the psychology department in Yale University, before returning to
Cambridge where he was a senior research assistant until 1974.

He then took up a post as a lecturer in the school of psychology
at St Andrews University and was promoted to senior lecturer,
before retiring in 2003.

Dr Prescott, 77, who became an honorary senior lecturer at the
university from 2004 until 2015, contended he was exposed to
asbestos during renovation works at the Old Library building in St
Mary's Quad in the 1970s.

The purpose of the work, which began in around the late spring of
1977 and lasted until about 1979, was to convert and modernise the
building for use by the psychology department, which was to be
relocated from its existing premises at St Katharine's Lodge.

The pursuer claimed that, in the course of his employment with the
defenders, he required to visit the Old Library during the
renovations and that during these visits he was "negligently
exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos dust and fibres generated
by the building works".

Dr Prescott said he had been asked to help with the planning and
layout of facilities for a new laboratory at the top of the
building and said he had visited the Old Library around 12 to 14
times during construction.

He maintained that it was the inhalation of these poisonous
substances that caused him to develop peritoneal mesothelioma many
years later.

Counsel for the pursuer accepted in order for Dr Prescott to
establish liability against the defenders it was essential that
the court had to accept the material parts of his evidence as
being both "credible and reliable" -- otherwise, his claim would
fail.

The pursuer had to prove, as the starting point for a successful
claim, that he had been negligently exposed to dangerous levels of
asbestos dust and fibres during visits to the Old Library, but the
judge said that throughout the pursuer's evidence, particularly in
cross-examination, he had formed the "strong impression" that his
recollection of events at the time of the renovation project in
the Old Library in the 1970s was "unreliable".

Lord Pentland said: "It appeared to me that the pursuer's memory
from that era was at best fragmentary and that he has now been
left with no clear or reliable recollection of any pertinent
details."

He added that in making these findings about the lack of
reliability in the pursuer's evidence he was not intending to
imply any criticism of the former academic's honesty or integrity.

The judge continued: "It seemed to me to be significant that the
pursuer was unable to offer any convincing explanation as to why
he would have been on the construction site in the Old Library at
a time in the project when asbestos was being stripped out and
removed from the building and whilst dust and fibres were being
released in significant quantities into the atmosphere.

"It is improbable that he would have been there whilst such work
was being carried out; he had no knowledge of any of the technical
issues that might have arisen during work of that nature; there
would have been no practical or other contribution he could
usefully have made at that time and he would probably have been in
the way.

"It is much more likely that any visits the pursuer made to the
site would have been at a later stage, after the stripping out and
dirty work had been completed and any asbestos had been taken
out."

He added: "In his evidence the pursuer had no recollection of
having been exposed to any material containing asbestos. He did
not know the type of material that was being removed when he
visited the Old Library. He could not say that he had been there
whilst asbestos sheets and boards or any other asbestos products
were being taken out. Overall, the pursuer's evidence regarding
his possible contact with asbestos dust was sparse."

In a written opinion, Lord Pentland said: "I have concluded that
the pursuer (Dr Prescott) has failed to prove that he was exposed
to dangerous levels of asbestos dust in the Old Library as he
avers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clearwater Found Liable for Settlement Billings
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York federal judge has
awarded Utica Mutual Insurance Co. summary judgment in a dispute
over reinsurance billings for an underlying asbestos settlement,
ruling that Clearwater Insurance Co. is bound by the contracts'
follow-the-settlements language.

On Jan. 20, Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York found the evidence showed
that Utica's allocation of its settlement with Goulds Pumps Inc.
was reasonable and that defense costs were covered under the
reinsurance contracts at issue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Dies from Cancer After Years of Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Weaver, writing for The Guardian, reported that a primary
school teacher who contracted cancer after decades of exposure to
asbestos used as pinboards for her pupil's art work died as a
result of an industrial disease, a coroner has ruled.

Elizabeth Belt died aged 68 in September after a three-year battle
with mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer linked to asbestos dust.
In a detailed statement given before her death, Belt recalled her
years spent in schools exposed to asbestos before it was banned in
the 1980s.

The statement, submitted to the inquest into her death, said she
regularly pinned children's drawings and written work to asbestos
boards in classrooms at various schools in north Lincolnshire.

Belt's statement said that at her first teaching post in 1968, at
Brigg Country primary school, the classrooms "would seem a bit
dusty". She said: "There may have been exposure to asbestos at the
infant section of the school.

"There were large sections of boarding where the children's work
was displayed and there would be a change of work every two to
three weeks."

A decade later, Belt began work at Baysgarth school in Barton-
upon-Humber. Her statement said: "They had that same boarding and
there was constant pinning and removing. There was considerable
use of a staple gun."

The coroner Paul Kelly recorded a verdict of death as a result of
an industrial disease. Addressing Belt's family at the inquest,
Kelly said: "I have no doubt that Mum contracted malignant
mesothelioma as a result of ingesting asbestos while working as a
teacher at various schools in north Lincolnshire between 1968 and
1995."

The inquest heard that North Lincolnshire council's insurers had
accepted a claim with Belt's family. The family have not revealed
the level of compensation.

Speaking after the inquest, Belt's daughter Charlotte Shearwood
said she wanted to raise awareness about mesothelioma. "It is a
horrible, horrible disease. There is obviously a generation that
worked with her in the same places. I suppose we are all angry,
but I just think our sadness outweighs it."

A North Lincolnshire council spokeswoman said: "Our thoughts are
with Elizabeth's family and friends. Inquests are difficult and
sad occasions, but at least her family now have closure and can
start to move on with their lives."

Mesothelioma UK, which supports people with the disease, welcomed
the verdict and said it highlighted the increasing incidence of
mesothelioma cases in the UK.

Liz Darlison, the charity's director of services, said: "This is a
preventable, currently incurable, occupational disease. Many of
our schools, public buildings and homes still contain asbestos and
we owe it to future generations to address this public health
disaster now."

She added: "Sincere condolences to Elizabeth Belt's family and
friends and thank you for sharing the experience which is a
powerful message to us all. As a nation we have a humane
responsibility to do more to improve outcomes for those affected
and to make this disease history."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Cases on Rise, StatsCan Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Ubelacker, writing for The Canadian Press, reported that
the numbers of cases and deaths from mesothelioma, a deadly cancer
caused primarily by workplace asbestos exposure, have continued to
rise and show no signs of abating, recently updated figures from
Statistics Canada show.

Described as a "cruel" disease, mesothelioma is an aggressive
cancer that develops in the lining of the lungs as a result of
inhaling asbestos dust and fibres.

Like asbestos-related lung cancer, mesothelioma can take 20 to 40
years to develop and begin causing symptoms, among them painful
coughing, shortness of breath and severe weight loss. About 60 per
cent of those affected die within a year of diagnosis. The five-
year relative survival rate is seven per cent.

There have been thousands of cases and deaths related to
occupational asbestos exposure in Canada, the world's largest
producer and exporter of chrysotile asbestos during the last
century.

In 2012, there were 560 new cases of mesothelioma, up from 276
cases recorded in 1992, the StatsCan website shows. Between 2000
and 2012, the most recent year for which statistics are available,
deaths from the asbestos-related malignancy jumped 60 per cent --
to 467 from 292.

"What they show is shocking because they show that in the past 20
years, the number of cases have doubled and the numbers just keep
going up," said Kathleen Ruff, a B.C. human rights advocate and
anti-asbestos campaigner.

"And that only represents part of the picture. It's well
recognized by the scientists and health experts who study
asbestos-related diseases that there are at least twice as many
cases of lung cancers caused by exposure to asbestos.

"So you're seeing only part of the harm and suffering and deaths,"
she said from her home in Smithers, B.C.

In a Nov. 9 letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Ruff and a
lengthy list of international signatories called on his government
to ban the import of asbestos-containing products and urged that
Canada support the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous
substance under the UN's Rotterdam Convention.

Health Minister Jane Philpott was not available for an interview
to say whether the government plans to ban asbestos.

However, a department spokesperson said by email: "Health Canada
advises that breathing in asbestos fibres is dangerous and can
cause cancer and other diseases . . . Health Canada will continue
to review the science around the exposure of Canadians to
hazardous materials."

Some of the highest case counts of mesothelioma have occurred in
Quebec, where the largest and longest-operating asbestos mines in
Canada were located. The last of them, in Thetford Mines, Que.,
closed in 2011 after the then-Parti Quebecois government refused
to guarantee a loan that would have kept it operating.

In 2012, Quebec recorded 180 new cases of mesothelioma, StatsCan
figures show. Twenty years earlier, there were 90 cases, with
incremental jumps in the numbers each year. Ontario recorded 175
new cases in 2012, up from 85 in 1992, while B.C.'s case count was
85, rising from 40 two decades ago.

Jim Brophy, who headed an occupational health clinic in Sarnia,
Ont., from 1993 to 2008, said the region was a hotbed of
mesothelioma and other asbestos-linked cancers among workers and
their families.

Most worked in the petrochemical industry, where asbestos was
widely used as insulation for pipelines, as well as in other
industrial applications in the so-called "Chemical Valley" of
southwestern Ontario.

"We documented what I think is the largest cohort of asbestos
disease in workers in Canadian history," said Brophy. "We had over
1,000 workers with asbestos-related cancer or respiratory
disease."

During that period, there were also another 1,200 people with
pleural plaques, a fibrotic condition of the lungs that is a
marker of asbestos exposure, he said.

But it wasn't just workers who breathed in asbestos while on the
job: women who washed their husbands' contaminated clothes and
children who hugged their fathers on their arrival home from work
were also at risk -- and many got sick, sometimes decades later.

"You end up with this mass engulfing your lungs and causing them
to collapse," Brophy said. "You literally die of asphyxiation.
It's a horrible disease."

From 1980 to 2002, there were 1,487 men diagnosed with
mesothelioma in Ontario, but the figure is considered an
underestimation because the disease was often mistaken as lung
cancer by doctors unfamiliar with its clinical hallmarks, he said.

Of those cases, less than half registered for compensation with
the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, often because victims
and their families were so devastated by the diagnosis, and death
often occurred within months.

"There was barely a blue-collar family in Sarnia, I'm not
exaggerating here, who didn't lose a family member or someone they
knew -- an uncle, a grandfather, a next-door neighbour, a best
friend -- who had developed this disease," Brophy said.

Mesothelioma and other asbestos-induced cancers and diseases have
already cost the country's health-care system hundreds of millions
of dollars, he said, and the financial toll will continue to mount
as more cases arise.

"So there's still consequences from the decades of asbestos use
being felt in Canadian society, and most of it is falling on the
families and on the public health-care system, when the law
requires that their employers be held responsible."

Paul Demers, director of the Occupational Cancer Research Centre
at Cancer Care Ontario, said products containing asbestos, such as
replacement brake pads, cement pipes and cement board for
buildings, continue to be imported into Canada.

As well, exposure to the non-burning, insulating substance known
as "white magic" is present in older residential homes and such
public structures as schools and hospitals, and was even in the
Parliament buildings.

When buildings are renovated or torn down, floating asbestos dust
and fibres can be set free, unless strict containment measures
required by law are adhered to. That's not always the case, as
cases of contractors being fined and even jailed for failing to
protect workers have shown.

"There's a lot of chances for continuing exposure," said Demers.
"So it's hard to predict when we're going to see the peak of
this."

Based on computer modelling done by his centre, he estimates that
asbestos may be responsible for "at least 2,000 new cancers each
year in Canada, mostly fatal."

"We're dealing with mistakes made in the past and we have to live
with that," said Demers, noting that cancers caused by exposure in
the workplace are preventable.

"So it is a tragedy. It's one that we're going to have to live
with for a while. But we hope it leads to action in terms of
trying to prevent more cases occurring in the future."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Engineer Dies Due to Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scunthorpe Telegraph reports that an engineer died after being
exposed to asbestos, an inquest heard.

Frank Bostock, 84, from Outgate in Ealand, died on October 11.

An inquest at Scunthorpe Civic Centre heard the cause of death was
malignant mesothelioma and multiple metastatic lesions in the
spine.

A statement written by Mr Bostock before his death was read out at
the inquest.

Mr Bostock said he went to work for British Rail when he left
school at 14 and his job was to work on the locomotives.

He said: "The locomotives were heavily-lagged with asbestos.

"One of my main jobs was to apply asbestos lagging and I would be
doing this lagging work almost every day."

Mr Bostock said dust would "spread through the shed".

He said: "In my younger days, people would lark about throwing
asbestos dust at each other and we would be covered in it.

"The whole of the shed atmosphere was very dingy and dusty.
Through the day, my throat would become irritated and I would
cough."

Coroner Paul Kelly said: "Mr Bostock died from malignant
mesothelioma while working between 1946 and 1991."

Mr Kelly said Mr Bostock was "exposed to asbestos" while working
in the rail industry. He recorded a verdict of death as a result
of an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Couple Taking Host of Defendants in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
since Lee Sturdivant was diagnosed with asbestosis lung cancer in
early 2013, he and his wife Betty have proven not to be shy about
pursuing an asbestosis lawsuit in the courts of law. To that end,
the Sturdivants are taking to task no fewer than 70 firms,
together with insurance juggernaut Metropolitan Life, in their
asbestosis disease claim.

According to the Madison County Record, Lee Sturdivant spent five
years in the US Army, beginning in 1971. Following his exit from
the service in 1976, Sturdivant toiled for various companies and
engaged in various occupations until 1984. His asbestosis claim,
filed with the help of his asbestosis attorney, alleges that he
was exposed to, inhaled, ingested or absorbed asbestos during that
time.

The timing of his diagnosis fits with the incubation profile of
asbestos. The ingestion of free-floating asbestos fibers and/or
dust can lodge in the lung and remain in a dormant state for as
long as 30 years or more before emerging as asbestosis disease,
asbestos cancer or mesothelioma.

The co-plaintiffs are accusing the various defendants of
maintaining an unsafe work environment and allowing Sturdivant to
inhale and ingest asbestos without protection. The lawsuit also
accuses Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) of
conspiring to discredit and terminate the studies and experiments
of scientists who were developing data about the dangers of
asbestos.

The plaintiffs allege in their asbestosis compensation claim that
MetLife went so far as to suppress publication of information
about the dangers of asbestos in publications such as Asbestos
Magazine, identified in the asbestos lawsuit as a source of
information for the public and the industry, including the
plaintiff.

Amongst the defendants in the asbestosis lung cancer lawsuit are
Borg-Warner Morse LLC, Cooper Crouse-Hinds LLC, Dow Chemical
Company, Honeywell International Inc. and Sherwin-Williams
Company.

The plaintiffs are seeking not less than $50,000 in compensation
from each of the defendants and allege negligence, amongst other
claims. Betty Sturdivant alleges a lack of consortium from her
husband, due to his illness.

Once asbestosis pleural plaques emerge and take hold, long-term
survivability is extremely low. The asbestosis exposure lawsuit
was filed October 29 in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Case No.
15-L-618.

The Sturdivants hail from Illinois.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Blames Lung Cancer on Goodyear Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a
Winnebago County man suffering from mesothelioma is suing
approximately two dozen defendants he says exposed him to asbestos
through their products.

Irvin Rohl and his wife Marlene Rohl, filed a lawsuit Jan. 21 in
Cook County Circuit Court against Borg Warner Corp., Caterpillar
Inc., CBS Corp. and 20 other defendants, alleging personal injury
liability for asbestos exposure.

According to the complaint, the defendants manufactured a variety
of products containing asbestos, such as vehicles and auto parts,
boilers and other industrial equipment, joint compounds and other
construction goods, gloves and other fire-retardant products. The
suit says Rohl's lung cancer was caused by exposure to these
items.

The Rohls are asking for a jury trial and damages in excess of
$50,000. They are represented by attorney Amanda G. Altman of The
Ferraro Law Firm in Miami.

Cook County Circuit Court Case number 2016-L000690


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont, MetLife Named in Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that a
couple is suing a number of companies after the husband developed
various ailments, including lung cancer, allegedly from working
around asbestos his entire career.

Donald Jordan, along with his wife Shirley Jordan, filed the suit
on Jan. 6 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against Crane Company,
Dow Chemical Company, Honeywell International Inc., 3M Company and
Union Carbide Corporation, among many other listed defendants.
Also listed is Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

From 1958 to 1994, the plaintiff worked as a welder/instrument
tech at DuPont. The lawsuit alleges his exposure to asbestos
fibers can be attributed to all the named defendants. On Jan. 9,
2014, the plaintiff was diagnosed with lung cancer, caused in part
by asbestos exposure, the suit says.

This lawsuit alleges the defendants are guilty of negligence,
willful and wanton misconduct, fraudulent misrepresentation,
negligent spoilation of evidence, and willful and wanton
spoilation of evidence.

The lawsuit also alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
strove to discredit or terminate the studies and experiments of
scientists who were looking into the damaging effects and cancer-
causing elements of asbestos.

Against Dupont specifically, the lawsuit claims fraudulent
misrepresentation, battery and intentional infliction of emotional
distress because the corporation allegedly knew of the many
dangers of asbestos exposure but did nothing to mitigate them.

The plaintiffs seek at least $50,000 from each defendant for each
count against them. They are represented by Randy L. Gori and
Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC of Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP3.2MM Paid Out in Council Compensation Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lancashire Evening Post reported that in 2013/14 and 2014/15,
Lancashire County Council (LCC) and Preston, South Ribble,
Chorley, Lancaster and Ribble Valley Councils paid out on 1,112
claims from employees and members of the public.

By far the biggest compensation total was seen at LCC, which paid
out GBP3,061,809.

The largest of the payouts was GBP164,207 for a claim of
asbestosis, a chronic lung condition caused by prolonged exposure
to asbestos, followed by a claim of GBP139,202 for mesothelioma --
a form of cancer most commonly caused by exposure to asbestos.

County Hall also paid out GBP100,000 for a claim of sexual abuse
and GBP90,000 of alleged sexual abuse. No further details have
been given on those cases.

In contrast, another claim of sexual abuse for two years resulted
in a GBP5,000 payout -- less than GBP7,918 for the dislocation of
a left thumb.

Most of the smaller payouts -- under GBP1,500 -- were made against
the county council's highways department, and related to wheel,
tyre and suspension damage, and account for about half of all
claims made to LCC.

With new proposals to reduce the Highways budget by GBP2.8m,
questions have been raised over whether such claims will increase
and wipe out the savings.

Colin Mahoney, founder of Leyland-based streetrepairs.com, said
reports to his website about pothole damage in the county have
become more and more regular.

He said: "Potholes and pothole damage has become more and more
apparent in the three years the site has been running.

"Without a shadow of a doubt going forward we're going to see
roads getting worse.

"The road infrastructure in this country is in a really bad state
at the moment.

"Lancashire County Council is financially up against it, but if
the problems are reported to them, then they can prioritise which
are the most dangerous problems and mitigate their liabilities."

Mr Mahoney said out of all local authorities he deals with,
Lancashire County Council was the most pro-active in terms of
responding to reports of road problems.

The pay-out figures, revealed as part of a Freedom of Information
request, show the North West shelled out the highest amount in
compensation claims across the country; GBP21,906,616 over 2013-14
and 2014-15.

But the number of claims paid by the named councils dropped 53 per
cent from 2013/14 to 2014/15 from 754 to 358.

Jonathan Isaby, chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said:
"The compensation culture is costing taxpayers dear and every
pound spent on settlements or higher insurance premiums is a pound
that isn't spent on essential services. "Of course, some of the
payments made by councils will be entirely justified, as the most
serious accidents can change lives. But in many cases, local
authorities and their staff will be failing to live up to the
standards required of them by law or paying out on frivolous
claims too easily.

"Councils must do everything they can to ensure their mistakes and
negligence don't result in such large bills for hard-pressed
taxpayers.

"We must also root out those who are playing the system with
spurious demands for taxpayers' cash."

Laura Sales, director of legal and democratic services for
Lancashire County Council, said: "We investigate each claim that
we receive as fully as possible, and rigorously defend claims
where appropriate to do so.

"We are also using procedures to detect potentially fraudulent
claims.

"The county council is working to reduce the number of successful
claims against it, including the operation of a countywide
highways inspection regime.

"We've also adopted a long-term plan to improve the condition of
the county's roads."

Preston Council paid out GBP183,483 on 80 claims in 2013/14, but
nothing in 2014/15.

The largest payout was GBP13,048 for an asbestos-related incident,
followed by GBP12,381 after a vehicle came into collision with a
cyclist.

They also paid out GBP347 after a pedestrian walked into a council
vehicle and GBP100 when a branch fell on a car.

Explaining the difference between claims in the two years, a
spokesman for Preston Council said: "As a smaller authority
compared to a few years ago, the council has less responsibility
in areas where claims could be made.

"Claims are also unpredictable in their nature, so change year on
year."

Lancaster City Council has paid out a total of GBP26,512 over the
past two years. The biggest successful claim was GBP6,029 after
someone tripped on a housing path and broke their wrist.

The council also paid out GBP750 after the contents of a shed were
taken in error.

Ribble Valley Council paid out GBP6,682 in 11 incidents over two
years, and South Ribble Council and Chorley Council paid out one
claim each in the time, at GBP60 and GBP50 respectively, not
including claims handled by insurers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintshire Worker Dies of Asbestos Disease
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Porter, writing for Daily Post, reported that the family of a
former Flintshire factory worker who died from an asbestos-related
disease are appealing for help from his old work colleagues.

Grandfather-of-seven Michael Parry -- known as Mike to friends --
worked at one of the Courtaulds Textiles mills between 1969 and
1972.

The 65-year-old died in June just months after being diagnosed
with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung caused by
exposure to asbestos materials.

Now his widow Gillian has instructed specialist asbestos lawyers
at Irwin Mitchell to investigate how he came into contact with the
material.

As part of their work they are seeking information from Michael's
former workmates over the working conditions he may have faced and
ways in which he came into contact with asbestos.

According to his family, Michael often spoke about spending large
amounts of time in the 'churn room' which contained various pipes,
vales and equipment lagged with asbestos insulation.

They also recall him describing the 'rest room' as having poorly
maintained asbestos insulation.

Gillian, who was married to Michael for 39 years, said: "Mike told
us how he recalled seeing asbestos lagged pipework all over the
factory and he even remembered seeing asbestos waste in large
sacks just left lying around.

"We are still trying to come to terms with losing Mike and know
that any answers we can get regarding his illness would help with
that process.

"It would be hugely appreciated if his former work colleagues
could get in touch with information."

Can you help?

Irwin Mitchell lawyer Satpal Singh added: "We see numerous cases
related to mesothelioma, a very aggressive and sadly incurable
form of cancer that impacts victims, like Michael, many decades
after they were exposed to asbestos.

"His family are desperate to understand how he came to be exposed
to the material and develop this terrible disease, so we are
urging anyone who worked with him at Courtaulds Textiles to please
come forward and help us with our investigations.

"Any information could prove absolutely vital in helping Michael's
loved ones get the answers that they deserve."

Michael Parry, who was originally from Devon, lived in Exmouth at
the time of his death.

He was employed by the Courtaulds Group, which had three mills in
Flint and one in Greenfield , as a labourer and later as a factory
worker. It has not been confirmed which one Mr Parry worked in.

Anyone with information about the working conditions at Courtaulds
Textiles should contact Nicole Ross on 0117 926 1509 or email
nicole.ross@irwinmitchell.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Patient Sues Range of Firms Over Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a
Cook County man suffering from mesothelioma is suing more than two
dozen defendants he claims manufactured or sold him products laced
with asbestos between 1950 and 1996.

Fabian E. Strong and his wife, Christine Strong, filed a lawsuit
Jan. 21 in Cook County Circuit Court against American Optical
Corp. and 27 other defendants, alleging personal injury liability.

According to the complaint, the defendants manufactured a variety
of products containing asbestos, such as vehicles and auto parts,
boilers and other industrial equipment, joint compounds and other
construction goods, gloves and other fire-retardant products. The
suit says Strong's mesothelioma (an aggressive form of cancer) is
a direct result of exposure to these items over a 46-year period.

The Strongs are asking for a jury trial and damages in excess of
$50,000. They are represented by attorney Amanda G. Altman of The
Ferraro Law Firm in Miami.

Cook County Circuit Court Case number 2016-L000690


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Senator Schumer Rallies to Block FACT Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that U.S. Senator
Chuck Schumer of New York launched his effort to block proposed
legislation that would call for new, stiffer requirements for
those seeking compensation from asbestos trusts.

Schumer, a Democrat and member of the Senate Finance Committee's
subcommittee on Health Care, said the Furthering Asbestos Claims
Transparency (FACT) Act of 2016, which recently passed in the U.S.
House of Representatives, would unfairly target military veterans.

He vows to stop it from getting through the Senate.

"This is plain wrong," Schumer said during a conference call with
reporters... "I'll go to the mat to see that it doesn't happen."

The FACT Act merged this year with a larger bill. The new proposal
is called the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering
Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2016 (H.R. 1927). The combined
bill is now under consideration in the Senate.

The proposed legislation would require those seeking compensation
from asbestos trusts to provide public disclosure of asbestos
exposure history, basis for compensation, and work history. It
also would require some personal data, including partial Social
Security numbers. Opponents believe it would expose them to
identity theft, placing an undue burden on those filing.

Proponents of the bill say it is designed to prevent fraudulent
claims involving the asbestos trust funds, and reserve the funds
for those entitled by law to be compensated. There is an estimated
$30 billion spread across dozens of asbestos trusts that are
designed to pay current and future claims.

Legislation Would Slow Compensation Process

Schumer and several advocacy groups, such as the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization, say the added documentation would only
make it more difficult for victims to be compensated and delay an
already lengthy process.

"We shouldn't be making it harder for victims of asbestos exposure
to obtain compensation," Schumer said. "I'm all for rooting out
fraud, but we should do it with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer,
especially when we are talking about our veterans."

Asbestos-related diseases, particularly mesothelioma, have hit
veterans hard. Veterans represent approximately 8 percent of the
U.S. population today, but they account for almost one-third of
mesothelioma cases diagnosed annually. An estimated 3,000 cases
overall are diagnosed each year in this country.

Veterans are especially vulnerable because of the military's heavy
reliance on asbestos use in the past, particularly by the U.S.
Navy. Asbestos was especially valuable because of its strength,
heat resistance and versatility. The use of asbestos has dropped
significantly in recent decades, but the long latency period of
mesothelioma (10-50 years), between exposure and diagnosis, means
the problem isn't going anyway anytime soon.

Officials at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) say
exposure remains a problem today because troops recently in Iraq
and Afghanistan were exposed to the deadly mineral in older,
damaged buildings they occupied.

"The most shocking part of this bill is that it leaves defenseless
those who defended us by serving our country," Schumer said. "It
is an offensive invasion of privacy. It would not only delay the
compensation process, it would intimidate those suffering from
asbestos-related disease."

Current state and federal laws treat trust fund negotiations as
private and confidential and not admissible in court cases. Under
the FACT Act, the trust funds would be required to release
quarterly reports with information on the victims that could be
used in asbestos liability cases.

White House Is Against FACT Act

Even before Schumer's recent efforts, the bill was expected to not
make it past the Senate or President Barack Obama. This is the
third time in four years the House passed a version of the FACT
Act. The Senate halted all three previous attempts of enactment.

Obama's senior advisors released a statement saying they would
recommend he veto H.R. 1927 if it came before him.

"Based on the false assertion that there is endemic fraud in the
asbestos trust system, H.R. 1927 would impose mandatory disclosure
requirements that . . . would threaten their privacy, make them
more vulnerable to identity thieves and other predators, and
potentially disadvantage them in many ways unrelated to asbestos
exposure," read the statement released by the Executive Office of
the President.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Trial Ends in Deal with Crane Co.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reported
that according to to attorneys with the Simmons firm, a rare
Madison County asbestos trial settled for an undisclosed amount on
the night of Jan. 24.

Jurors were dismissed morning Jan. 25.

The trial ended after just one day of testimony in Associate Judge
Stephen Stobbs' courtroom. Opening statements have begun.

Crane Co., a company that supplied mechanical gaskets and valves,
was the only remaining defendant at the time of trial.

The case was filed by the Simmons firm, but attorney Troy Chandler
of Chandler McNulty in Houston delivered opening statements for
the plaintiffs.

Attorney Geoffrey Davis of K&L Gates in Las Angeles delivered
opening statements for Crane Co. Jeff Hebrank of HeplerBroom in
Edwardsville is acting as local counsel for the defense.

Plaintiffs Roy and Peggy Bale of Boise, Idaho, filed the complaint
on March 6, 2015.

The original complaint states that Roy Bale developed mesothelioma
as a result of asbestos exposure while working as a pipefitter at
various locations, mostly in Idaho, from 1967 to 2007. However,
parties said Bale was a pipefitter from 1968 until 2012 during the
testimonies.

Roy Bale alleges he removed and replaced asbestos-containing
gaskets and valves manufactured by Crane Co. hundreds of times
throughout his career as a pipefitter.

In one brief filed on record, the plaintiff said he worked
specifically with Crane gaskets from 1970 to 1988 in Boise, Idaho.

The plaintiff also alleges he removed asbestos-containing mud
insulation from the body of Crane and Stockholm valves.

Before trial started, several motions in limine were filed but the
judge's ruling was not reflected in the docket. In one motion
specifically, the plaintiff asked the court to prevent the defense
from mentioning any additional exposures or potential parties
being responsible for the plaintiff's illness.

During opening statements, Davis argued that Crane Co. was not
responsible for causing Roy Bale's mesothelioma because it has not
used asbestos in its products since 1953, which was more than a
decade before the plaintiff began working with Crane products.

He added that those that did contain asbestos used chrysotile
asbestos, which is the center of debate over whether or not it is
actually carcinogenic. Chrysotile asbestos fibers are most
commonly used and are considered the safest. The shorter
chrysotile fibers are less potent and less dangerous, and they are
generally expelled from the body quickly, according to experts.

Further, because gaskets and valves are encased, they typically
release extremely low levels of asbestos, Davis said.

The first witness called to testify in the case was Dr. Barry
Castleman, a plaintiff's witness who works in the field of toxic
substances control.

Castleman, who received a doctorate in public health, said he was
being paid $400 per hour for his work with the Bale asbestos case,
noting that asbestos litigation is how he makes a living.

Castleman spent the first half of his testimony discussing his
work with World Bank and his worldwide efforts to convince other
countries to stop exporting asbestos, which he says he does for
little money or often times for free.

He also focused on tracing the timeline of public knowledge of
asbestos dangers from 1898 until after the 1970s.

In a jurisdiction often referred to as the "nation's asbestos
docket," Bale's suit is the first asbestos case to go to trial in
Madison County since February 2014, which resulted in a defense
verdict in favor of Crane Co.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 15-L-303


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seaford Railway Line Embroiled in Controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that Adelaide's maligned Seaford railway line is
under renewed scrutiny after workers were advised of the possible
presence of asbestos in flooring at two sites.

The passenger railway between Adelaide and the southern suburbs
has faced ongoing disruptions since its extension and
electrification in 2013.

This includes two wiring repairs since June 2015, which most
recently resulted in closures over the Christmas holiday period.

The Government has advised workers that concrete fibre cement
floor sheeting at the Ascot Park Feeder Station and Lonsdale
Substation could possibly contain traces of chrysotile asbestos.

It said the floor sheets were sealed and covered with linoleum
that created a barrier that, if left undisturbed, would "minimise
the potential exposure of chrysotile asbestos".

Workers were told not to access any underfloor areas without first
contacting management and safety advisors.

The subcontractor decided to test the product following media
reports about poor quality imported sheeting.

Traces of white asbestos were found in one batch imported from
China.

The subcontractor said the fibre cement was clearly labelled not
to contain asbestos when it was purchased.

Opposition Transports spokesperson David Pisoni said a complete
safety check of the Seaford line extension was required.

"Brown and blue asbesto was banned in the 1980s, and all other
products were banned in September 2003," he said.

"That's from import into Australia, from manufacturing in
Australia, and for use in Australia.

"If there was asbestos used in this building, it was used
illegally."

Transport Minister Stephen Mullighan said an investigation was
underway.

"We're taking this incredibly seriously. We're having the
facilities independently assessed and inspected.

"It's been determined so far, these facilities are safe for
workers to access, so long as there's no disturbance to the
materials in question."

Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union SA assistant branch
secretary Simon Pisoni said he was concerned about the quality of
products being used in construction.

"How asbestos could get into the country in this day and age is
just beyond us," he said.

"As a union naturally our concern is always the safety of our
members and the problems that seem to have been happening all come
down to costs."

The subcontractor said cost was not a factor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Firm Accuses Lawyers of Racketeering
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reported that a second company
has accused plaintiff lawyers of using fraudulent tactics to win
asbestos lawsuits, citing evidence uncovered after a federal judge
opened records obtained in the bankruptcy of Garlock Sealing
Technologies.

John Crane Inc., which like Garlock made industrial gaskets
containing asbestos fibers, has asked a judge to allow it to join
Garlock's racketeering case against the Simon Greenstone law firm
in Dallas and the Shein Law Center in Philadelphia.

Crane's suit mirrors the racketerring lawsuit Garlock filed
against both firms in 2014, accusing lawyers of hiding evidence
their clients had been exposed to amphibole asbestos fibers common
in the insulation used to wrap pipes and boilers in order to win
verdicts and big settlements against the gasket makers. Once they
completed those cases, records show lawyers quickly filed claims
with trusts set up by bankrupt insulation companies in which their
clients stated, under penalty of perjury, that they had in fact
been exposed to those products.

None of this would have come to light if a bankruptcy judge in
North Carolina hadn't agreed to Garlock's request for records from
bankruptcy trusts of other companies in order to show it was being
asked to pay too much to asbestos claimants in its case. That
judge, after criticizing what he called a process "infected by the
manipulation of exposure evidence," slashed Garlock's liability
from $1.4 billion to $125 million.

Plaintiff lawyers protest that Garlock, and now Crane, are
manipulating the facts themselves to paint as fraudulent perfectly
legal tactics designed to produce the most compensation for
clients who are dying of mesothelioma. It makes sense to delay
bankruptcy filings, which require a lower standard of proof than a
full-blown, adversarial jury trial, until those trials are
completed. And they have no obligation to help defendant companies
make the case against their own liability, those lawyers say.

"Accusing the attorneys at Simon Greenstone of engaging in
wrongdoing is a cynical effort by John Crane to drive Simon
Greenstone out of the courtroom and convince other trial lawyers
to pull their punches," said the firm, which claims it has won
$100 million in jury verdicts against Crane, and has its own
countersuit pending against Garlock for allegedly failing to
disclose the dangers of asbestos.

"John Crane's allegation that dying mesothelioma claimants, most
of whom were Navy veterans, lied under oath, is false and
offensive, and is the ultimate insult upon injury to the many
people juries have found John Crane fatally poisoned," Simon
Greenstone said in a prepared statement.

No one from the Shein Law Center was immediately available to
comment, but the firm has previously denied using fraudulent
tactics.

Crane's lawsuit details what it says is a scheme to hide evidence
that jurors might have used to reduce its liability for asbestos,
however. Mesothelioma victim David Keleman sued Crane in Los
Angeles in 2008, for example, and won a $30 million jury verdict
the following year. During the trial and appeal process his
lawyers filed work histories showing he was exposed only to the
products of non-bankrupt companies, Crane says, and Keleman denied
being exposed to amphibole insulation or asbestos-containing brake
pads even as his lawyers were filing claims with the bankruptcy
trusts of companies that made those products.

After Crane appealed, attorney Brian Barrow told the court the
jury had "no substantial evidence" to "allocate fault to any other
entity," even though by that time lawyers had filed six claims
with bankruptcy trusts.

In another case, plaintiff Charles Hill denied under oath in 2013
that he'd been exposed to Garlock gaskets, saying he only worked
with Crane products. By then Garlock had filed for bankruptcy.
Weeks later, he signed an affidavit stating he "personally
removed, replaced and installed Garlock Inc., asbestos-containing
gaskets."

Crane obtained the affidavit after the Garlock documents were
opened to the public and Crane won the trial in November 2014, in
what it says is an example of how important such evidence is to
defend against asbestos claims.

It's easy to dismiss such cases as retaliatory strikes but there's
at least one example where suing the lawyers worked. In 2012,
railroad operator CSX won a $429,000 RICO verdict against ruled
against attorneys Robert Peirce and Louis Raimond, as well as
radiologist Ray Harron, a physician who supplied diagnoses for
tens of thousands of questionable asbestos claims. And as I've
reported, a federal judge in Alabama recently issued a blistering
ruling against a labor-rights lawyer suing Drummond Industries
after that company uncovered evidence in its own countersuit that
witnesses in the case had received tens of thousands of dollars in
undisclosed payments around the time they were testifying.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 12 Canada Schools Revealed to Fail Asbestos Test
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that parents and staff at 12 anglophone schools
in northern New Brunswick were informed of a "breach of the
inspection protocol for asbestos," according to the Anglophone
North School District.

Pokemouche school asbestos worries janitor, district says safe
Beth Stymiest, the district superintendent, says in a statement
that in early January the district discovered annual inspections
had not been performed in some of the schools, dating back 11
years.

"The person who was responsible did not perform inspections once
all public and student accessible areas of the schools had
received [asbestos] mitigation in 2004. Why that happened we're
not sure," said Stymiest.

Stymiest says schools in the province have had asbestos management
plans in place since 2004.

The superintendent says it is not clear why those inspections were
not carried out and an investigation is underway.

But she said she would not comment on any personnel issues or the
status of the investigation.

Stymiest says she was surprised when she discovered the breach and
the district ordered immediate inspections, which were completed
by Jan. 20 by engineers trained in asbestos management.

She says their report revealed the following:

There were no issues found in three of the schools:

   -- Sugarloaf Senior High School
   -- Campbellton Middle School
   -- L. E. Reinsborough School.

Stymiest says five other schools require "minor preventative
maintenance" to bring the facilities up to the standards in the
Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Stymiest says there is no immediate health and safety risk to
students or staff at these schools but the repairs will be
completed as soon as possible.

The five schools are:

   -- Tide Head School
   -- Lord Beaverbrook School
   -- Jacquet River School
   -- Bathurst High School
   -- Dalhousie Regional High School

However, at Bathurst and Dalhousie high schools, there is asbestos
present in maintenance rooms that are accessed by school
custodians and some school district maintenance staff.

The superintendent says the asbestos in those areas requires
"immediate remediation due to the higher level of risk."

Air quality testing was done on Jan. 25 in these maintenance
rooms.

Stymiest said those tests showed the asbestos levels were non-
existent or well below acceptable limits.

"The asbestos, however, will be removed as soon as possible," she
said.

In addition, there is no asbestos in the following schools:

   -- Parkwood Heights Elementary School
   -- Superior Middle School
   -- Terry Fox Elementary School
   -- Janeville School.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heights High Renovation Uncovers More Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jewell, writing for Cleveland.com, reported that renovation
work at Cleveland Heights High School has uncovered more asbestos
and less quality soil than expected, to the tune of about $631,000
in added cost to the project.

"Neither is unusual -- we had anticipated finding both, but not in
the quantities we did," CH-UH School District Director of Business
Services Steve Shergalis said at a joint meeting of the school
board and Cleveland Heights City Council.

Existing soil quality from around the high school has been deemed
unsuitable to build on for the $79 million overhaul, requiring
better dirt to be shipped in to meet current standards to support
the new construction.

"There is nothing harmful in the existing soil, no chemicals or
toxins, simply tree stumps and old construction debris that can't
be compacted to get the load-bearing capacity that they need,"
Shergalis explained.

As for the large mounds of dirt piled on the boys' baseball field
off of Cedar and Goodnor roads, Shergalis noted that "some of that
was the good topsoil being stockpiled, but now there's also some
of the unsuitable soils as well."

This has led to more than 24,000 tons of new soil needed, with a
$476,000 change order being prepared in the contract.

"We're also going to look at how to handle the original soil in
other places on site, rather than under the building," Shergalis
said. "Proctor testing will determine if it can be used under
driveways or if it should just go in the grassed areas."

The discovery of more asbestos coating on fixtures slowed down the
interior demolition to some extent, and the district is working
with the contractor to make up any lost time, with the renovated
high school still slated to reopen in fall 2017.

Additional costs for the asbestos removal will be about $155,000,
and it's all being covered by the project's $3 million contingency
fund, "which keeps money set aside for these kinds of unforeseen
conditions," Shergalis added.

New steel frames on the front of the building should be "topped
out" in mid-February, and the project should be under roof in the
spring.

Responding to a question from Councilwoman Mary Dunbar about the
side and rear building expansion that will obscure some of the
original 1926 stone and brick construction, school board member
Eric Silverman said it will be difficult to tell the difference in
the detail.

"It's covered in our contingency fund and won't affect the
school's reopening in the fall of 2017." Steve Shergalis
The new work will change further back from brickwork to a metal
panel system mixed with brick masonry and a construction material
that looks like concrete block.

And when the building starts to look finished on the outside,
there will still be a lot to do inside, with some of that work
already underway.

Shergalis provided some photos of the progress inside, including a
new art space on the third floor above the auditorium, which was
originally the cafeteria, then the library, and most recently
classrooms.

Steel supports for new construction on the front of Heights High
should be "topped out" in February.

The small space on the fourth floor will remain the Vocal Music
Department, but will be completely renovated, along with the first
floor section that most recently housed the school library.

"Everyone's finally getting used to seeing, unencumbered, the
front of the original high school," Shergalis noted, referring to
the recent removal of the science wing, added in 1962, which
blocked its view.

Plans call for a new courtyard, sidewalks and lighting, with
Silverman asking if there might be any plans to change the
streetlights along Cedar in front of the high school to make them
more attractive when the street is repaved in 2017.

While such amenities are not in those plans at this point, City
Manager Tanisha Briley said that the city should be rebidding the
Lee Road streetscape project -- running from the CH-UH main
library up to Cain Park -- where street lighting upgrades may be
included.

Meanwhile, Mayor Cheryl Stephens wants to iron out a joint use
agreement between the city and the board of education to allow for
some public use of the new swimming pool going in at the high
school.

"It's something that the residents of this community definitely
want -- an agreement to use the indoor swimming pool, because all
we have right now is an outdoor pool," Stephens said of voters'
passage of the bond issue in 2013 that made the renovation
possible.

Silverman noted that the school board is working with University
Heights officials as well, pointing out that the high school plans
already call for community access, with public parking and family
changing rooms.

"The clock is getting closer," Stephens said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Authority Withdraws Appeal in NY PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated January 5, 2016, a full-text copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/Vq9gqZfrom Leagle.com --
withdraws the appeal been taken by the The Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey from an order of the Supreme Court, New York
County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered on or about June 15, 2015, in
accordance with the terms of a stipulation between the parties.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. MARY
ANDRUCKI, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF
AMERICA (ALCOA), ET AL., Defendants, THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW
YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Defendant-Appellant, 16473N, 190377/10 (N.Y.
App. Div.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CAS's Junked from Zurich Suit vs. Midwest
----------------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted and filed her
Report and Recommendation on defendant Central Asbestos Service's
motion to dismiss.  The parties were afforded the opportunity
according to statute and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
file objections to that Report and Recommendation.  No party has
filed an objection.

Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, having
considered the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and
being duly advised, now approves and adopts it.  Accordingly,
Central Asbestos Service's motion to dismiss is denied.

The case is ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
MIDWEST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. OF INDY, et al., Defendants,
No. 1:15-cv-00046-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Pratt's Order dated Jan. 11, 2016, is available at
http://is.gd/tClN4Mfrom Leagle.com.

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by
Darrell Joseph Dolan, DARRELL J. DOLAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW & Evan
Yablonsky, Esq. -- eyablonsky@bressler.com -- BRESSLER AMERY &
ROSS, PC.

MIDWEST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. OF INDY, Default Entered on
6/18/2015, Defendant, Pro Se.

CENTRAL ASBESTOS SERVICES LLC, Defendant, represented by Herbert
A. Jensen, JENSEN & ASSOCIATES.



                            *********

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  * * *