CAR_Public/160202.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 2, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 23


                            Headlines


6D GLOBAL: To Defend Against "Castillo" Stockholder Class Action
24 HOUR: NLRB Appeal on Class-Action Waiver Ruling Stayed
AARON'S INC: Initial Response Filed in "Foster" Suit
ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: "Schmidt" Appeals Dismissal of Class Action
ACXIOM CORP: Paid $3.6MM Share of Class Action Settlement

ADCARE HEALTH: Defendant in Cleveland v. APH&R Nursing Home Case
ALFOCCINO INC: Avio's Junk Fax Suit Wins Class Certification
ALPHABET HOLDING: 3 Class Suits over Herbal Pills Not Part of MDL
ALPHABET HOLDING: Settlement in Diet Pills Case Awaits Final OK
ALPHABET HOLDING: Oral Arguments Held in Class Action Appeal

APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Split in Affirming Dismissal of "Tomek" Case
AQUA LUNG AMERICA: Dismissal Bids in "Huntzinger" Case Denied
AT&T INC: Defending Class Suits over DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket
AUDIOEYE INC: Has Yet to Respond to Shareholder Suits in Arizona
AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Goes from N.D Ala. to MDL 2669

AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Goes from N.D. Tex. to MDL 2669
AVID LIFE MEDIA: "J. Doe 1" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to MDL 2669
AVID LIFE MEDIA: "John Doe" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to MDL 2669
AXA EQUITABLE: Jan. Trial in "Sivolella" and "Sanford" Cases
AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Ross" Case under Appeal

AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Yarbrough" Class Suit under Appeal
AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Zweiman" Case under Appeal
AXA EQUITABLE: Wants "Shuster" Class Suit Dismissed
AXA EQUITABLE: O'Donnell Wants Suit Remanded to Conn. State Court
BBX CAPITAL: Final Approval Hearing Scheduled for 2nd Quarter 2016

BECTON DICKINSON: Calif. Suits over CareFusion Deal Dropped
BECTON DICKINSON: Wants Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Suit Dismissed
BLUE BUFFALO: Reaches $32MM Settlement to Resolve Consumer Suits
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: "Tamez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
C&J ENERGY: Additional Defendants Named in Merger Class Suit

CALIFORNIA: "Von Staich" Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
CANADA: Aboriginal Abuse Case Might End Soon, Atty Says
CANNAVEST CORP: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed in "Schuck"
CBC PIPELINE: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CCC INFO SERVICES: "Sisavath" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Naylor Farms Royalty Case
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Denies Allegations in "Dodson" Royalty Complaint
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Has Moved to Dismiss "Donelson" Royalty Case
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Briscoe Firm Files Securities Class Suit
CIGNA CORP: "Amara" Plaintiffs Respond to Plan Benefits Formula

CIGNA CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Franco" Still Pending
CITIGROUP INC: "Lewis-Gursky" Suit Goes from S.D.N.Y to M.D. Fla.
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Still Pending in Calif.
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend LIBOR Litigation
CITY WIDE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims

CHUBB CORPORATION: MOU Reached in ACE Merger Class Suits
COMMAND SECURITY: Agrees to Settle "Leal" Labor Case for $2-Mil.
COMMUNITY BANK: Awaiting Final Approval of Class Suit Accord
CONSOLIDATED LLC: Faces "De Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sued in Washington for FCRA Violation

COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Facing Class Suit on Meal Breaks
CR BARD: Faces "Bures" Suit in Penn. Over Defective IVC Filters
CYTRX CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $4 Million
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Scope of Age Discrimination Suit May Widen
DEUTSCHE BANK: To Face British Suit Over High-Speed Trading

DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Gov't Sues Over Misleading Job Prospects
DIODES INCORPORATED: Appeal from Case Dismissal Pending
DLJ MORTGAGE: May 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EMC CORPORATION: 11 Class Suits Filed over Dell Inc. Merger
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orlando" Suit Says

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
EXCELLUS BLUECROSS: Plaintiff Interim Co-Lead Counsels Named
FANDUEL INC: "Ritchie" Suit Goes from State Court to E.D. Ark.
FANDUEL INC: Sued in Oregon Over Alleged Online Sports Betting
FIRST MERCHANTS: Facing "Stein" Merger Suit in Marion County

FIRST MERCHANTS: Facing "Ewing" Merger Suit in S.D. Indiana
FLINT, MI: Governor, Others Named in 2 Suits Over Water Crisis
FLINT, MI: Subpoena Deadline for Snyder Records Passes
FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Arizona
FRONTLINE ASSET: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

GANNETT CO: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in New Jersey
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Aluminum Sulfate Price-Fixing
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Cheerios Gluten-Fee Label
GOPRO INC: Slapped with Class Suit for Misleading Investors
GUITAR CENTER: Employees Forced to Relinquish Right to Sue

GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Still Defending Suits Related to NextEra Merger
HEALTH AND HOSPITAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HEALTHWAYS INC: Junk Fax Suit Moved to C.D. California
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Settlement in Cato Action Paid by Insurance

HESKA CORPORATION: To Defend "Fauley" Junk Fax Class Action
HI TECH: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Illegal Telemarketing Campaign
HOLLISTER CO: Slapped with $5M Suit Over On-Call Shifts Policies
HUMANA INC: Accord Reached in Kentucky Suits; Del. Cases Dropped
IDI INC: Florida Court Dismissed "Heim" Shareholder Class Action

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: "Tawil" Suit Transferred to New Jersey
INEEDMD HOLDINGS: Settlement Talks Continue in "Makover" Lawsuit
INNOVATIVE FOOD: "Aviles" Calif. Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
ISORAY INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Lawsuit
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Collie" Suit Over Invokana(R) Drug

JC FODALE: Faces "Meador" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JETS: Settles Cheerleaders' Wage Class Action for $324,000
KEEPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER: Inmate May File Amended Complaint
LECOM COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Benion" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

LINKEDIN: Judge Asked to Approve $13-Mil. Settlement
LOGMEIN INC: Wins Dismissal of Customer Class Suit
LOKEY OLDSMOBILE: "Dettloff" Suit Goes to Middle Dist. Fla.
LYFT: Settles Drivers' Class Action in California Out of Court
MACY'S INC: Faces Class Action Over "Phantom Pricing Scheme"

MARRONE BIO: Second Amended Complaint Filed on Jan. 11, 2016
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hedglin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Lemons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Stafford" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Summerville" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Swegan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MCCORMICK & CO: "Linker" Suit Moved from E.D. Mo. to D.C. Wash.
MCCORMICK & CO: "Pellitteri" Suit Transferred to Washington D.C.
MCCORMICK & CO: "Theis" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to Wash. D.C.

MDL 2667: "Moore" Suit Moved to N.D. Indiana
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Concussion Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
NBTY INC: Appeal in "Lary" Junk Fax Class Suit Remains Pending
NV ENERGY: Net Metering Program Spurs Class-Action Lawsuit
NV ENERGY: New Proposal to Customers May Moot Class Suit

OOMA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit for
OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Claims by Class Members Fully Resolved
PAYMENT DATA: "McFarland" Exec. Compensation Suit Not Yet Served
PETROLES THERRIEN: Quebec Court Splits Gas Price Class Action
PET VALU: Franchisee Class Action Dismissed by Ontario Court

PHOTOMEDEX INC: Still Defending Class Suit v Radiancy Unit
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Wants "Cantley" Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Insurer Paid Plaintiffs' Legal Fees
POPULAR INC: PCB Renews Arbitration Bid in "Valle" Case
POPULAR INC: Parties in "Quiles" Case Reached Deal

POPULAR INC: Bids to Dismiss "Fernandez" Case Still Pending
POPULAR INC: BPPR Still a Defendant in RadioShack ERISA Case
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Del. Court Approved Settlement of Merger Suit
RADIANT LOGISTICS: Co-Defendant Bankruptcy Stalls "Barahona" Case
RAYONIER INC: Motions to Dismiss Securities Case Pending

RCS CAPITAL: Defending Against ARCH Trust Litigation
RCS CAPITAL: Feb. 2 Oral Argument Set in "Weston" Securities Suit
RCS CAPITAL: Has Until Feb. 11 to File Motions to Dismiss
RENASANT CORP: Hearing Held to Approve Accord in Stockholder Case
ROCK CREEK: Submits Responsive Documents in Illinois Case

ROCKET FUEL: Shareholder Class Action Mulled
SABINE OIL: Forest Oil Class Suit Remains Stayed Amid Bankruptcy
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Hearing Held on Suit over Bail System
SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Event USA's Motion to Compel Discovery Denied
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Litigation over Bally Acquisition Dismissed

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeal in Oregon State Lottery Action Pending
SECRET TO LIFE COACHING: Former Clients File Fraud Class Action
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Defending Suits over Martha Stewart Merger
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Dismiss Class Action
SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Final Judgment & Dismissal Order Entered

SHERMAN FINANCIAL: FDCPA/RICO Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
SIENTRA INC: Acknowledges C.D. Calif. "Flynn" Shareholder Suit
SIENTRA INC: Two Stockholder Cases Filed in San Mateo Court
SOCAL GAS: Two Porter Ranch Businesses File Class Action
SOCAL GAS: Regulators Sue Over Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak

SPENDSMART NETWORKS: To Defend "Marchelos" Texting Spam Case
ST. LAWRENCE REGIONAL: April 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
STATE FARM: Underestimates Water Damage Claims, Calif. Suit Says
SUNTRUST BANKS: Oral Argument This Year in Class Action Appeal
SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in Suit over 401(k) Plan

SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Suit Still Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Cases Remanded Following "Tibble" Decision
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Thurmond" Case Remains Stayed
TACO BELL: Bid to Decertify Classes in "Sandrika" Case Denied
TIMBERTECH LTD: CPG's Partial Motion to Dismiss Denied

TORCHMARK CORP: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Proctor" Suit
TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: March 22 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
TRICO BANCSHARES: Stipulated Judgment Has Final Approval
TRICO BANCSHARES: Bank Denies Claims in Butte Class Suit
TRICO BANCSHARES: Denies Allegations in Sacramento Class Suit

UNITED STATES: Tribe Can't Apply Equitable Tolling, Court Rules
VANGUARD NATURAL: Suits Filed in Texas State Court Dismissed
VANGUARD NATURAL: Time to Respond to "Hurwitz" Case Not Yet Set
VECTOR GROUP: Ligget Group Involved in 3 Class Suits
VECTOR GROUP: Health Care Cost Recovery Case Pending v. Liggett

VECTOR GROUP: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Set for trial Thru Sept. 2016
VIVINT SOLAR: Motion to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Shareholder Suit Granted
VIVINT SOLAR: Class Suits Filed Related to SunEdison Acquisition
VIVINT SOLAR: Customer Class Action filed in Kern County, Calif.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Catlett" Suit Goes from Utah to MDL 2672

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Feldman" Suit Transferred to MDL 2672
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gall" Suit Moved from Iowa to MDL 2672
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Scoggins" Suit Goes to MDL 2672
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Smith" Suit Moved from Illinois to MDL 2672
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Stanley" Suit Goes from Colo. to MDL 2672

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Investor Claims in Germany
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: South Korean Car Owners to File Class Suit in US
WALT DISNEY: Former Employees File Class Action
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss Shanklin Claims
WINDSOR, CANADA: Legal Fees in Bingo Suit Reach $1.7-Mil.

WINDSOR, CANADA: Foundations Asked to Opt Out of Bingo Class Suit
YAHOO! INC: Violates Investment Company Act, Union Suit Claims

* Ark. State Justices Respond to Campaign Donation Questions
* Fifth Circuit to Tackle Class Action Waiver Issue in 2016
* Fla. Charities to Get Funding From Unclaimed Class-Action Funds
* Securities Class Action Filings Up 11% to 189 in 2015


                            *********


6D GLOBAL: To Defend Against "Castillo" Stockholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
6D Global Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company intends to defend against the case, Castillo v. 6D Global
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-8061 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.).

On October 13, 2015, an individual named Sixto Castillo IV filed a
putative class action  against the Company, its officers and
directors, and certain third-parties on behalf of  stockholders of
the Company and seeks damages arising from alleged material
misstatements and omissions by the Company concerning defendant
Benjamin Wey, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), respectively)
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5).

Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:  (1) the Company had deficient internal controls,
(2) the Company engaged in improper and undisclosed material
related party transactions, (3) the Company and other defendants
purportedly sought to manipulate the Company's stock price, and
(4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The Company vigorously disputes the allegations made in the
complaint and intends to aggressively defend itself in the
lawsuit.  The extent of the Company's potential liability in this
matter has not yet been determined.


24 HOUR: NLRB Appeal on Class-Action Waiver Ruling Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Penton, Vin Gurrieri, Y. Peter Kang and Abigail Rubenstein,
writing for Law360, report that the Fifth Circuit on Jan. 25
agreed to pause 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc.'s appeal of a National
Labor Relations Board decision that the class-action waivers in
the company's arbitration agreements were unlawful, pending the
resolution of a similar case.

U.S. Circuit Judge W. Eugene Davis signed off on a one-paragraph
order granting the NLRB's unopposed request for the case to be
stayed.  The agency wants to see the outcome of a petition for an
en banc rehearing of the Fifth Circuit's October rejection of the
board's arguments that Murphy Oil USA Inc.'s arbitration agreement
violated the National Labor Relations Act.

The gym chain filed a petition on Jan. 5 asking the Fifth Circuit
to take another look at the NLRB's Dec. 24 decision, which found
that the 24 Hour Fitness arbitration policy violated the labor act
because it requires workers to waive their right to participate in
class or collective actions involving employment-related claims.

The three-member NLRB panel's decision in December affirmed a 2012
ruling by NLRB Administrative Law Judge William L. Schmidt, who
held that both the class action ban and a nondisclosure
restriction in the fitness chain's arbitration policy unlawfully
limited employees from exercising their rights under federal labor
law.

"An opt-out procedure still imposes an unlawful mandatory
condition of employment that falls squarely within the rule of
D.R. Horton and affirmed in Murphy Oil," the NLRB panel wrote in
December.

In the Murphy Oil case, the Fifth Circuit in October mostly
reversed an NLRB ruling that found Murphy Oil arbitration
agreements barring workers from pursuing class actions unlawful,
saying it is bound by its December 2013 decision that rejected the
labor board's ruling in a similar case, involving homebuilder D.R.
Horton Inc.  In that case, the appellate court rejected the NLRB's
ruling that arbitration agreements barring employees from pursuing
class or collective claims violate federal labor law.

"Murphy Oil committed no unfair labor practice by requiring
employees to relinquish their right to pursue class or collective
claims in all forums by signing the arbitration agreements at
issue here," the Fifth Circuit wrote in a 13-page published
opinion.  "Reading the Murphy Oil contract as a whole, it would be
unreasonable for an employee to construe the revised arbitration
agreement as prohibiting the filing of board charges when the
agreement says the opposite."

But the Fifth Circuit stopped short of granting Murphy Oil's
request for the NLRB to be held in contempt for not following the
appeals court's ruling in the D.R. Horton case, saying the labor
board may not know which circuit court's law will be applied in
various appeals of the NLRB's rulings.

"We do not celebrate the board's failure to follow our D.R. Horton
reasoning, but neither do we condemn its nonacquiescence," it
said.

Rex S. Heinke -- rheinke@akingump.com -- an attorney representing
24 Hour Fitness, declined to comment on Jan. 26.

NLRB officials could not be reached on Jan. 26 for comment.

24 Hour Fitness is represented by Rex S. Heinke of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

The NLRB is represented by Linda Dreeben, Joseph F. Frankl and
Carmen Leon of the agency.

The case is 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Board, case number 16-60005, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.


AARON'S INC: Initial Response Filed in "Foster" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in Foster v.
Aaron's, Inc., filed on August 21, 2015, in the United States
District Court in Phoenix, Arizona (No. CV-15-1637-PHX-SRB), the
plaintiff in this putative class action alleges that the Company
violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing
automated calls to customer references, or otherwise violates the
TCPA in the manner in which the Company contacts customer
references. The Company's initial responsive pleading was filed on
October 7, 2015.


ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: "Schmidt" Appeals Dismissal of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abeona Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Alan Schmidt
has filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of his class action
lawsuit.

Alan Schmidt ("Schmidt"), a former shareholder of Genaera
Corporation ("Genaera"), and a former unitholder of the Genaera
Liquidating Trust (the "Trust"), filed a purported class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in June 2012. The lawsuit named thirty defendants,
including Abeona, MacroChem Corporation, which was acquired by us
in February 2009, Jeffrey Davis, the then-CEO and currently a
director of Abeona, and Steven H. Rouhandeh and Mark Alvino, both
of whom are our directors (the "Abeona Defendants").

With respect to the Abeona Defendants, the complaint alleged
direct and derivative claims asserting that directors of Genaera
and the Trustee of the Trust breached their fiduciary duties to
Genaera, Genaera's shareholders and the Trust's unitholders in
connection with the licensing and disposition of certain assets,
aided and abetted by numerous defendants including the Abeona
Defendants. Schmidt seeks monetary damages, disgorgement of any
distributions received from the Trust, rescission of sales made by
the Trust, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs.

On December 19, 2012, Schmidt filed an amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint") which asserted substantially the same
allegations with respect to the Abeona Defendants. On February 4,
2013, the Abeona Defendants moved to dismiss all claims asserted
against them.

On August 12, 2013 the court granted the Abeona Defendants'
motions to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the Abeona
Defendants on all claims.

On August 26, 2013, Schmidt filed a motion for reconsideration. On
September 10, 2013 Schmidt filed a Notice of Appeal with the
District Court. On September 17, 2013, Schmidt filed his appeal
with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Third
Circuit").

On September 25, 2013, the District Court denied Schmidt's motion
for reconsideration. On October 17, 2013, Schmidt amended his
appeal to include the District Court's denial of his motion for
reconsideration. On March 20, 2014, Schmidt filed his Brief and
Joint Appendix.

On May 22, 2014, the Abeona Defendants filed their Oppositions to
Schmidt's Brief. On May 29, 2014, Schmidt was granted an extension
of time until June 23, 2014 to file his Reply Brief and filed his
Reply Brief on that date.

The Third Circuit held oral argument on September 12, 2014. On
October 17, 2014, in a split decision, the Third Circuit reversed
the District Court's decision holding, among other things, that
the District Court's determination that the Amended Complaint was
time-barred on statute of limitations grounds was premature. The
Third Circuit did not rule upon any of the other grounds for
dismissal advanced in the District Court and on appeal. The Third
Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.

On January 6, 2015, the District Court ordered the parties to file
supplemental briefs on all remaining arguments for dismissal, and
further ordered that a hearing on the motions to dismiss would be
held on February 3, 2015. On January 23, 2015, the Abeona
Defendants filed their Supplemental Brief.

At the February 3, 2015 hearing, Schmidt sought and was granted
leave to amend his complaint for a second time. Schmidt filed his
Second Amended Complaint on February 3, 2015. The Second Amended
Complaint asserts substantially the same factual allegations with
respect to the Abeona Defendants, but eliminates all causes of
action against the Abeona Defendants except for aiding and
abetting the Genaera directors' and officers' purported breaches
of fiduciary duties, a claim for "punitive damages" and a claim
for rescission of a settlement agreement between the Trust and the
Abeona Defendants.

On March 20, 2015, the Abeona Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. On November 10, 2015, the District
Court granted the Abeona Defendant's motion and dismissed the
action in its entirety. On November 11, 2015, Schmidt filed a
Notice of Appeal with the District Court.

"We intend to continue contesting the claims vigorously," the
Company said.


ACXIOM CORP: Paid $3.6MM Share of Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation has paid $3.6 million, which represents its
share of the settlement amount in a class action lawsuit, Acxiom
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.

A putative class action was pending against the Company, Acxiom
Information Security Systems (which was sold to another company in
fiscal 2012), and Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., a Colorado
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Acxiom (now known as
Acxiom Identity Solutions, LLC), in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  This action sought to
certify nationwide classes of persons who requested a consumer
file from any Acxiom entity from 2007 forward; who were the
subject of an Acxiom report sold to a third party that contained
information not obtained directly from a governmental entity and
who did not receive a timely copy of the report; who were the
subject of an Acxiom report and about whom Acxiom adjudicated the
hire/no hire decision on behalf of the employer; who, from 2010
forward, disputed an Acxiom report and Acxiom did not complete the
investigation within 30 days; or who, from 2007 forward, were the
subject of an Acxiom report for which no permissible purpose
existed. The complaint alleged various violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Company had previously accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of
its probable loss associated with the matter.  In April 2015, the
parties executed a settlement agreement resolving the matter.  On
August 7, 2015, the Court granted final approval of the settlement
agreement.  Acxiom has paid $3.6 million, which represents its
share of the settlement amount.  The Company believes the chances
of additional loss are remote.


ADCARE HEALTH: Defendant in Cleveland v. APH&R Nursing Home Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
AdCare Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims in
the case, Amy Cleveland et. al. v APH&R Nursing, LLC et. al.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit captioned, Angela Burnett
as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Amy Cleveland, and on
behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Amy Cleveland;
Myrtle Briley as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Sam
Briley, deceased; Lavern Coleman as Special Administratrix of the
Estate of Freddie Fowlkes Thomas, deceased; Barbara Giffen as
Special Administratrix of the Estate of Willie Thomas, deceased;
Vivian Swopes as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Ellen
Shepherd, deceased; Marilyn Cabaniss as Special Administratrix of
the Estate of Mary May Blood, deceased vs. APH&R Nursing, LLC
d/b/a Cumberland Health and Rehabilitation Center and/or Abington
Place Health and Rehab Center; Benton Nursing, LLC d/b/a
Bentonville Manor Nursing Home; Homestead Nursing, LLC d/b/a
Homestead Manor Nursing Home; Little Rock HC&R Nursing, LLC d/b/a
West Markham Sub Acute and Rehabilitation Center; Mountain View
Nursing, LLC d/b/a Stone County Nursing and Rehabilitation Center;
Northridge HC&R Nursing, LLC d/b/a Northridge Healthcare and
Rehabilitation; Park Heritage Nursing, LLC d/b/a Heritage Park
Nursing Center; Valley River Nursing, LLC d/b/a River Valley
Health and Rehabilitation Center; Woodland Hills HC Nursing, LLC
d/b/a Woodland Hills Healthcare and Rehabilitation; APH&R Property
Holdings, LLC; Benton Property Holdings, LLC; Homestead Property
Holdings, LLC; Little Rock HC&R Property Holdings, LLC; Mt. V
Property Holdings, LLC; Northridge HC&R Property Holdings, LLC;
Park Heritage Property Holdings, LLC; Valley River Property
Holdings, LLC; Woodland Hills HC Property Holdings, LLC; AdCare
Administrative Services, LLC; AdCare Consulting, LLC; AdCare
Operations, LLC; AdCare Health Systems, Inc.; Boyd P. Gentry;
Christopher Brogdon; David A. Tenwick; Melinda Calaway; John
Beaudrie; Cyndie L. Lyon; Debbie K. George-Fort; Kitty Gantner;
Gaylon Gammill; Bennett; Brenda Barrientos; Deanna Shackleford;
Rose Gean; Sherry Duncan; Tracey Tidwell; Zahid Abbasi; Jill
Madden; Becky Jo Miller; Deborah Tyler; Matthew Manning; Rickey
Griffin; Mincie Thomas; Deborah Hicks; Mary D. Huntsman-Hartfield;
Dana Thompson Baker; Christine Wilson; Glenn Clark; Kimberly
Franklin-Bruce; Deborah Thornton; Denene Hurst; Christopher
Johnson; Pamela Murphy; Matthew Stevens; Tammy Romero; Brenda
Huntsinger; Tammy Watkins; Gale Woodell; Nadine Huddleston;
Michael Harrison; Chris Titsworth; Peggy McLelland; and Patricia
Lamb, Case No. 60CV-14-3741, filed on March 4, 2015 with the
Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, 16th Division, 6th
Circuit (the "Complaint").

The Complaint asserts claims against a purported class which
consists of the residents at: (i) Stone County Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center; (ii) Bentonville Manor Nursing Home; (iii)
Heritage Park Nursing Center; (iv) Homestead Manor Nursing Home;
(v) River Valley Health and Rehabilitation Center; (vi) Northridge
Healthcare and Rehabilitation; (vii) Woodland Hills Healthcare and
Rehabilitation; (viii) West Markham Sub Acute and Rehabilitation
Center; and (ix) Cumberland Health and Rehabilitation Center, all
of which were managed by subsidiaries or affiliates of the
Company. The lawsuit alleges that the nine facilities were
understaffed during the class period which resulted in breaches or
violation of the nursing home admission agreements, the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Long Term Care Facilities
Residents' Act.

The Complaint also includes individual negligence claims on behalf
of former deceased resident Amy Cleveland. The commencement date
of the class period begins at different times during 2011 and 2012
for each facility and continues through a date to be determined by
the court.

The Complaint seeks certification of a class of residents
consisting of all residents of the facilities during the class
period, judgment against all defendants for actual, compensatory
and punitive damages and attorney fees. With respect to the
allegations concerning Amy Cleveland, the Complaint seeks damages
for injuries, general and special damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, attorney fees and punitive damages.


ALFOCCINO INC: Avio's Junk Fax Suit Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Gerald E. Rosen granted Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and appointed class counsel in the case
captioned, AVIO, INC., a Michigan corporation individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. ALFOCCINO, INC., D. TALIERCIO INVESTMENTS, INC., and
FARSHID (TONY) SHUSHTARI, Defendants, No.: 10-CV-10221, (E.D.
Mich.)

This is one of dozens of "junk fax" cases arising out of the use
of the services of Business-to-Business Solutions (B2B), a company
that worked with businesses to send advertisements via facsimile.
Plaintiff's putative class action generally asserts that B2B faxed
over ten thousand advertisements on Defendants' behalf in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 (TCPA).

The Court previously granted Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the basis that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing
to bring this suit and, in the alternative, that the TCPA does not
provide for direct liability where a third party broadcasted the
fax and that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of production
with regard to Defendants' indirect liability. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that despite its
lack of personal knowledge of the faxes at issue, Plaintiff has
Article III standing to bring this case, and that the TCPA does
provide for direct liability against a defendant whose goods or
services are advertised in the fax at issue, even if that party
did not broadcast the fax.

In his Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Dv1Izsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosen granted
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointed class
counsel. The Court certified the following class: "All persons
sent one or more faxes on November 13, 2006, December 4, 2006, or
December 5, 2006 from Alfoccino Restaurant with a coupon offering
15% OFF Your Total Catering or Banquet Food Bill Up to $100 and
listing the website www.alfoccino.com."

The Court appointed Brian J. Wanca of Anderson & Wanca and Jason
J. Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- of Sommers Schwartz,
P.C. as Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
Moreover, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's counsel file a
proposed class notification form which complies with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(c), together with a statement describing the method by which
the notice will be provided to class members and a list of persons
to whom the notice will be sent.

George K. Lang, Esq.  Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- and Brian J. Wanca, Esq. --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson & Wanca; and Jonathan
Piper, Esq. -- jon@bockhatchllc.com -- Phillip A. Bock, Esq. --
phil@bockhatchllc.com -- and Tod A. Lewis, Esq. --
tod@bockhatchllc.com -- of Bock & Hatch LLC serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Avio, Inc.

Jason R. Mathers, Esq. -- jmathers@harveykruse.com -- and John R.
Prew, Esq. -- jprew@harveykruse.com -- of Harvey Kruse serve as
counsel for Defendant Alfoccino, Inc.


ALPHABET HOLDING: 3 Class Suits over Herbal Pills Not Part of MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that three class
action lawsuits over herbal dietary supplements against one of the
Company's customers to which the Company may have a duty to
indemnify have not been transferred and consolidated with the
multi-district litigation case, and are at the initial stages of
litigation.

In February 2015, the State of New York Office of the Attorney
General (the "NY AG") began an investigation concerning the
authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated
marketing. As part of this investigation, the NY AG is reviewing
the sufficiency of the measures that several manufacturers and
retailers, including NBTY, are taking to independently assess the
validity of their representations and advertising in connection
with the sale of herbal supplements.

On September 9, 2015, the Attorney General sent letters to 14
separate companies, including NBTY, concerning an additional
herbal product. NBTY has fully cooperated with the NY AG; however
until these investigations are concluded, no final determination
can be made as to its ultimate outcome or the amount of liability,
if any, on the part of NBTY.

Following the NY AG investigation, starting in February 2015,
numerous putative class actions were filed in various
jurisdictions against NBTY, certain of its customers and/or other
companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify,
challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and
associated marketing, under various states' consumer protection
statutes. Motions for transfer and consolidation of all of the
federal actions as multidistrict litigation into a single district
before a single judge were granted on June 9, 2015, and the cases
are consolidated before Judge John W. Darrah of the United States
District Court, North District of Illinois -- Eastern Division
(the "MDL Case").

"Three class actions against one of our customers to which we may
have a duty to indemnify have not been transferred and
consolidated with the MDL Case, and are at the initial stages of
litigation," the Company said.  "At this time, no determination
can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the investigation and
related litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part
of NBTY."

Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in
2010. Holdings is the direct parent of NBTY, Inc.  Holdings is a
vertically integrated manufacturer, marketer, distributor and
retailer of high-quality vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty
supplements, and sports/active nutrition products ("VMHS") in the
United States, with operations worldwide.


ALPHABET HOLDING: Settlement in Diet Pills Case Awaits Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that a preliminary
conference was held on July 22, 2015, on the settlement reached in
class action lawsuits over glucosamine-based dietary supplements.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, its subsidiary Rexall
Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which there
may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing
of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various states'
consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY and its
subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive
damages and injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed August 22, 2011) in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of
Massachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory
damages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive
relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against
certain Consumer Products Group customers as to which we may have
certain indemnification obligations.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the
plaintiffs, which included all cases and resolved all pending
claims without any admission of or concession of liability by
NBTY, and which provided for a release of all claims in return for
payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice
and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on October
4, 2013 and November 20, 2013.

On January 3, 2014, the court issued an opinion and order
approving the settlement as modified (the "Order"). The final
judgment was issued on January 22, 2014 (the "Judgment"). Certain
objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the Judgment
on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on
February 3, 2014.

In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12 million
reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the class
together with attorney's fees and notice and administrative costs
in connection with this class action settlement. As a result of
the court's approval of the settlement and the closure of the
claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate of exposure to $6.1
million. This reduction in the estimated exposure was reflected in
the Company's first quarter results for fiscal 2014.

On November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decision
granting the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed and
remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate court's decision.

In April 2015, NBTY agreed upon a revised proposed settlement with
certain plaintiffs which includes all cases and resolves all
pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability
by NBTY. The parties have signed settlement documentation
providing for a release of all claims in return for payments to
the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice and
administrative costs estimated to be in the amount of $9 million,
which resulted in an additional charge of $4.3 million in the
second quarter results for fiscal 2015.

On May 14, 2015, the settlement was submitted to the court for
preliminary approval and a preliminary conference was held before
the court on July 22, 2015.

Until the cases are resolved, no final determination can be made
as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of
liability on the part of NBTY.

Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in
2010. Holdings is the direct parent of NBTY, Inc.  Holdings is a
vertically integrated manufacturer, marketer, distributor and
retailer of high-quality vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty
supplements, and sports/active nutrition products ("VMHS") in the
United States, with operations worldwide.


ALPHABET HOLDING: Oral Arguments Held in Class Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that a court was
slated to hear oral arguments December 10, 2015, related to a
plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of its class action lawsuit.

NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-
action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown,
Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.;
Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and
John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to
plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-
claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY,
and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants
on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an
unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.

On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order and
Opinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015, the
plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action
and that appeal is pending. The court scheduled oral arguments for
December 10, 2015.

Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in
2010. Holdings is the direct parent of NBTY, Inc.  Holdings is a
vertically integrated manufacturer, marketer, distributor and
retailer of high-quality vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty
supplements, and sports/active nutrition products ("VMHS") in the
United States, with operations worldwide.


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Split in Affirming Dismissal of "Tomek" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should have revived a
man's claims that Apple misled him about how well its MacBook Pros
could perform processor-intensive tasks like gaming, a dissenting
judge in San Francisco said.

Alex Tomek brought the underlying lawsuit nearly five years ago in
Sacramento, Calif., complaining that Apple misrepresented MacBook
Pros on the market at the time as suitable for tasks that drain
computer processors.

When Tomek engaged in activities like high-performance gaming,
pro-video editing and graphic-intensive applications, however, his
MacBook Pro dramatically slowed down or shut off.

Tomek claimed that Apple knew power-intensive applications would
have these effects because its 85-watt power adapter was
insufficient to power, and because it received a lot of complaints
about the MacBook's battery life.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Tomek's case in a 2-1
unpublished opinion, finding Jan. 27 that he failed to show that
Apple issued misleading advertisements intentionally.

"Tomek's references to customer complaints do not cure this defect
because those complaints were posted after Tomek purchased his
MacBook Pro," the unsigned ruling states. "Further, the later
evidence tendered to show that Apple released a patch solving the
issue does not show knowledge of the defect at the time of sale."

Tomek tried three times to amend his claims, the Ninth Circuit
said it was also not unfair to block him from trying a fourth
time.

Judge Sandra Ikuta dissented from her colleagues on the panel,
Judges Andrew Hurwitz and Sidney Thomas, noting that "California
courts have been extremely generous to plaintiffs" like Tomek
bringing fraud claims brought under the Golden State's Unfair
Competition Law.

"Unlike a plaintiff bringing a claim of common-law fraud, a party
bringing a UCL fraud claim need not allege that the defendant's
actions were 'actually false, known to be false by the perpetrator
and reasonably relied upon by a victim who incurs damages,'" Ikuta
wrote.

Finding that Tomek sufficiently accused Apple of engaging in a
business practice "that is likely to deceive members of the
public,'" Ikuta said he succeeded in bringing a UCL fraud claim.

"Apple calls these representations mere puffery and points to
disclaimers in its advertising," Ikuta wrote. "But . . . even
puffery is actionable under the Unfair Competition Law fraudulent
prong so long as it could deceive a reasonable consumer."

Tomek initially sought to represent a class of consumers who
bought 2011 MacBook Pro with 15-inch and 17-inch screens.

The Ninth Circuit heard the appeal on Nov. 18.

The case captioned, ALEX TOMEK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. APPLE
INC., Defendant - Appellee. No. 13-16696 (9th Cir.)


AQUA LUNG AMERICA: Dismissal Bids in "Huntzinger" Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the class action complaint as well as the Plaintiff's
motion to strike in the captioned case RALPH A. HUNTZINGER on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
AQUA LUNG AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15cv1146 WQH (KSC),
(S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff contends that Aqua Lung America, Inc. committed unlawful
business practices by advertising and distributing Suunto scuba
diving computers without disclosing material facts to consumers
that the computers are defective. Plaintiff alleges that the Dive
Computers can malfunction, causing injury or death to consumers.
Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated:

     (1) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code
         Section 1750 et seq.,

     (2) violation of the Business and Professions Code, Section
         17200 et seq., and

     (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss asserting that:

     (1) Plaintiff has not alleged an injury sufficient to
         establish standing,

     (2) Plaintiff's claim should be limited to the model of dive
         computer he purchased,

     (3) a national class should not be certified because
         differences in state law overwhelm the common issues of
         the class,

     (4) privity does not exist between Plaintiff and Defendant
         because Plaintiff purchased his computer from a third
         party retailer,

     (6) the complaint does not plead fraud with particularity,
         and

     (7) the statute of limitations has passed for claims
         regarding some dive computers.

Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss and a motion
to strike Defendant's evidentiary submission submitted in support
of its motion to dismiss.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 10, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/LmfLa6from Leagle.com.

Douglas A. Hofmann, Esq. -- dhofmann@williamskastner.com -- and
John A. Knox, Esq. -- jknox@williamskastner.com -- of Williams
Kastner Gibbs PLLC; Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq. --
tblood@bholaw.com -- of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP and William M
Berman, Esq. -- wberman@bermanlawyers.com -- of Berman and Riedel
serve as counsel for Plaintiff Ralph A. Huntzinger

John S. Worden, Esq. -- jworden@schiffhardin.com -- of Schiff
Hardin LLP serves as counsel for Defendant Aqua Lung America, Inc.


AT&T INC: Defending Class Suits over DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket
----------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T 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 more than a dozen putative
class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the
Central District of California and the Southern District of New
York against DIRECTV and the National Football League (NFL)
alleging that the NFL and DIRECTV violated federal antitrust law
in connection with the NFL Sunday Ticket package. Among other
things, the complaints allege that plaintiffs have been
overcharged for the televised presentation of out-of-market NFL
games due to DIRECTV's exclusive agreement with the NFL to
broadcast out-of-market games through the Sunday Ticket package.
The complaints seek unspecified treble damages and attorneys' fees
along with injunctive relief. The first complaint, Abrahamian v.
National Football League, Inc., et al., was served in June 2015.

"We vigorously dispute these allegations," the Company said.


AUDIOEYE INC: Has Yet to Respond to Shareholder Suits in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
AudioEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has
not yet responded to two shareholder class action lawsuits in
Arizona.

"In April 2015, two purported shareholder class action lawsuits
were filed against us and our former officers Nathaniel Bradley
and Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona," the Company said. "The plaintiffs allege various
causes of action against the defendants arising from our
announcement that our previously issued financial results for the
first three quarters of 2014 and the guidance for the fourth
quarter of 2014 and the full year of 2014 could no longer be
relied upon. The complaints seek, among other relief, compensatory
damages and plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees."

"The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff or lead counsel,
and we have not yet responded to the complaints. We believe that
the lawsuits have no merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense.
Given the current stage of the proceedings in this case, our
management currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or
reasonably estimate the range of losses, related to these
matters," the Company said.


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Goes from N.D Ala. to MDL 2669
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Doe v. Avid Life Media Inc. et
al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01464, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01877-
jar to the proceeding.

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

The Doe case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey P Mauro, Esq.
          John Parker Yates, Esq.
          Thomas E Baddley Jr., Esq.
          BADDLEY & MAURO, LLC
          850 Shades Creek Parkway Ste 310
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 939 0090
          Facsimile: (205) 939 0064
          E-mail: jpmauro@baddleymauro.com
                  jpy@baddleymauro.com
                  tbaddley@baddleymauro.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James C Barton Jr, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          One Federal Place
          1819 5th Avenue North, Suite 1000
          BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 297 2200
          Facsimile: (205) 297 2201
          E-mail: jim.barton@butlersnow.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Goes from N.D. Tex. to MDL 2669
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Doe v. Avid Life Media Inc., Case
No. 3:15-cv-02750, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The Eastern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-Cv-01876-JAR to the proceeding.

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

The Doe case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Kirtley III, Esq.
          FERRER AND POIROT
          2603 Oak Lawn, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75219-9109
          Telephone: (214) 521 4412
          Facsimile: (866) 513 0115
          E-mail: jkirtley@lawyerworks.com

               - and -

          William Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
          HENINGER AND GARRISON, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326 3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326 3332


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "J. Doe 1" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to MDL 2669
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled J. Doe 1 et al. v. Avid Life
Media, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01347, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
(St. Louis). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:15-cv-01879-JAR to the proceeding.

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

The J. Doe 1 case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re:
Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL
was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Byron T Ball, Esq.
          THE BALL LAW FIRM LLP
          644 S Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (310) 446 6148
          Facsimile: (310) 441 5386
          E-mail: btb@balllawllp.com

               - and -

          William B Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David William Nelson, Esq.
          Kevin D Rising, Esq.
          BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904
          Telephone: (310) 284 3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284 3894
          E-mail: dnelson@btlaw.com
                  kevin.rising@btlaw.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "John Doe" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to MDL 2669
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled John Doe v. Avid Life Media, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06405, was transferred from The U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01878-JAR to
the Proceeding.

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

The John Doe case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re:
Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL
was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          Julian Ari Hammond, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW PC
          1829 Reisterstown Road Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (310) 601 6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295 2385
          E-mail: acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
                  hammond.julian@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented By:

          David William Nelson, Esq.
          BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904
          Telephone: (310) 284 3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284 3894
          E-mail: dnelson@btlaw.com


AXA EQUITABLE: Jan. Trial in "Sivolella" and "Sanford" Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance 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, that a
trial was scheduled to commence in January 2016 in the Sivolella
and Sanford class action cases.

A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the
District of New Jersey in July 2011, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds
Management Group, LLC ("FMG LLC") ("Sivolella Litigation"). The
lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of eight funds. The
lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment Company Act"),
for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable and FMG LLC for
investment management services.

In November 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
claims under Sections 47(b) and 26(f) of the Investment Company
Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. In addition,
plaintiff purports to file the lawsuit as a class action in
addition to a derivative action.

In the amended complaint, plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged
overpayments, rescission of the contracts, restitution of all fees
paid, interest, costs, attorney fees, fees for expert witnesses
and reserves the right to seek punitive damages where applicable.

In December 2011, AXA Equitable and FMG LLC filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2012, the Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed her claim under Section 26(f) seeking
restitution and rescission under Section 47(b) of the 1940 Act.

In September 2012, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss as it related to the Section 36(b) claim and granted the
defendants' motion as it related to the unjust enrichment claim.

In January 2013, a second lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court of the District of New Jersey entitled Sanford et
al. v. FMG LLC ("Sanford Litigation"). The lawsuit was filed
derivatively on behalf of eight funds, four of which are named in
the Sivolella lawsuit as well as four new funds, and seeks
recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for
alleged excessive fees paid to FMG LLC for investment management
services. In light of the similarities of the allegations in the
Sivolella and Sanford Litigations, the parties and the Court
agreed to consolidate the two lawsuits.

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Sivolella and Sanford
Litigations amended the complaints to add additional claims under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for recovery of
alleged excessive fees paid to FMG LLC in its capacity as
administrator of EQ Advisors Trust. The Plaintiffs seek recovery
of the alleged overpayments, or alternatively, rescission of the
contract and restitution of the excessive fees paid, interest,
costs and fees.

In January 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as
well as various motions to strike certain of the Plaintiffs'
experts in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations. Also in January
2015, two Plaintiffs in the Sanford Litigation filed a motion for
partial summary judgment relating to the EQ/Core Bond Index
Portfolio as well as motions in limine to bar admission of certain
documents and preclude the testimony of one of defendants'
experts.

In August 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motions in limine and
also denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. The trial
had been scheduled for January 2016.


AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Ross" Case under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance 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, that the
plaintiffs in the "Ross" class action lawsuit have taken an appeal
from the order dismissing their case and denying their request for
class certification.

In April 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Andrew Yale,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Life
Insurance Company F/K/A AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The
lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and
entities that, between 2011 and March 11, 2014, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by AXA Equitable (the "Policies"). The complaint
alleges that AXA Equitable did not disclose in its New York
statutory annual statements or elsewhere that the collateral for
certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance
companies was supported by parental guarantees, an omission that
allegedly caused AXA Equitable to misrepresent its "financial
condition" and "legal reserve system." The lawsuit seeks recovery
under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of all premiums
paid by the class for the Policies during the relevant period.

In June 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on procedural grounds, which was denied in October 2014.
In February 2015, plaintiffs substituted two new named plaintiffs
for the current named plaintiff, Mr. Yale, who had determined that
he could not serve as the named plaintiff and class representative
in the case. The action is now entitled Ross v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company.

In March 2015, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss on
substantive grounds, whereupon the court permitted plaintiffs to
file an amended pleading, which they did in March 2015. In April
2015, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. In April 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

In July 2015, the Court granted AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As a result of that
decision, the Court also denied plaintiffs motion for class
certification as moot.

In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and a briefing
schedule has been set by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Yarbrough" Class Suit under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance 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, that
Calvin W. Yarbrough has taken an appeal from the dismissal of his
class action lawsuit.

In April 2015, the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the
"Ross" litigation filed a second action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
a putative class of variable annuity holders with "Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders," entitled Calvin W. Yarbrough, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company. The new action covers the same
class period, makes substantially the same allegations, and seeks
the same relief (return of all premium paid by class members) as
the first action on behalf of life insurance policyholders.

In October 2015, the Court, on its own, dismissed the Yarbrough
litigation on similar grounds as Ross. In October 2015, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal.


AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Zweiman" Case under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance 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, that
Jessica Zweiman has filed an appeal from the dismissal of her
class action lawsuit.

A lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Westchester, Commercial Division ("New York state
court") in June 2014, entitled Jessica Zweiman, Executrix of the
Estate of Anne Zweiman, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The
lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all persons who
purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently
became subject to the ATM Strategy, and who suffered injury as a
result thereof." Plaintiff asserts that volatility management
techniques -- which the complaint refers to as the "ATM Strategy"
-- were implemented in certain variable investment options offered
to plaintiff's mother under her variable annuity contract and that
use of volatility management in those options "breached the terms
of the variable deferred annuities held by plaintiff and the
Class." The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

In July 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to New York
state court. In September 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint as precluded by the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act.

In September 2015, the New York federal district court granted AXA
Equitable's motion to dismiss the Complaint. In October 2015,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.


AXA EQUITABLE: Wants "Shuster" Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company is seeking dismissal of a
class action lawsuit filed by Arlene Shuster, 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 November 2014, one of the plaintiff's law firms in the Zweiman
litigation filed a separate lawsuit entitled Arlene Shuster, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Camden County ("New Jersey state court"). This lawsuit is
a putative class action on behalf of "all AXA [Equitable] variable
life insurance policyholders who allocated funds from their Policy
Accounts to investments in AXA's Separate Accounts, which were
subsequently subjected to volatility-management strategy, and who
suffered injury as a result thereof" and asserts a claim for
breach of contract similar to the claim in Zweiman.

In December 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In
January 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to New
Jersey state court.

In July 2015, the New Jersey federal district court remanded the
action to New Jersey state court. In September 2015, AXA Equitable
filed a motion to dismiss the compliant.


AXA EQUITABLE: O'Donnell Wants Suit Remanded to Conn. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard T. O'Donnell is seeking to remand his class action lawsuit
against AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company to a state court in
Connecticut state where the case was originally filed, AXA 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 August 2015, one of the plaintiff's law firms in the Zweiman
litigation filed a third lawsuit entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company in Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial Division of New Haven ("Connecticut state court"). This
lawsuit purports to cover the same class definition, makes
substantially the same allegations, and seeks the same relief as
in Zweiman.

In September 2015, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and a
motion to transfer to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. In October 2015, plaintiff filed a
motion to remand the action to Connecticut state court.


BBX CAPITAL: Final Approval Hearing Scheduled for 2nd Quarter 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the final
approval hearing of the settlement in the case, New Jersey Tax
Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation, is scheduled for the
second quarter of 2016.

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an
existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in
New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of BBX Capital Asset Management, LLC ("CAM"),
among others as defendants.  The class action complaint is brought
on behalf of a class defined as "all persons who owned real
property in the State of New Jersey and who had a Tax Certificate
issued with respect to their property that was purchased by a
Defendant during the Class Period at a public auction in the State
of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."  Plaintiffs alleged
that beginning in January 1998 and at least through February 2009,
the Defendants were part of a statewide conspiracy to manipulate
interest rates associated with tax certificates sold at public
auction from at least January 1, 1998, through February 28, 2009.
During this period, Fidelity Tax was a subsidiary of BankAtlantic.
Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM in connection with the sale of
BankAtlantic in the BB&T Transaction.

BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March
2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to
certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs' main
antitrust claim.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on January 6, 2014.

While BBX Capital believed the claims to be without merit, BBX
Capital reached an agreement to settle the action, subject to
court approval. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by
the court and the final approval hearing is currently scheduled
for the second quarter of 2016.


BECTON DICKINSON: Calif. Suits over CareFusion Deal Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Superior Court of California granted plaintiffs' request for
voluntary dismissal of the class action lawsits related to the
Company's merger with CareFusion.

On October 5, 2014, CareFusion and the Company entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger that provides for the acquisition of
CareFusion by the Company. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, a subsidiary of the Company ("the merger subsidiary")
merged with and into CareFusion on March 17, 2015, with CareFusion
surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

Several putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
CareFusion, its directors, the Company and the merger subsidiary
in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County. These lawsuits generally allege that
the members of the board of directors of CareFusion breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by, among other
things, carrying out a process that plaintiffs allege did not
ensure adequate and fair consideration to CareFusion stockholders.
The plaintiffs in these actions further allege that CareFusion and
the Company aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches
of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger,
rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On December 30, 2014, the parties to the actions filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Actions") entered into
an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Actions on the
basis of additional disclosures made in a CareFusion Schedule 14A,
filed with the SEC on January 5, 2015. The settlement terms are
reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU").

On December 31, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel notified the Delaware
Court of Chancery of the settlement and MOU. The parties to the
Delaware Actions entered into a stipulation and agreement of
compromise, settlement and release and presented the matter to the
Delaware Court of Chancery for approval.

The Delaware Court of Chancery approved the settlement on
September 17, 2015 and the Delaware Actions are now concluded.

On October 27, 2015, the Superior Court of California granted
plaintiffs' request for voluntary dismissal of the California
actions.


BECTON DICKINSON: Wants Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year period ended September 30, 2015, that a class
action complaint was filed on July 17, 2015, against the Company
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
The plaintiffs, Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Authority, trading as
Southeast Georgia Health System, and Southeast Georgia Health
System, Inc., seek to represent a class of acute care purchasers
of BD syringes and IV catheters. The complaint alleges that BD
monopolized the markets for syringes and IV catheters through
contracts, theft of technology, false advertising, acquisitions,
and other conduct. The complaint seeks treble damages but does not
specify the amount of alleged damages. The Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.


BLUE BUFFALO: Reaches $32MM Settlement to Resolve Consumer Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. (NASDAQ:BUFF) announced Dec. 10,
2015, that its subsidiary Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd. has entered
into a settlement agreement in the class action lawsuits brought
on behalf of consumers and consolidated in the Multi-District
Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits claim, among other things, that
certain Blue Buffalo products were not consistent with the "True
Blue Promise." Blue Buffalo denies any wrongdoing, and has agreed
to this settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and
expense of further litigation.

Under the terms of the agreement, Blue Buffalo will pay $32
million into a settlement fund to settle the claims of the
plaintiff class. Any attorneys' fees awarded by the court and all
costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the
settlement fund. The amount that each class member who submits a
claim for reimbursement will receive will depend on the total
amount of Blue Buffalo products purchased by the claimant during
the class period and certain other conditions.

"More than a year ago, we informed our Pet Parents about the
misconduct of a former ingredient supplier and a broker. While we
will continue to pursue our claims against them, we decided that
it is in the best interest of our Pet Parents and our company to
resolve the class actions now. All of us at Blue Buffalo continue
to work tirelessly to make pet food with the finest natural
ingredients for our furry family members," said Bill Bishop,
Chairman and Founder of Blue Buffalo.

The settlement agreement is subject to preliminary and final
approval by the court.

In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company expects to
record a pre-tax charge of $32 million ($20 million after tax)
which will be recorded as a discrete item in SG&A in the fourth
quarter of 2015. The Company intends to pay for the settlement
with cash on hand. Any recovery from third parties and insurance
related to this settlement would be recorded when realized.

Blue Buffalo -- http://www.BlueBuffalo.com/-- based in Wilton,
CT, is a natural pet food company, and provides natural foods and
treats for dogs and cats under its BLUE Life Protection Formula,
BLUE Wilderness, BLUE Basics, BLUE Freedom and BLUE Natural
Veterinary Diet lines. Paying tribute to its founding mission, the
Company, through the Blue Buffalo Foundation for Cancer Research,
is also a leading sponsor of pet cancer awareness and of critical
studies of pet cancer, health, treatment and nutrition at top
veterinary medical schools across the United States.


BUFFALO WILD WINGS: "Tamez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kiana Tamez v. Buffalo Wild Wings
et al., Case No. BC596402, was removed from Los Angeles Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09754-JAK-PJW to the proceeding.

Buffalo Wild Wings, a California Corporation, is an American
casual dining restaurant and sports bar franchise in the United
States, Canada, Mexico and The Philippines which specializes in
chicken wings and sauces.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L Campbell, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A Wong, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379 6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379 6251
          E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
                  khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  swong@aegislawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stacey E James, Esq.
          Khatereh Sage Fahimi, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          501 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 515 1865
          Facsimile: (619) 232 4302
          E-mail: sjames@littler.com
                  sfahimi@littler.com


C&J ENERGY: Additional Defendants Named in Merger Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
C&J Energy Services 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 plaintiff
in the class action lawsuit related to a business combination
between C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("Legacy C&J") and Nabors
Industries Ltd. have filed an amended complaint naming additional
defendants.

On March 24, 2015, C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("Legacy C&J") and
Nabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") completed the combination of
Legacy C&J with Nabors' completion and production services
business (the "C&P Business"), whereby Legacy C&J became a
subsidiary of C&J Energy Services Ltd. (the "Merger"). The
resulting combined company is led by the former management team of
Legacy C&J.

Upon the closing of the Merger, shares of common stock of Legacy
C&J were converted into common shares of C&J on a 1-for-1 basis
and C&J's common shares began trading on the NYSE under the ticker
"CJES." C&J is the successor issuer to Legacy C&J following the
closing of the Merger and is deemed to succeed to Legacy C&J's
reporting history under the Exchange Act.

In July 2014, following the announcement that Legacy C&J, Nabors,
and New C&J had entered into the Merger Agreement, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder of
Legacy C&J challenging the Merger. The lawsuit is styled City of
Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. Comstock, et al.; C.A. No. 9980-CB,
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed on July
30, 2014 (the "Lawsuit"). Plaintiff in the Lawsuit generally
alleges that the board of directors for Legacy C&J breached
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, candor and
independence by allegedly approving the Merger Agreement at an
unfair price and through an unfair process. Plaintiff specifically
alleges that the Legacy C&J board directors, or certain of them
(i) failed to fully inform themselves of the market value of
Legacy C&J, maximize its value and obtain the best price
reasonably available for Legacy C&J, (ii) acted in bad faith and
for improper motives, (iii) erected barriers to discourage other
strategic alternatives and (iv) put their personal interests ahead
of the interests of Legacy C&J shareholders. The Lawsuit further
alleges that Legacy C&J, Nabors and Red Lion aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Legacy C&J board of
directors.

On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction. 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 Legacy C&J board of
directors to solicit for a period of 30 days alternative proposals
to purchase Legacy C&J (or a controlling stake in Legacy C&J) that
was superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined Legacy
C&J from holding its shareholder meeting until it had complied
with the foregoing. The order provided that the solicitation of
proposals consistent with the order, and any subsequent
negotiations of any alternative proposal that emerges, would not
constitute a breach of the Merger Agreement in any respect.

Legacy C&J complied with the Court of Chancery's order while it
simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of
Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On
November 26, 2014, in response to, and in compliance with, the
Court of Chancery's order, the Legacy C&J board of directors
established a special committee, which retained separate legal and
financial advisors, to proceed with the ordered solicitation.

On December 19, 2014, following oral argument, the Delaware
Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Chancery and
vacated the order. As such, Legacy C&J's special committee
immediately discontinued the solicitation required by the order.

On March 25, 2015, the C&J Defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint and filed their opening brief in support on September
15, 2015. On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint naming additional defendants and alleging that the
special committee of the Legacy C&J board of directors and its
advisors improperly conducted the court-ordered solicitation that
the Delaware Supreme Court vacated. The Lawsuit asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against the special committee of the Legacy C&J
board of directors, its financial advisor Morgan Stanley, and
certain employees of Legacy C&J.


CALIFORNIA: "Von Staich" Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman granted Plaintiff's request for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for judicial notice
in the captioned case IVAN VON STAICH, Plaintiff, v. EDMUND G.
BROWN, et al., Defendants, No.: 2:15-cv-0560 MCE KJN P., (E.D.
Cal.)

Named as defendants are Governor Brown, Superior Court Judges
Robison, Prickett, King and Hanson. Plaintiff was convicted of
second degree murder in 1986. Plaintiff's claims all challenge
Defendant Brown's 2012 decision reversing the Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH) 2011 finding that Plaintiff was suitable for
parole.

Plaintiff's claims can be divided into four categories. First,
claims 1-7 and 11 challenge Defendant Brown's reversal of the
BPH's finding of parole suitability, which was upheld by Defendant
Superior Court judges. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brown
mischaracterized a 2010 psychological report. Plaintiff also
alleges that Defendant Brown improperly relied on stricken
juvenile records and charges he had been acquitted of as an adult.
Second, claims 8-10 allege that Defendants violated state law by
refusing to release him based on his maximum confinement date.
Third, claim 12 alleges that Defendants selectively enforce parole
laws. Fourth, claim 13 alleges that Proposition 89 violates the Ex
Post Facto Clause.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. In
his request for injunctive relief, plaintiff requests that his
stricken juvenile convictions and charges he was acquitted of as
an adult be stricken from his parole hearing files. Plaintiff also
requests that the court order that defendant Brown be prohibited
from considering the 2010 psychological report. Plaintiff also
requests that the court order defendant Brown to reconsider the
BPH decision finding him suitable based on this new record.
Plaintiff also requests that the court order defendant Brown not
to overrule his maximum confinement date of May 11, 2007.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel.
Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and has
requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915.

In his Order and Findings and Recommendations dated December 11,
2015 available at http://is.gd/mDBV7pfrom Leagle.com, Judge
Newman granted Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and motion for judicial notice. Plaintiff is obligated to
pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff
is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be
collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the
Director of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.


CANADA: Aboriginal Abuse Case Might End Soon, Atty Says
-------------------------------------------------------
James McLeod, writing for The Telegram, reports that lawyers will
return to court to continue arguing the Labrador residential
schools class-action lawsuit, but lawyer Ches Crosbie,
representing survivors, sees a glimmer of hope that the whole
thing might end soon.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett refused a
request for an interview from The Telegram, but a staffer issued a
statement on her behalf.

"The Government of Canada believes the abuse of children is tragic
and unacceptable and we understand how this litigation can be
difficult for those involved," Bennett said in the statement. "We
also believe in honouring Canada's lawful obligations to
Indigenous Peoples and working collaboratively to renew the
relationship based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation
and partnership. This is the key to achieving reconciliation with
Indigenous people in Canada."

Bennett also referenced a change the government made to its
defence on Dec. 31st, and she said that the minster of justice is
"reviewing the government's litigation strategy, and working with
cabinet colleagues to do so."

Olive branch

Hidden in the legal technicalities of the updated statement of
defence, Crosbie said there's an olive branch from Ottawa.

"They made an important concession, which is the dropping of the
limitations defence. That could have affected many of the class
members and stripped them of their right to make a claim," he
said.

The "limitations defence" essentially means that there's a time
limit on how long somebody has to sue. In the case of sexual
abuse, there's no time limit, but for other types of abuse, the
Labrador residential schools abuse happened beyond the time limit.

"A good number of the class members were not actually sexual
abused. They may have suffered abuse, they may have suffered
psychological abuse, but not sexual abuse directly," Crosbie said.
"It wasn't applied against class members in other parts of the
country, so Canada is making an important concession now that they
won't apply it against class members in Newfoundland and
Labrador."

All of this is just a small facet of the overall case, where
Ottawa has been fighting to deny responsibility for abuse suffered
by aboriginal students at residential schools in Labrador.

In 2008, the federal government offered a formal apology for
residential schools, and paid a settlement to survivors for the
abuse suffered, but Labrador natives were left out of that.

Throughout the fall, as part of a class-action lawsuit, dozens of
students from Labrador have testified in open court about sexual
violation, physical violence, and emotional abuse suffered at the
schools in Labrador.

As part of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, one of the
recommendations called on the federal government to settle
outstanding litigation with the indigenous groups left out of the
overall residential schools apology.

But after years of legal back-and-forth with the Stephen Harper
Conservative government, and months of trial time in court this
fall, the case is coming close to an end.

Crosbie said he's hopeful based on Bennett's statement about
"reviewing the government's litigation strategy," and another
sentence which said, "The Government of Canada is open to
exploring other options to address this claim."

"They're still dithering," he said. "They want to make an offer of
settlement -- that's what I get from this statement -- they want
to make an offer of settlement, but they haven't quite gotten to
what that's going to look like."

Crosbie is hoping the federal government will agree to sit down
with a mediator in the next two or three weeks, and hash out some
sort of out-of-court settlement. If they wait any longer than
that, the trial will be finished and it will likely be up to the
judge.

"If they're going to act, they need to act on this by agreeing to
mediation," he said. "I think it's virtually guaranteed that if
they do that, there will be a satisfactory outcome for everybody."


CANNAVEST CORP: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed in "Schuck"
----------------------------------------------------------------
CannaVest Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that counsel for the
lead plaintiff, Steve Schuck, has filed a "consolidated amended
complaint".

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro
alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares
of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791.
The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current
Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014
and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously
disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were
restated to $1,082,375 - reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).
Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share."

Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, six different
individuals filed a motion asking to be designated the lead
plaintiff in the litigation. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a
ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff. Counsel for Mr.
Schuck filed a "consolidated amended complaint" on September 14,
2015.

The Company's response to the consolidated amended complaint was
due on November 13, 2015.  Management intends to vigorously defend
the allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at
this time.


CBC PIPELINE: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Robinson, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. CBC Pipeline, LLC a/k/a CBC Services, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03087-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, December 16, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

CBC Pipeline, LLC is an Ohio corporation providing third party
services, including inspection, for the construction and
maintenance of oil and natural gas transmission, midstream and
gathering lines, facility construction, meter runs and many other
types of oil and gas construction throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Drew Legando, Esq.
      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
              drew@lgmlegal.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              sschalman-bergen@bm.net
              apiazza@bm.net
              cfundora@bm.net


CCC INFO SERVICES: "Sisavath" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sisavath v. CCC Information
Services Inc., Case No. 2015CA011671, was removed from 15th
Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm
Beach). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:15-cv-81727-
KAM to the Proceeding.

CCC Information Services provides auto claims and collision repair
software, workflow tools, and technologies to automotive collision
repairers, parts suppliers, and property/casualty insurance
carriers in the United States. The company is based in Chicago
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
          HICKS, MOTTO & EHRLICH, P.A.
          3399 PGA Blvd., Suite 300
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 683 2300
          Facsimile: (561) 697 3852
          E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com

               - and -

          James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463 2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463 2103
          E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason David Sternberg, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          600 Brickell Ave. Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (561) 213 5635
          Facsimile: (305) 459 6550
          E-mail: jason.sternberg@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Patricia Lally, Esq.
          Mark S. Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876 7700
          E-mail: kathleen.lally@lw.com
                  mark.mester@lw.com

               - and -

          Allen Paige Pegg, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
          600 Brickell Avenue, 27th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 459 6641
          Facsimile: (305) 459 6550
          E-mail: allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Naylor Farms Royalty Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery is
ongoing in the case, Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class
representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

"On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against us in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma ("Naylor Farms Case") alleging that we improperly
deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs
and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the petition
from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma," the
Company said. "The purported class includes non-governmental
royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in
Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of
leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive
damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. We have
responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the allegations and
raised arguments and defenses."

Discovery is ongoing and information and documents continue to be
exchanged. The class has not been certified. The plaintiffs filed
their motion for class certification on Tuesday, October 13, 2015.
The plaintiffs also moved for partial summary judgment, asking the
court to determine, as a matter of law, that natural gas is not
marketable until it is in a condition and location to be
transported in an interstate pipeline and other dispositive
issues. The Company is preparing its response to both motions.

"We are not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss
or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Naylor Farms Case
will have on our financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matters, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter.
Plaintiffs in the Naylor Farms Case have indicated that, if the
class is certified, they seek damages in excess of $5,000 which
may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would
be comprised of interest. We dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute
that the case meets the requirements for a class action and are
vigorously defending the case," the Company said.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Denies Allegations in "Dodson" Royalty Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has
responded to the Plaintiff's petition and denied the allegations
in the case, Amanda Dodson, individually and as class
representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson (the "Plaintiff"), filed a
complaint against us in the District Court of Mayes County,
Oklahoma, ("Dodson Case") with allegation similar to those
asserted in the Naylor Farms Case related to post-production
deductions, and include clams for breach of contract, fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and
seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages,
interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the
alleged class. The alleged class includes non-governmental royalty
interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in
Oklahoma.

"We have responded to the Plaintiff's petition, denied the
allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses," the
Company said. "At this time, a class has not been certified and
discovery has not yet commenced. We are not currently able to
estimate a reasonable possible loss or range of loss or what
impact, if any, the Dodson Case will have on our financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the
preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of
legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties
with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and
defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of
the properties and agreements involved, and the ultimate potential
outcome of the matter. We dispute Plaintiff's claims, dispute that
the case meets the requirements for a class action and are
vigorously defending the case."


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Has Moved to Dismiss "Donelson" Royalty Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery has yet
to begin in the case, Martha Donelson and John Friend, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

"On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was filed against us,
as well as several other operators in Osage County, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
("Donelson Case"), alleging claims on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners and
surface lessees," the Company said.

The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recovery for trespass,
nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment.

"Relief sought includes declaring oil and natural gas leases and
drilling permits obtained in Osage County without a prior NEPA
study void ab initio, removing us from all properties owned by the
class members, disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and
punitive damages," the Company said.

"We have joined in Motions to Dismiss filed by the other
defendants. At this time, a class has not been certified and
discovery has yet to begin.

"We are not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss
or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Donelson Case will
have on our financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity
and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and
uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of
the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the
scope and types of properties and agreements involved, and the
ultimate potential outcome of the matter. We dispute plaintiffs'
claims, dispute that the Donelson Case meets the requirements for
a class action and are vigorously defending the case."


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Briscoe Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney
Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the
securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor LLP announce that a
federal class action lawsuit has been filed against Chipotle
Mexican Grill, Inc. ("Chipotle") (NYSE: CMG) and several officers
and directors for acts taken during the period of February 4, 2015
to January 5, 2016 (the "Class Period").

Based upon the allegations in the class action, the firms are
investigating additional legal claims against the officers and
Board of Directors of Chipotle. If you are an affected Chipotle
shareholder and want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the
action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC via
email at shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com, Patrick Powers at
Powers Taylor LLP via email at shareholder@powerstaylor.com, or
call toll free at (877) 728-9607. There is no cost or fee to you.

According to the complaint, the defendants are alleged to have
violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding its business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) its quality controls were not
in compliance with applicable consumer and workplace safety
regulations; (ii) its quality controls were inadequate to
safeguard consumer and employee health; and (iii) as a result of
the foregoing, its public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On January 6, 2016, Chipotle announced that it was served in
December 2015 with a federal subpoena, requiring the Company to
produce extensive documents following the August 2014's criminal
investigation of the dangerous norovirus outbreak in Simi Valley,
California. Chipotle disclosed that the investigation is being
conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District
of California in conjunction with the Food and Drug
Administration's Office of Criminal Investigations. Chipotle stock
dropped significantly immediately following this announcement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC
Willie Briscoe, 877-728-9607
E-mail: shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com
or
Powers Taylor LLP
Patrick Powers, 877-728-9607
E-mail: shareholder@powerstaylor.com


CIGNA CORP: "Amara" Plaintiffs Respond to Plan Benefits Formula
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna 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 plaintiffs in
the "Amara" cash balance pension plan litigation have responded to
the Company's proposed method for calculating additional pension
benefits due to class members.

In December, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plan participants
affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The
plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including, that the Plan's
cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that
the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-
conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit);
and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or
inadequate disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998;
(2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3)
required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-
conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits
under the post-conversion cash balance formula.  The Second
Circuit upheld this decision.

In 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions in
this matter and returned the case to the District Court, which
ordered the Company to pay substantially the same benefits as had
been ordered in 2008 and denied the Company's motion to decertify
the class.

The parties again appealed, with the plaintiffs challenging the
District Court's denial of their request to return to the prior
annuity benefit plan formula, and Cigna and the Plan appealing the
District Court's order and the denial of a motion to decertify the
class.

In December 2014, the Second Circuit upheld the District Court
ruling.

In January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for re-hearing
with the Second Circuit that was subsequently denied in March
2015.

"Neither the Company nor the plaintiffs have chosen to appeal
further.  The Company has submitted to the District Court its
proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits
due to class members, and plaintiffs responded in August 2015.
Timing of completion of this phase remains uncertain," the Company
said.


CIGNA CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Franco" Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Cigna 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 plaintiffs'
appeal in the case, Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
Company, et al., remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative
nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly
underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the
Company's competitors.  These actions were consolidated into
Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure
under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law
and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the
present.  Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or
have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by
the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for
lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New
Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim.

In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied
separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class
of subscriber plaintiffs.  The Third Circuit denied plaintiff's
request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling.  As a
result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs
only.

In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the
plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment.  In July 2014,
the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in
favor of the Company, including the class certification decision,
to the Third Circuit.  The Company will continue to vigorously
defend its position.


CITIGROUP INC: "Lewis-Gursky" Suit Goes from S.D.N.Y to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lewis-Gursky v. Citigroup, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:15-Cv-03213, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The
Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02887-SCB-
MAP to the proceeding.

Citigroup, a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services to consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions. The company serves
approximately 200 million customer accounts in 160 countries and
jurisdictions. Segments The company operates through two segments,
Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and Institutional Clients Group
(ICG). The company is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Christopher McNerney, Esq
          Molly Anne Brooks, Esq
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Ave Fl 29
          New York, NY 10016-5902
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000
          Facsimile: (212) 977 4005
          E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com
                  cmcnerney@outtengolden.com
                  mbrooks@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          604 Spruce St
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873 4836
          E-mail: dcohenlaw@comcast.net

               - and -

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N Michigan Ave, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Loren Bolno Donnell, Esq.
          Sam Jones Smith, Esq.
          BURR & SMITH, LLP
          111 2nd Ave NE Ste 1100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3434
          Telephone: (813) 253 2010
          Facsimile: (813) 254 8391
          E-mail: ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com

The Defendants are represented By:

          Derek Jon Dilberian, Esq.
          Michael Jonathan Puma, Esq.
          Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          200 S Biscayne Blvd., Ste 5300
          Miami, FL 33131-2339
          Telephone: (305) 415 3000
          Facsimile: (877) 432 9652
          E-mail: ddilberian@morganlewis.com


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Still Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Financial 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 class
action lawsuit brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act remains pending in California.

The Company is a defendant in a purported class action complaint
filed in December 2013 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The named plaintiff purports to represent a
"national class" of customers who allegedly received automated
calls to their cell phones from the bank or its agents, without
customer consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The litigation is ongoing and the Company
continues to engage in discussions with the plaintiff on this
matter.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend LIBOR Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. is a defendant in lawsuits in which
allegations have been made that RBS manipulated U.S. dollar LIBOR
to the detriment of the Company's customers, 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 lawsuits include a purported class action on behalf of
borrowers of the Company whose interest rates were tied to U.S.
dollar LIBOR. The plaintiffs in these cases assert various
theories of liability, including fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The
Company is vigorously defending these matters, but is unable to
predict the outcome of these matters.


CITY WIDE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Andreh Fazelimoghadam v. City Wide Transportation, Inc., Zohrab
Grigoryan, and Does 1-99, Case No. BC604190 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 14, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants provide medical transportation services to medical
service providers throughout Southern California, including Kaiser
Permanente.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Romero, Esq.
      ROMERO LAW, APC
      80 S. Lake Avenue, .Suite 880
      Pasadena, CA 91101-2672
      Telephone: (626) 396-9900
      Facsimile: (626) 270-4045
      E-mail: firm@romerolaw.com


CHUBB CORPORATION: MOU Reached in ACE Merger Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb 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 defendants and
the plaintiffs in the class actions related to the Company's
merger deal with ACE Limited have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the MOU), which provides for the settlement of the
Actions.

On June 30, 2015, Chubb entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (Merger Agreement) with ACE Limited (ACE), a company
organized under the laws of Switzerland, and William Investment
Holdings Corporation (Merger Sub), a New Jersey corporation and a
wholly owned indirect subsidiary of ACE, pursuant to which Merger
Sub will merge with and into Chubb, with Chubb surviving as a
wholly owned indirect subsidiary of ACE (the Merger). ACE has
indicated that shortly after the completion of the Merger, it
expects to merge Chubb with and into ACE INA Holdings Inc., a
Delaware corporation and indirect subsidiary of ACE, with ACE INA
Holdings Inc. continuing as the surviving corporation.

Chubb, the Board, ACE and/or Merger Sub were named as defendants
in 10 putative class actions brought by purported Chubb
shareholders challenging the Merger in the New Jersey Superior
Court, Somerset County, Chancery Division. The suits are captioned
The Sadie Nauy Charitable Found. v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-
012040-15 (filed July 10, 2015); Anne Cutler v. John D. Finnegan,
et al., C-012041-15 (filed July 10, 2015); Sidney Weiman v. The
Chubb Corp., et al., C-012043-15 (filed July 14, 2015); Renee
Sayegh v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012045-15 (filed July 10,
2015); Judy Mesirov v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012046-15 (filed
July 20, 2015); Shiva Stein v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012047-
15 (filed July 21, 2015); Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. The
Chubb Corp., et al., C-012048-15 (filed July 22, 2015); Jane
Schwartzman v. Zoe Baird Budinger, et al., C-012049-15 (filed July
20, 2015); Saunders v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012050-15 (filed
July 23, 2015); and Polatsch v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012051-
15 (filed July 23, 2015) (collectively, the Actions).

The complaints filed in the Actions allege, among other things,
that the Board breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell
Chubb through an unfair and inadequate process and by failing to
maximize the value of Chubb. Several of the complaints also allege
that Chubb, ACE and/or Merger Sub have aided and abetted these
breaches of fiduciary duties. The amended complaints filed in the
Mesirov, Weiman and Schwartzman Actions added, among other things,
allegations that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by
ACE on August 3, 2015 contained material misstatements and
omissions. The plaintiffs seek as relief, among other things, an
injunction against the Merger, rescission of the Merger to the
extent it is already implemented, and an award of damages. Chubb
believes the allegations made in the Actions are without merit.

On October 12, 2015, the defendants and the plaintiffs in the
Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU),
which provides for the settlement of the Actions. Pursuant to the
settlement contemplated by the terms of the MOU, Chubb filed a
Current Report on Form 8-K on October 13, 2015 that included
certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Merger.

The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory
discovery and customary conditions, including court approval. It
is expected that a hearing will be scheduled at which the New
Jersey Superior Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness
and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is approved by
the court, it will resolve and release all claims by shareholders
of Chubb under New Jersey law challenging any aspect of the
Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection
therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. There can
be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement
contemplated by the MOU. If the court does not approve the
settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise disallowed, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.


COMMAND SECURITY: Agrees to Settle "Leal" Labor Case for $2-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company has agreed to settle the case, Leal v. Command Security
Corporation, for $2.0 million.

On April 29, 2014, the California Superior Court granted a
plaintiff's motion (Leal v. Command Security Corporation) to
certify a class consisting of all persons who were employed by the
Company in a non-exempt security officer position within the State
of California at any time since May 2, 2007 through the date of
trial who agreed to and signed an on-duty meal period agreement at
the time of their employment. The case is a certified class action
involving allegations that the Company violated certain California
state laws relating to on-duty meal and rest breaks.

On November 12, 2015, the Company agreed to a maximum settlement
amount of $2.0 million, including plaintiff's attorney fees and
costs, administration costs, and certain other miscellaneous
costs. As part of the settlement, the parties further agreed that
(i) the final settlement will be subject to court approval; (ii) a
minimum of 50% of the net proceeds will be distributed to the
class; and (iii) the settlement will be paid in two installments,
the first to be paid upon court approval of the final settlement
agreement and the second to be paid no later than one year from
final approval.

The Leal v. Command Security Corporation lawsuit is one of
numerous class action lawsuits filed during the past year against
security guard companies in California related to meal and rest
break regulations. The Company aggressively defended its position
in this case; however, given the current environment in California
regarding similar lawsuits, the Company believes that settling
this matter under these terms provides a favorable outcome.

In addition, the Company considered its assessment of the cost to
continue to defend the case through trial and a potential appeal
in its decision to settle. While the parties have established a
maximum settlement amount at $2.0 million, the Company has
recorded a $1.4 million provision in the quarter ended September
30, 2015. This provision is based on the terms of the settlement
and historical statistical information as to the expected rate of
participation in similar cases provided to the Company by claims
administrators. In the event the rate of participation in the
settlement by class members were to exceed current estimates the
final settlement amount could increase to the maximum settlement
amount. The settlement will be administered over the next one to
two years.


COMMUNITY BANK: Awaiting Final Approval of Class Suit Accord
------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System, 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
issued on July 14, 2015, an order preliminarily approving the
settlement reached in the first of two related class actions
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, which cases were commenced on October
30, 2013 and May 23, 2014, respectively.

The two related cases allege, on behalf of similarly situated
class members, that notices provided by the Bank in connection
with the repossession of automobiles failed to comply with certain
requirements of the Pennsylvania and New York Uniform Commercial
Code and related statutes.

In accordance with mediation which occurred in September 2014, the
settlement provides for establishment of a settlement fund of $2.8
million in exchange for release of all claims of the class members
covered by these actions. A litigation settlement charge of $2.8
million with respect to the settlement of the class actions was
previously recorded in the third quarter of 2014.

The settlement is subject to the Court's final approval following
notice to the class members, including the ability of class
members to oppose or opt-out of the settlement.


CONSOLIDATED LLC: Faces "De Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Selvin De Leon v. Consolidated, LLC and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. BC604200 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 15, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Consolidated, LLC owns and operates a non-residential construction
company located at 5657 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
      BITTON & ASSOCIATES
      7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90046
      Telephone: (310) 356-1006


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sued in Washington for FCRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Pert-Kelley,on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01917
(W.D. Wash., December 7, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Convergent Outsourcing Inc. operates a contingency collection
company in Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Symmes, Esq.
      SYMMES LAW GROUP
      1001 FOURTH AVENUE, STE 3200
      SEATTLE, WA 98154
      Telephone: (206) 390-9451
      Facsimile: (206) 424-4691
      E-mail: richard@symmeslaw.com


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Facing Class Suit on Meal Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
during the quarter ended September 30, 2015, we became party to a
class action claim wherein plaintiff alleges failure to provide
meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, and other related wage and
hour claims.


CR BARD: Faces "Bures" Suit in Penn. Over Defective IVC Filters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florence Bures v. C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02420-RDM (M.D. Penn., December 16, 2015)
is an action for personal injuries as a direct and proximate
result of being implanted with a defective and unreasonably
dangerous Inferior Vena Cava ("IVC") filter medical device
manufactured by Bard.

The Defendants own and operate a company that develops,
manufactures, and markets medical technologies in the fields of
vascular, urology, oncology, and surgical specialties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carrie R. Capouellez, Esquire
      LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
      1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K
      Philadelphia, PA 19112
      Telephone: (215) 952-6910
      E-mail: ccapouellez@lopezmchugh.com


CYTRX CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $4 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
CytRx Corporation (NASDAQ: CYTR), a biopharmaceutical research and
development company specializing in oncology, announced on
December 10, 2015 that it reached a successful agreement to settle
the consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, titled In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation.
The consolidated case was brought against the company and/or a
number of current and former directors and officers following
allegations of stock promotion.  The agreement was reached in
connection with a voluntary mediation led by the Honorable Judge
Dickran Tevrizian, a retired federal judge from the Central
District of California.

The settlement agreement contains no admission of liability or
wrongdoing and includes a full release of CytRx and the current
and former directors and officers in connection with the
allegations.  CytRx believes the allegations are completely
without merit, and is settling the lawsuit to avoid potentially
lengthy and costly litigation.  The settlement is subject to
definitive documentation, shareholder notice, and court approval.

The terms of the agreement provide for a settlement payment to the
class of $4,000,000, of which at least $3,500,000 will be paid by
the Company's insurance carriers.  The Company will also issue
$4,500,000 worth of shares to the class, which will be between a
minimum of 1,200,000 shares of common stock and a maximum of
1,800,000 shares of common stock to the class depending on the
prevailing stock price at the time of the court's final approval
of the settlement agreement.

"We are pleased to reach a settlement agreement on the securities
class action and believe it is in the best interests of CytRx and
our shareholders.  We will continue to focus on our pre-commercial
activities for aldoxorubicin, our pivotal, global Phase 3 trial
with aldoxorubicin in second-line soft tissue sarcomas, our newly
designated drug candidate DK049, and additional research and
development with our LADRTM technology," said Steven A. Kriegsman,
Chairman and CEO.

CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development
company specializing in oncology. CytRx currently is focused on
the clinical development of aldoxorubicin, its improved version of
the widely used chemotherapeutic agent doxorubicin, and DK049, a
novel drug conjugate which is expected to enter clinic trials in
2016.  CytRx is also expanding its pipeline of oncology candidates
at its laboratory facilities in Freiburg, Germany, through its
LADR(TM) (Linker Activated Drug Release) technology platform, a
discovery engine designed to leverage CytRx's expertise in albumin
biology and linker technology for the development of a new class
of anti-cancer therapies.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Scope of Age Discrimination Suit May Widen
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that the
scope of a federal government lawsuit against Darden Restaurants
over age discrimination could grow from two people to at least
9,500 applicants, according to the latest updates in the case.

It's the first time in the case that an estimated number of people
potentially affected has been included in the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission's allegations.  A federal judge has
required that the EEOC provide further details by Feb. 8.

Darden is fighting the lawsuit.  The company declined to comment
on the new details.  Previously, a Darden spokesman said the
EEOC's allegations are "unsubstantiated" and the company is proud
of its commitment to diversity.

The EEOC sued Darden in February, alleging that two white men were
passed over for jobs at Seasons 52 in Coral Gables because of age
discrimination.  They were 42 and 52 years old. The suit alleges
that one of the men was told that the restaurant wasn't looking
for "old white guys."

In another development in the case, U.S. District Judge Joan
Lenard has told the EEOC to either seek a collective-action status
or to show the agency has "authority to represent a far-reaching
class of individuals without the court first determining the scope
of the class."

The judge wrote on Jan. 25 in her order that there were too few
cases where the EEOC filed a class-discrimination lawsuit itself.

Questions over the scope of the lawsuit arose because the EEOC is
demanding more information, or discovery, from Darden.

The EEOC said it received data from Darden regarding "28 stores in
Excel spreadsheet format reflecting what appears to be the
identification of at least 53,000 applicants.  EEOC estimates
9,540 (18%) are age 40 or over and will need to be contacted by
EEOC as potential claimants."

Labor attorney Michael Hanna of Morgan & Morgan said the Darden
case could set precedent for the EEOC's ability to act on behalf
of groups without being granted class-action status.

"The judge is saying to the EEOC, she's not sure, show me your
authority (to represent a class).  It's not very developed. It's
not a clear answer," Mr. Hanna said.

The judge did cite at least one case where the EEOC sought
collective-action status.

The EEOC accused Darden of delays in a recent motion filed with
the court: "Because Defendants have delayed production and
provided largely incomplete applicant discovery, as detailed
below, EEOC has been impeded . . ."

Mr. Hanna said he considers such delays a common tactic for
defendants in litigation of this nature: "The defendant makes
boilerplate objections to discovery, while simultaneously trying
to run the clock out."

Darden operated 43 locations of Seasons 52 at the time of the
lawsuit filing.  Orlando's only Fortune 500 company, Darden also
owns the Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse chains.


DEUTSCHE BANK: To Face British Suit Over High-Speed Trading
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Ewing, writing for The New York Times, reports that Deutsche
Bank, already troubled by lawsuits and official investigations,
faces another challenge. A group of lawyers said that they planned
to sue the company in British court, accusing the bank of using
high-speed trading software to profit in foreign currency markets
at the expense of customers.

The lawsuit is to be filed by end of 2016 on behalf of companies,
investors and even some central banks that frequently buy and sell
currencies. The lawsuit would mirror one filed in New York last
December by some of the same law firms. That lawsuit asserts that
Deutsche Bank used a software platform known as Autobahn to take
advantage of millisecond changes in exchange rates to give clients
worse prices than they were entitled to.

Deutsche Bank denied the claims in the lawsuit, saying in a
statement: "We disagree with the allegations and will be defending
ourselves in court."

The lawsuit was filed last January against Deutsche Bank in
Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
class-action lawsuit attracted little notice in the media until
the German magazine Der Spiegel reported it.

In November, the British bank Barclays agreed to a settlement with
the New York State Department of Financial Services on claims very
similar to the ones made against Deutsche Bank. Barclays agreed to
pay $150 million and to fire an employee held responsible for the
wrongdoing.

Christopher Rother, a Berlin lawyer involved in the lawsuit
against Deutsche Bank, said that it was impossible to quantify the
financial damage to the bank's clients because the trading system
was so opaque.

"I would say in the billions," said Mr. Rother, who is head of the
Berlin office of Hausfeld, a law firm with offices in Washington
and other locations that filed the New York lawsuit in conjunction
with several other firms.

Mr. Rother said that the complainants would ask the court to
compel Deutsche Bank to turn over records that would shed light on
the scale of the potential losses.

In recent years, Deutsche Bank has battled a long list of
accusations of wrongdoing in financial markets. In November, the
bank agreed with the authorities in the United States to pay a
fine of $258 million in connection with allegations it conducted
transactions with countries subject to American sanctions,
including Iran, Libya, Syria, Myanmar and Sudan.

In April, Deutsche Bank agreed to $2.5 billion in penalties
related to accusations it was among banks that manipulated global
interest rates underpinning trillions of dollars in mortgages,
student loans and other debt. The bank is also among those accused
of colluding to rig benchmark rates for currencies, and it faces
separate lawsuits from companies and other investors who say they
lost money as a result.

Anshu Jain resigned as co-chief executive of Deutsche Bank in June
amid complaints by investors that he had not done enough to infuse
a greater sense of ethics in the London-based investment bank,
which was at the center of most of the wrongdoing.

The latest accusations present another distraction for Mr. Jain's
successor, John Cryan, the former chief financial officer at the
Swiss bank UBS, who is in the middle of a broad reorganization of
Deutsche Bank designed to make it less complex and more
profitable.

The currency lawsuits also illustrate the perils of high-speed
trading and the potential for abuse by sophisticated market
players.

Trades in the huge foreign currency market can be executed by
computer platforms in milliseconds. The lawsuit claims that
Deutsche Bank's Autobahn platform delayed transactions sometimes
by hundreds of milliseconds -- an eternity in the world of
currency trading.

If prices in that period moved in Deutsche Bank's favor, it
executed the trades, according to the New York lawsuit. If not,
the bank refused the trades, the lawsuit claims. "Deutsche Bank
exploited its superior bargaining position and superior knowledge"
of the market, the lawsuit says.

The trading systems were devised to defend banks from attempts to
exploit them in their role as intermediaries between currency
buyers and sellers. Barclays had a currency trading system known
as BARX that could delay trades slightly to detect and foil so-
called toxic flows -- attempts by hedge funds or others to game
the system using their own sophisticated software.

But Barclays did not distinguish between toxic flows and normal
trading, according to the settlement with the New York State
Department of Financial Services, which detailed the circumstances
of the case. Instead, Barclays used the trading delays to profit
from ordinary clients, the settlement said.

When some clients complained that the software was causing them to
miss opportunities to trade at better rates with other banks,
Barclays senior managers instructed the bank's traders and
information technology specialists to give misleading answers,
according to the settlement agreement.

Traders were told to "just blame it on the weekend IT release and
say it's being fixed," the settlement agreement said.

The lead plaintiff in the class-action suit in New York is Axiom
Investment Advisors, a small hedge fund. Mr. Rother said that his
firm had been hired to represent several central banks that
believed they had lost money because of the trading system. He
would not name the central banks, but said they did not include
the European Central Bank or the Bundesbank, the German central
bank.

Hausfeld also represents clients in Africa, Asia and Europe who
believe they were victims of currency-trading manipulation. Mr.
Rother said the case against Deutsche Bank would be filed in
London, the center of global currency trading, around the middle
of the year.


DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Gov't Sues Over Misleading Job Prospects
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer C. Kerr, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the government on Jan. 27 sued the operators of the for-profit
DeVry University, alleging they misled consumers about students'
job and earnings prospects.

In the complaint, the Federal Trade Commission alleged that DeVry
deceived students by claiming that 90 percent of its graduates
actively seeking employment landed jobs in their fields within six
months of graduation.  The agency also says DeVry was misleading
when it claimed its graduates had 15 percent higher incomes one
year after graduation on average than graduates of all other
colleges or universities.

Instead of landing jobs in their field of study, FTC Chairwoman
Edith Ramirez said, some graduates found themselves working as
delivery drivers or restaurant servers.  She said up to 50,000 or
so students may have been affected by the alleged wrongdoing.

In a statement, DeVry Education Group, parent of DeVry University,
said the commission's allegations are "without a valid legal
basis" and that the company "intends to vigorously contest" the
complaint.

The FTC is seeking a court order to stop DeVry from making its
advertising claims, via TV, radio and elsewhere.  Ms. Ramirez said
the commission would seek monetary relief for those affected but
that it was too early to say how much money that might involve.

"Educational institutions like DeVry owe prospective students the
truth about their graduates' success finding employment in their
field of study and the income they can earn," Ms. Ramirez said.

In concert with the FTC lawsuit, the Education Department
announced its own action against DeVry.

Under Secretary Ted Mitchell said the department has informed
DeVry that it must stop making certain claims about its
postgraduation outcomes and that it must inform students that it
cannot substantiate those claims -- or risk losing federal student
loan money if it fails to do so.

DeVry, based in Downers Grove, Illinois, has more than 55 campuses
across the country, offering online or on-campus degree programs
in business, technology and healthcare technology.


DIODES INCORPORATED: Appeal from Case Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against
Diodes Incorporated remains pending, 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 September 15, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas issued an order regarding the putative
securities class action entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators
and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No.
6:13- cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013) (the "Class
Action"), granting defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Action
with prejudice. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the order dismissing the Class Action to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 14-41141.
The appeal is fully briefed and was argued on September 3, 2015.
The Court of Appeals has not yet issued a decision.


DLJ MORTGAGE: May 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, on Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated,

                                    Plaintiff,

            v.

DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., CREDIT
SUISSE MANAGEMENT, LLC f/k/a CREDIT
SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE
SECURITIES CORPORATION, ANDREW A.
KIMURA, THOMAS ZINGALLI, JEFFREY A.
ALTABEF, MICHAEL A. MARRIOTT, EVELYN ECHEVARRIA and CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA), LLC,

Defendants.


Civ. No. 08-5653 (PAC)
EXHIBIT A-2

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:     ALL PERSONS THAT (1) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
CERTIFICATES IN HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE TRUST ("HEMT") 2006-5 ON OR
BEFORE JUNE 3, 2008; OR (2) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
CERTIFICATES IN HEMT 2006-4, HEMT 2006-6, OR HEMT 2007-2 ON OR
BEFORE MARCH 23, 2009

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED (i) of the pendency of this action
asserting claims against Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
Securities Corporation, Andrew A. Kimura, Thomas Zingalli, Jeffrey
A. Altabef, Michael A. Marriott, Evelyn Echevarria, and Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (collectively, the "Defendants"),
relating to certain mortgage-backed securities (the "Action") as a
class action on behalf of the persons and entities described above
(the "Settlement Class") except for certain persons or entities
who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition; and (ii)
that a proposed settlement has been reached in this Action.  A
hearing will be held with respect to the settlement on May 10,
2016, at 10:00 A.M. before the Honorable Paul A. Crotty, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 14C, New York, New York.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things,
(i) whether the proposed settlement of the claims asserted in this
Action, pursuant to which Defendants will cause to be deposited
the sum of $110 million U.S. dollars ($) into a settlement fund in
exchange for (among other things)  the dismissal of the Action and
a release of claims against the Defendants and other related
persons and entities, should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement
Class, (ii) whether the Court should certify the Settlement Class
for settlement purposes only; (iii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as against the Settlement Class; (iv)
whether the Court should enter a bar order prohibiting members of
the Settlement Class from pursuing or commencing any action
against the Defendants or other related persons or entities with
respect to the Released Claims, as set forth in the available
Stipulation; (v) whether the proposed plan of allocation of the
settlement fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and
(vi) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses incurred in connection
with the Action is reasonable and should be approved.  Litigation
Expenses may also include reimbursement of the expenses of Lead
Plaintiff New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund in accordance with 15
U.S.C. Sec. 77z-1(a)(4).

If you purchased or otherwise acquired certificates in the trusts
listed above, you may be entitled to share in the distribution of
the settlement fund if you submit a claim form postmarked no later
than May 5, 2016, establishing that you are entitled to a
recovery.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you have the right to
object to the settlement, the plan of allocation and/or the
request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting no later
than April 26, 2016, a written objection in accordance with the
procedures described in a more detailed notice that has been
mailed to persons or entities known to be potential members of the
Settlement Class, and that is available at
www.HEMTMBSSettlement.com

You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class by submitting no later than April 12, 2016, a written
request for exclusion from the Settlement Class in accordance with
the procedures described in the more detailed notice.  If the
settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound by the
settlement and the Court's final order and judgment, including the
releases provided for in the final order and judgment, unless you
submit a request to be excluded.

This notice provides only a summary of matters regarding the
Action and the settlement.  A detailed notice describing the
Action, the proposed settlement, and the rights of members of the
Settlement Class to appear in Court at the Final Approval Hearing,
to request to be excluded from the Settlement Class and/or to
object to the settlement, the plan of allocation and/or the
request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses has been mailed to persons or entities known to be
potential Settlement Class Members.  You may obtain a copy of this
notice, a proof of claim form, or other information by writing to
the following address or calling the following telephone number.

HEMT MBS Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 3266
Portland, OR 97208-3266
Toll Free: (877) 854-3797
info@HEMTMBSSettlement.com

or by downloading the forms from www.HEMTMBSSettlement.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed
notice referenced above and a proof of claim form, may be made to
plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC

Joel P. Laitman
Christopher Lometti
Michael Eisenkraft
88 Pine Street, 14 Fourteenth Floor
New York, N.Y. 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Email:  jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com
        clometti@cohenmilstein.com
        meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

Steven J. Toll
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500, West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel.: (202) 408-4600
Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com

Dated:  January 20, 2016

By Order of the Clerk of the
Court United States District
Court for the Southern
District of New York


EMC CORPORATION: 11 Class Suits Filed over Dell Inc. Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
EMC Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of November 6,
2015, 11 lawsuits challenging the Company's merger agreement with
Dell Inc. have been filed purportedly on behalf of Company
shareholders, of which eight were filed (or are now pending) in
the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk County Superior
Court in Massachusetts, one was filed in the Middlesex County
Superior Court in Massachusetts, and two were filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

All of the lawsuits are purported shareholder class actions
advancing substantially the same allegations that the Merger
Agreement was adopted in violation of the fiduciary duties of the
Company's directors and seeking injunctive relief to enjoin the
merger, as well as other remedies. Certain of the lawsuits also
allege that the Company, Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc., Universal
Acquisition Co., Silver Lake Partners, LLC, and/or MSD Partners,
LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
the directors.

On October 23, 2015, the Company and its directors served a motion
to consolidate all of the lawsuits then pending in state court in
Massachusetts with and into the first-filed of those actions, IBEW
Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Joseph M. Tucci, et al. That action
names as defendants the Company and each member of its Board of
Directors (as constituted as of October 12, 2015), Denali Holding
Inc., Dell Inc., and Universal Acquisition Co.

On October 27, 2015, the Company and its directors served a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in the IBEW matter pursuant to
provisions of the Massachusetts Business Corporation Act, M.G.L.
c. 156D, Sec. 7.40 et seq., and Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1 of the
Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis that the
complaint asserts a derivative action on behalf of the Company and
should be dismissed for failure to make the requisite pre-suit
demand on the Company.

On November 5, 2015, the Company and its directors filed motions
(i) to stay or dismiss the actions pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on the ground
that those actions are duplicative of the actions pending in state
court in Massachusetts; and (ii) to dismiss those same actions
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on the ground that the complaints in those actions fail to allege
a basis for the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction.

No defendant has yet filed a responsive pleading in the other
lawsuits.

The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain, and additional
lawsuits may be brought or additional claims advanced concerning
the Merger. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an
adverse effect on the Company's operations. A preliminary
injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger,
and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger.


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orlando" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Orlando, Jeremy Impellizzeri, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Encore Receivable
Management, Inc., Docket No. 2:15-cv-06997 (E.D.N.Y., December 8,
2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Encore Receivable Management, Inc. operates a collection agency,
which is headquartered in Olathe, Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
      E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com

         - and -

      David M. Barshay, Esq.
      SANDERS LAW, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
      E-mail: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Antongiovanni, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-10921 (N.D. Ill., December 4, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services, LLC operates a consumer credit
reporting agency throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger Zamparo Jr., Esq.
      Jordan Mark Sartell, Esq.
      ZAMPARO LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2300 Barrington Road, Suite 140
      Hoffman Estates, IL 60169
      Telephone: (224) 875-3202
      Facsimile: (312) 276-4950
      E-mail: roger@zamparo.com
              jordan@zamparolaw.com

         - and -

      John Soumilas, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC
      Land Title Building
      100 South Broad Street, 19th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone: (215) 735-8600
      E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


EXCELLUS BLUECROSS: Plaintiff Interim Co-Lead Counsels Named
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Orr, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reports that the
first winners have emerged in the legal action against Excellus
BlueCross BlueShield over the massive intrusion into the Rochester
insurer's computer systems.

The victory goes to neither Excellus nor the millions of the
company's customers whose private data may have been stolen by
hackers.  Rather, the winners are the two lawyers who on Jan. 25
were named interim co-lead counsels for the plaintiffs in the
prospective class-action lawsuit against Excellus.

They are Hadley L. Matarazzo -- hmatarazzo@faraci.com -- of the
Rochester law firm Faraci Lange and Robin L. Greenwald of Weitz &
Luxenberg in New York City.  Both are women, making their
appointment somewhat noteworthy.  They're backed by a two-lawyer
executive committee, one of whom is a woman as well.

It was early September, as you may recall, when Excellus disclosed
that hackers had broken into its computer databases and rummaged
around for as long as 17 months.  The criminal intruders, who have
not been publicly identified, had access to 10.5 million records
containing names, addresses, identification numbers, Social
Security numbers, financial account information and medical data.
Records from other companies under the Lifetime Healthcare
umbrella were exposed as well.

Numerous lawsuits were filed against the health insurer in the
wake of the disclosure, all accusing the company of negligence in
allowing hackers access to the records.  Fourteen of those suits
have been consolidated into a single case that is assigned to U.S.
District Judge Elizabeth Wolford in Rochester.

The plaintiffs in those cases are represented by approximately 40
lawyers from firms all around the country.  Lawyers formed five
distinct teams, with each team submitting motions to Wolford
asking that its team leaders be named co-counsel and other papers
arguing against opposing teams.

The legal scrap, which consumed more than two months, is typical
of what happens when clusters of related civil actions are
consolidated into one big case.  The plaintiffs' lawyers vie to be
a lead counsel, a position that can enhance the lead lawyers'
reputation -- and, since they'll do most of the work, bill for far
more hours and make a lot more money.

In the order naming Ms. Matarazzo and Ms. Greenwald interim co-
lead counsels, Wolford judged all five teams well-qualified but
said the Faraci-Weitz group stood apart because it was the only
one with "significant involvement from a local law firm, which the
Court believes is important to effectively represent the class."

Score one for the home team.

The appointments are for renewable one-year terms, and are interim
in that they will hold the lead counsel position only until a
class of plaintiffs is certified.

As the Democrat and Chronicle reported last fall, a key decision
in the case will be who, if anybody, is included in the class of
people allowed to pursue damages from Excellus.

Some federal judges have ruled that plaintiffs can be included in
the class only if they demonstrate they've actually been harmed;
in this case, that would mean proving that one's personal
information had been stolen and used to commit fraud or identify
theft.  Other judges have ruled that the fear that one's data
could be misused was sufficient.

If and when Judge Wolford certifies a class, Ms. Matarazzo and
Ms. Greenwald would have to apply to all over again to be lead
co-counsels, and other lawyers would be able to chime in again.

But all of that's a ways off.  First the lawyers must, as Wolford
has directed, file a new consolidated complaint and work with
Excellus's lawyers on a schedule.  Then there's likely to be all
sorts of legal maneuvering and arguing before any decision about
who belongs in the class.

Determining the ultimate winner in the case -- Excellus or the
customers whose personal data they let hackers have their way with
-- is still many months, and quite possibly several years, in the
future.


FANDUEL INC: "Ritchie" Suit Goes from State Court to E.D. Ark.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ritchie v. Fanduel Inc., Case No.
58CV-15-00537, was removed from Pope County Circuit Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little
Rock). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-
00776-JLH to the Proceeding.

According to the Complaint, the Defendant is allegedly operating
an illegal online sports betting (gambling) business within the
state of Arkansas.

FanDuel operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables
users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The company is
based in New York, New York with an additional office in
Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex G. Streett, Esq.
          James A. Streett, Esq.
          Robert M. Veach, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 West Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Telephone: (479) 968 2030
          Facsimile: (479) 968 6253
          Email: Alex@StreettLaw.com
                 James@StreettLaw.com
                 Robert@StreettLaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William A. Waddell , Jr.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          Regions Center
          400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
          Telephone: (501) 370 1510
          E-mail: waddell@fridayfirm.com


FANDUEL INC: Sued in Oregon Over Alleged Online Sports Betting
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maxine Bernstein, writing for The Oregonian/OregonLive, reports
that a class-action suit has been filed in federal court in
Portland against two daily fantasy sports sites, FanDuel and
DraftKings, alleging both businesses are operating illegal online
sports betting.

Brandon Peck, a resident of Polk County, brought the suit on
behalf of himself and more than 100 other Oregon players who lost
money in the past three years while placing wagers online through
the two sites, Draftkings.com and FanDuel.com.

The suit, filed on Jan. 25, asks the court to halt the companies'
operations and have each business pay players back double the
amount they've "wrongfully lost," seeking more than $5 million.

The suit is the latest class-action suit filed against the daily
fantasy sports websites.  More than 30 have been filed in more
than 10 states.  They allege that the players were duped into
participating in illegal gambling operations that gave an unfair
advantage to their own employees who also participated in the
daily competitions.

Like fantasy sports games, where groups of people play against one
another, assembling hypothetical teams and scoring points based on
how players did in actual games, the two companies have set up
online daily and weekly games.  Players pay an entry fee to a
website -- from 25 cents to several thousands of dollars -- to
play dozens if not hundreds of opponents, with prize pools that
can pay $2 million to the winner.  Players whose teams score the
most points -- based on the actual statistics of those players --
win the most money.

In the federal suit filed in U.S. District Court in Portland,
attorney Thomas D'Amore argues that both sites violate Oregon law,
which expressly prohibits "gambling" and "betting".

He cites actions taken by other states challenging the fantasy
sports league sites.  For example, he noted that the general
counsel for the Georgia State Lottery wrote to the defendants,
arguing that the state's constitution bans gambling except for
state lottery activities.  He included an October order by the
Nevada Gaming Control Board ordering both companies out of that
state unless they obtained a gambling license.

A month later, New York's Attorney General sent the companies an
order to cease operations, also finding that their businesses
amounted to illegal gambling under New York law.

New York's attorney general began an investigation last fall after
revelations that DraftKings and FanDuel allowed their employees,
many who had information not available to other players, to play
at each other's sites and win large amounts of money.

The companies have argued that fantasy sports aren't gambling but
a game of skill, not chance, which exempts them from a 2006
federal law prohibiting online gambling. On its website,
FanDuel.com, the company contends that fantasy sports received a
specific exemption from the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling
Enforcement Act.

Mr. Peck's lawyer argues the games require very little to no
skill, that the outcomes are determined largely by chance and
"return casino-type 'odds.'"

Many of the companies' customers "lack even a rudimentary
understanding of sports, or getting strategy in general" and yet
place wagers on the two websites and "lose and win based on pure
luck," Mr. Peck's lawyers wrote.

Though DraftKings is based in Boston and FanDuel is based in New
York, the lawsuit argues that a federal judge in Oregon has
jurisdiction because the companies conduct business in Oregon,
seek players from Oregon and have harmed more than 100 players in
this state.


FIRST MERCHANTS: Facing "Stein" Merger Suit in Marion County
------------------------------------------------------------
First Merchants 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
purported shareholder of Ameriana Bancorp filed on July 8, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Shiva Stein, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated vs. Ameriana Bancorp et
al., Cause No. 49D10-1507-PL-022566 in the Marion County, Indiana
Superior Court 10 against Ameriana Bancorp, its Board of Directors
and First Merchants Corporation. Plaintiff amended the complaint
on September 23, 2015.

The amended complaint alleges direct and derivative claims for
breach of fiduciary duties by the members of the Board of
Directors regarding the proposed Merger between the Companies, and
claims against First Merchants Corporation for allegedly aiding
and abetting those alleged breaches. The plaintiff seeks (1) class
certification, (2) to enjoin the merger, (3) a declaration that
the Merger Agreement is unlawful and unenforceable, (4) an order
directing the members of Ameriana Bancorp's Board of Directors to
commence a new sales process, (5) an order rescinding the Merger
Agreement, and (6) compensatory damages, expert fees, attorneys'
fees, and costs in an unspecified amount.

At this early stage of the litigation, it is not possible to
assess the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably
estimate any potential financial impact of the lawsuit on Ameriana
Bancorp. Ameriana Bancorp, its Board of Directors and First
Merchants Corporation believe the claims against them are without
merit and intend to contest the matter vigorously.


FIRST MERCHANTS: Facing "Ewing" Merger Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
First Merchants 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
purported shareholder of Ameriana Bancorp filed on September 22,
2015, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Darrell F. Ewing
v. Ameriana, et al., No. 1:15-CV-01491 in U.S. District Court in
the Southern District of Indiana against Ameriana Bancorp, its
Board of Directors and First Merchants Corporation. The complaint
generally alleges various claims of federal securities law
violations and that the Directors of Ameriana Bancorp breached
their fiduciary duties by providing materially inadequate
disclosures and material disclosure omissions with respect to the
proposed Merger. The plaintiff seeks (1) class certification, (2)
to enjoin the Merger or, in the event the Merger is completed
before entry of an injunction, to rescind the Merger or be awarded
an unspecified amount of rescissory damages, (3) compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount, and (4) costs and expenses,
including attorneys' and expert fees. At this early stage of the
litigation, it is not possible to assess the probability of a
material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate any potential
financial impact of the lawsuit on Ameriana Bancorp. Ameriana
Bancorp, its Board of Directors and First Merchants Corporation
believe the claims against them are without merit and intend to
contest the matter vigorously.


FLINT, MI: Governor, Others Named in 2 Suits Over Water Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Wimbley, writing for Fox 2, reports that the situation in
Flint is dire. Two class action lawsuits will be filed against
Gov. Rick Snyder and others believed to be blamed for the crisis.

"These are war crimes on American soil, right here, in our own
backyard," said resident Andrew Johnson.

As frustration over Flint's water crisis continues to boil, Keith
Pemberton is getting ready for a legal battle.

"Everybody in the city has been poisoned, everybody," Pemberton
said.

He'll join a number of residents as lawyers announce two new class
action lawsuits against Gov. Rick Snyder, former Flint emergency
managers Darnell Earley, Jerry Ambrose and a host of state and
local government agencies.

It is for their role in one of nation's the biggest public policy
blunders that will impact thousands of people's lives for years to
come.

"After 30 days the lead leaves your blood stream and goes into the
organs of your body," Pemberton said. "It takes about 10-15 years
for it to do its maximum damage."

"We all got death sentences, simple as that."

Pemberton lives with his wife daughter and three grandchildren.
They are getting by with donations of bottled water, though
there's not enough to go around.

Bathing is kept to a minimum.

"We shower once a week," Pemberton said. "And it's not a hot
shower because the fumes or the vapors that come out."

The pace was steady at Flint firehouse Engine 61, where National
Guard members are handing out cases of bottled water and Brita
filters to residents like Demetric Dubois and his 11-year-old
daughter Akia.

She is just one of thousands of Flint children that consumed the
contaminated water.

"We've got to get her lead levels checked," Dubois said. "We're
supposed to take her. We are going to take all the kids and get
them checked out."

Many feel the state should cover the medical expenses of lead
poisoned children and that for all of his apologies Gov. Rick
Snyder hasn't come close to addressing their concerns.

"When Gov. Snyder came through he didn't come to Flint directly,"
said Johnson. "He came on the outskirts of Flint, he (didn't) come
here. He doesn't want to see this. Who wants to deal with poor
people. Everybody is considered poor here."

The Obama administration declared a federal emergency in Flint but
stopped short of calling it a major disaster, denying the city
nearly $100 million in aid.

Snyder is appealing that decision but Pemberton isn't holding his
breath.

"If it takes him as long to do that as it did for him to even
acknowledge there was an emergency here," Pemberton said. "We'll
all be dead."

The announcement for new class action lawsuits will take place at
University of Michigan Flint.

Snyder will deliver his State of the State Address and will
undoubtedly address this water crisis.


FLINT, MI: Subpoena Deadline for Snyder Records Passes
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Jackman, writing for Detroit Metro Times, reports that the
deadline has just passed for subpoenas to be delivered to the
Snyder administration requesting records, the first credible legal
action against the governor related to Flint we've heard of.

Gov. Snyder, as part of his State of the State address, declared,
"I will release my 2014 and 2015 e-mails regarding Flint to you,
the citizens, so that you will have answers to your questions
about what we've done . . ."

Why shouldn't every interested citizen have those emails already?
Because the governor is immune from state Freedom of Information
Act laws, and Michigan is just one of two states in which this is
the case.

And despite Gov. Snyder's announcement, critics immediately
countered that the 2013 emails should have been included, as that
was when key decisions were made regarding the use of Flint River
water.  And, needless to say, it was unfortunate that the cache of
released emails opened with a message whose body was completely
redacted.

And, in the wake of that email dump, one legislator pointed out
that not all Snyder emails were released; as least one email sent
to Gov. Snyder's public email address concerning the Flint crisis
didn't appear.  Is that too minor a quibble? The Free Press'
Rochelle Riley didn't seem to think so.

An executive who's used to running private corporations, who's
used to not having to open his books, who's used to not having to
be accountable, and has tried to re-create government in that
mold.  Which is why, in the end, the people of Flint have had to
resort to the tools used by consumers against corporate America: a
class-action lawsuit.

Even now, as PR handlers and flacks circle their wagons around the
embattled governor, chances are the public will finally get a
chance to look through the communications that conducted to this
crisis, and to see more of how cavalierly the bean-counting,
legally shielded emergency managers treated the health and welfare
of Michigan residents.

While it's satisfying to see the heat turned up on Gov. Snyder,
it's important to remember why transparency is important.  The
American system of government says the government is supposed to
answer to the people.  Not in the way that a businessman surrounds
himself with lawyers, ad men, and PR flacks and "answers"
pre-screened questions with selected information.  No, the people
have a right to see the actions of the government without filters,
with limited redaction, and to demand answers and get them
speedily.

A lot of people shrugged when the emergency manager law was
passed.  "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs,"
they said.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Freeport-McMoRan Inc. ("Freeport" or the
"Company") (NYSE:FCX) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of
Arizona, and docketed under 16-cv-00186, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Freeport
securities between February 27, 2015 and January 15, 2016
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Freeport securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 28, 2016 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Freeport, a natural resource company, engages in the acquisition
of mineral assets, oil, and natural gas resources.
Freeport's co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"),
James Moffett ("Moffett"), played a key role in developing the
Company's Indonesian operations, and often led negotiations for
Freeport with Indonesian legislators and officials, rather than
leaving it to the head executive of Freeport Indonesia.

In January 2015, Moffett, then the Company's Executive Chairman,
appointed Maroef Sjamsuddin ("Sjamsuddin"), a retired Air Vice
Marshal of the Indonesian Air Force and deputy chief of
Indonesia's National Intelligence Agency, to head Freeport
Indonesia, despite Sjamsuddin's lack of experience in mining.
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) Sjamsuddin had discussed, with
senior officials in the Indonesian government, bribing Indonesian
government officials in return for an extension of Freeport's
right to operate in the country; (ii) that Freeport had violated
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"); and (iii) as a result
of the foregoing, Freeport's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 19, 2015, the Financial Times reported the news,
initially reported by the Jakarta Globe, that Freeport Indonesia
has pledged its full cooperation in an impending inquiry by the
Indonesian House of Representatives in to allegations that Speaker
Setya Novanto's ("Novanto") solicited bribes from Freeport.  On
this news, Freeport stock fell $0.36, or 4.1%, to close at $8.41
on November 19, 2015.

On November 25, 2015, the Indonesian magazine Tempo published an
interview with Novanto concerning the probe into Novanto's
dealings with Freeport Indonesia.  Concerning his meetings with
Sjamsuddin, Novanto stated, in part, that he believed Sjamsuddin
had attempted to "blackmail" and "entrap" him.  On this news,
Freeport stock fell $0.20, or 2.4%, to close at $8.10 on
November 25, 2016.

On November 26, 2015, the blog Indonesian Development Monitoring
reported that Indonesia's State-Owned Enterprise Workers Union
intended to request that the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
investigate Freeport for potential violations of the FCPA, "by
engaging in what we believe is likely . . . bribery of high-level
government official and Chief of House Speaker in Indonesia to
renew[] the Freeport mining contract."

On December 3, 2015, testifying before an Indonesian parliamentary
committee regarding Novanto's solicitation of bribes from
Freeport, Sjamsuddin stated that he had turned over his recording
of the conversation with Novanto to his superiors at Freeport to
"show my integrity and transparency" before the recording was
turned over to the Indonesian government.  On this news, Freeport
stock fell $0.15, or 1.9%, to close at $7.68 on December 3, 2015.
On December 28, 2015, Moffett resigned from his position as
Executive Chairman of Freeport.  On this news, Freeport stock fell
$0.72, or 9.5%, to close at $6.85 on December 28, 2015.

On January 19, 2016, pre-market, Freeport announced the
resignation of Sjamsuddin, citing "personal reasons."  On this
news, Freeport stock fell $0.39, or 8.97%, to close at $3.96 on
January 19, 2016.

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


FRONTLINE ASSET: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrat Choonoo, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Frontline Asset Stratgies, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08514
(D.N.J., December 8, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Frontline Asset Stratgies, LLC operates an accounts receivables
management in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GANNETT CO: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gannett Co., Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed
in 2014 over telemarketing calls, 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 27,
2015.

On January 2, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Gannett in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey (Casagrand et al v. Gannett Co., Inc., et al). The suit
claims various violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") arising from allegedly improper telemarketing calls made
to consumers by one of the Company's vendors. The plaintiffs seek
to certify a class that would include all telemarketing calls made
by the vendor or the Company. The TCPA provides for statutory
damages of $500 per violation ($1,500 for willful violations).

"The ultimate outcome of this proceeding is uncertain, but may be
material to our results of operations and cash flows. We are
vigorously defending the case and have asserted cross-claims
against the vendor," the Company said.


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Aluminum Sulfate Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Alexandria, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-02840 (W.D. Lo., December 16, 2015) arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement
and conspiracy to circumvent competitive bidding and independent
pricing for liquid aluminum sulfate contracts during the Class
Period and to raise prices by submitting artificially inflated
bids to Plaintiff and Class Members during the Class Period.

General Chemical Corporation operates a distribution facility in
Pine Bluff, Arkansas that manufactures and supplies of water
treatment chemicals, including ALUM.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russ M. Herman, Esq.
      Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
      John S. Creevy, Esq.
      HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
      820 O'Keefe Avenue
      New Orleans, LO 70113
      Telephone: (504) 581-4892
      Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
      E-mail: Rherman@hhklawfirm.com
              Sherman@hhklawfirm.com
              Jcreevy@hhklawfirm.com

         - and -

      Kenneth M. Carter, Esq.
      ATTORNEY AT LAW
      4521 Baronne St.
      New Orleans, LA 70115
      Telephone: (225) 634-3052
      Facsimile: (225) 634-3078
      E-mail: Kmcarter1@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Charles E. Johnson Jr., Esq.
      CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
      915 3rd St
      Alexandria, LA 71301
      Telephone: (318) 449-5015
      Facsimile: (318) 449-5019
      E-mail: Charles.Johnson@cityofalex.com


GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Cheerios Gluten-Fee Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Legal Newsline's Greg Travis, reports to the federal
Food and Drug Administration have led to consumers who purchased
Cheerios labeled as "gluten-free" filing class action lawsuits.

A Kentucky woman has filed one such lawsuit against General Mills,
Inc. alleging that two boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios labeled as
gluten-free that she had purchased actually contained gluten
levels more than two times higher than allowed under FDA
standards.

The suit, filed in a California federal court, charges violations
of California and Kentucky consumer protection laws.  It was filed
in late 2015 following FDA testing on gluten-free Cheerios that
was initiated by consumer complaints.

General Mills issued a recall on Oct. 5.

Thomas McGarity, professor of law at the University of Texas,
recently told Legal Newsline that the impetus for FDA action in
these types of cases is almost always consumer complaints.

"(W)hen it comes to food safety, [the agency has] inspectors go
out and inspect processing facilities. They've done even more of
this since the enactment of the Food Safety Modernization Act of
2010," Mr. McGarity said.

"[But] when it comes to mislabeling, that's been around for a long
time.  It has never been proactively enforced by the FDA -- it's
almost always reactive."

The FDA conducted tests on 36 samples of gluten-free Cheerios that
were taken from different manufacturing facilities and lots. Under
current regulations, the statement "gluten-free" is prohibited on
any food products that contain gluten levels above 20 parts per
million.

The FDA tests indicated that some samples of the cereal contained
levels as high as 43 ppm.  The suit alleges that supposedly
gluten-free wheat was cross contaminated with ordinary wheat at
one of General Mills' processing facilities.

General Mills, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Minneapolis, had launched an advertising campaign in September for
"gluten-free" Cheerios, placing the designation prominently on the
product packaging.  The suit alleges that this action constitutes
deceptive, unfair and false advertising and merchandising
practices as well as violations under California's Sherman Law
restricting "unlawful" business acts.

In a public statement announcing the October recall, Jim Murphy,
senior vice president and president of the cereal division, at
General Mills, stated "We've worked very hard to ensure our
products are gluten-free" but "today we must acknowledge that we
failed to meet that commitment for a time, and we're recalling all
affected products as a result."

General Mills officials have not returned phone calls from Legal
Newsline nor have they responded to email requests for an
interview regarding the case.

General Mills has been involved in numerous legal scrapes over
recent years.  In 2009, the company was warned by the FDA about
claims relating to the cholesterol-lowering effects of Toasted
Whole Grain Oat Cereal.  General Mills was compelled to clarify
labeling language used with supposed health claims, and the FDA
did not pursue further action.

In 2013, it reached an $8.5 million settlement over alleged
misstated health claims and the deceptive advertising of YoPlus
probiotic yogurt.  In that agreement, plaintiffs were awarded $4
for each unit of the product they purchased.  Another Yoplait
yogurt class-action suit was dismissed in Minnesota late in 2012,
after a federal judge ruled that the case should be settled by the
FDA.

In that case, according to Mr. McGarity, "The court was holding
that the common law suit was pre-empted by FDA labeling approval"
with "the theory being that we have a national market [but] if we
have individual juries determining what should be on the label, we
will have a cacophony of different things on labels" in different
state and local markets.

"Any company who markets nationally wouldn't know what to put on
the label" if labeling decisions were left to individual state
juries, he said.

Mr. McGarity cautions, however, that the "FDA is a small agency
with a whole lot to do" and we should be "fairly dubious" about
judicial holdings that the agency is "doing such a great job that
it should preempt the common law."

Citing concerns about the agency's lack of funding, he added that
"a person's right to sue a company that is misleading him ought
not easily be preempted by the operations of an agency that
doesn't have the resources to do a perfect job".

Thus far, attorneys for Haddix haven't disclosed what damages they
are seeking in the suit.  In a similar case filed Nov. 18 in
New York, attorneys for General Mills unveiled a settlement
proposal of $3.48 per unit, the equivalent value of the price of
the recalled Cheerios.

If agreed upon, the settlement would exceed $6.2 million.


GOPRO INC: Slapped with Class Suit for Misleading Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Usman Farooq, writing for Bidness Etc., reports that GoPro Inc.
stock has lost over 36% in 2016, pulled down by slowing Chinese
economy, guidance cuts, layoffs, and lower-than-expected camera
sales. The action camera maker is seeing its worst days since it
launched Hero 4 Session last year, which failed to make a mark in
the market.

To top it all off, an investor slapped the company with a class
action lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed at a California federal court,
claims that the management deceived investors about weak Hero 4
Session sales and failed to factor this weakness in the fourth
quarter fiscal year 2015 (4QFY15) guidance.  GoPro said that it
was cutting its 4Q guidance due to weaker-than-expected camera
sales, causing the stock price to tumble more than 14%.

The complaint, lodged by Joseph Bodri, seeks class action status
and alleges that the company and certain executives violated
federal securities laws. The lawsuit concerns anyone who bought
GoPro shares between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016.

The latest development adds to GoPro's lawsuit worries. In 2015,
GoPro was sued by Polaroid camera maker, C&A Marketing Inc., who
claimed that the company copied the design of its cube camera for
Hero 4 Session. These near-term concerns have caused the stock
price to drop to $11, down 88% from October 2014 high of $93.85.
Once a darling of the Street, GoPro could see further weakening in
its stock if the outcome of these lawsuits is not in its favor.


GUITAR CENTER: Employees Forced to Relinquish Right to Sue
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kennelty, writing for Metal Injection, reports that last 2015
produced some particularly bad news for Guitar Center, mainly an
editorial from a financial advisor explaining why the chain was
doomed and investors pulling out $11 million from the company. Now
the company is back in the news and, you guessed it, it's not all
sunshine and happiness again.

According to several reports, Guitar Center is forcing its
employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements saying
employees cannot sue the company.

The agreement, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington
Post, forces employees to relinquish their rights to sue the
company in class action lawsuits over wage violations, workplace
discrimination and unjust firings, among other disputes.

The report says arbitration agreements have become highly
controversial for the way they hamstring employees and weaken
their legal power. By sending disputes to an arbitrator, they
force workers to pursue their claims individually and outside of
court, preempting any collective action. And even though they're
supposed to be neutral third parties, arbitrators are often cozy
with the companies that workers are squaring off with, as The New
York Times detailed in a recent series.

According to The Huffington Post, the agreement does state that
employees can seek unemployment and workers' compensation, but no
lawsuits against the company can be filed against the corporation
if they violate any federal, state or local law.

Guitar Center declined to comment on the original article, says
the report.


GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Jan. 26
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaint alleges that officers and directors of GW
Pharmaceuticals plc (NASDAQGM: GWPH) violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 between December 4, 2014 and January 8, 2016,
by making materially false and misleading statements about GW
Pharmaceuticals' business prospects.  GW Pharmaceuticals plc, a
biopharmaceutical company, together with its subsidiaries, engages
in discovering, developing, and commercializing cannabinoid
prescription medicines.

GW Pharmaceuticals Accused of Failing to Implement Adequate
Internal Controls

According to the complaint, GW Pharmaceuticals filed a Form 20-F
and several Forms 6-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in 2014 and 2015, attesting to the accuracy of the
financial information and affirming that any material changes to
the company's internal controls over financial reporting were
disclosed.  However, the complaint alleges these statements were
false because the company failed to disclose that it lacked
effective internal financial controls, as well as effective
controls over completeness and valuation of clinical trial
accruals.

On December 7, 2015, GW Pharmaceuticals disclosed in its annual
report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that its
internal financial controls were not effective as of September 30,
2015.  The company stated that if the statements were prepared
improperly, it would be required to restate its financial
statements, which could result in a loss of investor confidence
and a decline in the price of its American Depository Shares.  The
Form further stated that it lacked sufficient controls to ensure
completeness of clinical trial accruals in connection with
contractual progress payment liabilities.  Then, on January 10,
2016, an article in The Sunday Times disclosed that GW
Pharmaceuticals' management had determined that it lacked
effective controls over the completeness and valuation of clinical
trial accruals.  On this news, GW Pharmaceuticals stock fell $3.55
per share, or nearly 6%, to close at $56.31 per share on
January 11, 2016.

GW Pharmaceuticals Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a shareholder rights law.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped
its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves
and the companies in which they have invested.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Still Defending Suits Related to NextEra Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian Electric Company,
Inc. are defending class action lawsuits related to the merger
agreement with NextEra Energy, Inc., Hawaiian Electric said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Since the December 3, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement,
eight purported class action complaints were filed in the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii by alleged
stockholders of HEI against HEI, Hawaiian Electric (in one
complaint), the individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's
acquisition subsidiaries.

The lawsuits are captioned as follows: Miller v. Hawaiian Electric
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2531-12 KTN (December 15,
2014) (the Miller Action); Walsh v. Hawaiian Electric Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2541-12 JHC (December 15, 2014) (the
Walsh Action); Stein v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 14-1-2555-12 KTN (December 17, 2014) (the Stein
Action); Brown v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case
No. 14-1-2643-12 RAN (December 30, 2014) (the Brown Action); Cohn
v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2642-
12 KTN (December 30, 2014) (the Cohn State Action); Guenther v.
Watanabe, et al., Case No. 15-1-003-01 ECN (January 2, 2015) (the
Guenther Action); Hudson v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 15-1-0013-01 JHC (January 5, 2015) (the Hudson
Action); Grieco v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 15-1-0094-01 KKS (January 21, 2015) (the Grieco Action).

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs in the Miller Action, the Walsh
Action, the Stein Action, the Brown Action, the Guenther Action,
and the Hudson Action filed a motion to consolidate their actions
and to appoint co-lead counsel. The Court held a hearing on this
motion on February 13, 2015 and granted consolidation and
appointment of co-lead counsel on March 6, 2015.

On March 10, 2015, plaintiffs in the consolidated state action
filed an amended complaint, and added J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC
(JP Morgan), which was HEI's financial advisor for the Merger, as
a defendant. On March 17, 2015, plaintiffs in the consolidated
state action moved for limited expedited discovery.

After limited discovery, the parties in the consolidated state
action stipulated and the Court ordered that the deadline for
defendants to respond to the amended complaint is extended
indefinitely.

On April 30, 2015, the Court consolidated the seven state actions
under the caption, In re Consolidated HEI Shareholder Cases.

On January 23, 2015, the Cohn State Action was voluntarily
dismissed. Thereafter, the same alleged stockholder plaintiff
filed a purported class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii against HEI, the
individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition
subsidiaries. The lawsuit is captioned as Cohn v. Hawaiian
Electric Industries, Inc. et al., 15-cv-00029-JMS-KSC (January 27,
2015) (the Cohn Federal Action).

On May 28, 2015, the parties agreed to stay the Cohen Federal
Action pending the outcome of the consolidated state action.

The actions allege, among other things, that members of HEI's
Board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction, and that the Merger Agreement involves an
unfair price, was the product of an inadequate sales process, and
contains unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
preclude competing offers. The complaints further allege that HEI,
NEE and/or its acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that the
Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of HEI's directors'
fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction enjoining the HEI Board from
consummating the Merger, (iii) an order directing the HEI Board to
exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best
interests of HEI's stockholders, (iv) a rescission of the Merger
to the extent that it is consummated, and/or (v) damages suffered
as a result of the defendants' alleged actions. Plaintiffs in the
consolidated state action also allege that JP Morgan had a
conflict of interest in advising HEI because JP Morgan and its
affiliates had business ties to and investments in NEE.

The consolidated state action also alleges that the HEI board of
directors violated its fiduciary duties by omitting material facts
from the Registration Statement on Form S-4. In addition, the Cohn
Federal Action alleges that the HEI board of directors violated
its fiduciary duties and federal securities laws by omitting
material facts from the Registration Statement on Form S-4.
HEI and Hawaiian Electric believe the allegations of the
complaints are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.


HEALTH AND HOSPITAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Walker, Elizabeth Fisher, and Candace Hash, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly-situated v. The Health and
Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Case No. 1:15-cv-01978-JMS-
TAB (S.D. Ind., December 16, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County is a
municipal corporation that maintains offices and conducts business
within the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan C. Fox, Esq.
      Craig M. Williams, Esq.
      Ryan P. Sink, Esq.
      FOX WILLIAMS & SINK, LLC
      8465 Keystone Crossing, Suite 250
      Indianapolis, IN 46240
      Telephone: (317) 254-8500
      Facsimile: (844) 273-6464
      E-mail: cwilliams@fwslegal.com
              rfox@fwslegal.com
              rsink@fwslegal.com


HEALTHWAYS INC: Junk Fax Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
Healthways, 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 lawsuit alleging
violations of the Junk Fax Prevention Act has been removed to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Eastern Division.

On September 16, 2014, Healthways and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Healthways WholeHealth Networks, Inc. ("HWHN"), were named in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Edward Simon, DC in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, seeking
damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act ("JFPA"), in connection with faxes allegedly
transmitted to members of HWHN's network of complementary and
alternative care practitioners. The JFPA prohibits sending an
"unsolicited advertisement" to a fax machine and requires the
sender to provide a notice to allow a recipient to "opt out" of
future fax transmissions (including, pursuant to rules promulgated
by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), those sent with
the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient). The
complaint seeks damages in excess of $5 million.

The Company also disclosed that on December 22, 2014, Healthways
WholeHealth Networks, Inc. ("HWHN"), was named in a putative class
action lawsuit filed by Affiliated Health Care Associates, P.C. in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division ("Illinois Matter"), seeking damages
and other relief relating to alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, and Illinois common law in connection with
faxes allegedly sent to members of HWHN's network of complementary
and alternative care practitioners. The complaint seeks damages in
an unstated amount.

On May 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the Illinois Matter voluntarily
dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice; that plaintiff has been
joined as a party in the California Matter.

"We deny the claims and intend to vigorously defend these
actions," the Company said.


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Settlement in Cato Action Paid by Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in the case,
Cato Capital, LLC v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 9-549-GMS, no Company
funds were used to pay the settlement, which was paid from the
Company's insurance coverage.

On December 21, 2012, a putative federal securities class action
Complaint was filed against the Company and three of its Officers
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. This action, Stephanie A. Frater v. Hemispherx
Biopharma, Inc., et al., was purportedly brought on behalf of a
putative class of Hemispherx investors who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between March 14, 2012 and December 17,
2012. The Complaint generally asserted that Defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the status of
the Company's New Drug Application for Ampligen(R), which had been
filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration, in
alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On March 14, 2013, the Court appointed Hemispherx Investor Group
as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4. Pursuant to
the Court's March 29, 2013 scheduling order, Lead Plaintiff filed
a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint") on May 20, 2013, and in its Amended Complaint, dropped
Thomas K. Equels and Charles T. Bernhardt as Defendants and added
David R. Strayer, M.D. and Wayne Pambianchi as Defendants. The
Amended Complaint alleges an expanded Class Period of March 14,
2012 to December 20, 2012, which period encompasses statements
made in the Company's 2011 Form 10-K filed on March 14, 2012, and
at the FDA Advisory Committee Meeting on December 20, 2012.

On July 19, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. Lead Plaintiff filed its brief in opposition to
Defendants' motion to dismiss is September 17, 2013, and
Defendants filed their reply brief on October 17, 2013.

On January 24, 2014, the court entered an order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and on
February 20, 2014, entered a scheduling order imposing, inter
alia, a March 31, 2015 deadline for completion of all fact
discovery.

On February 25, 2014, defendants filed an answer and affirmative
defenses to the Amended Compliant. Also on February 25, 2014, the
Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order, which will govern all
confidential documents produced in discovery.

After conducting significant fact discovery, the parties reached
an agreement in principle to settle all claims on December 31,
2014. However, the settlement is subject to the Court's issuance
of an order finally approving the terms of the parties' settlement
agreement in all material respects. On March 11, 2015, the parties
filed a joint motion with the Court seeking an order, inter alia,
granting preliminary approval of their settlement agreement,
preliminarily certifying a class for settlement purposes, and
setting a date for a final settlement hearing.

On April 8, 2015, the Court granted the parties' joint motion, and
entered an Order preliminarily approving the parties' settlement,
preliminarily certifying a class for settlement purposes,
directing issuance of notice, and scheduling the final approval
hearing for July 22, 2015.

On July 22, 2015, the Court held the final approval hearing to
determine whether the parties' settlement is fair, reasonable,
adequate and should be approved, and on the same date entered an
Order granting final approval of the parties' settlement. No
Company funds were used to pay the settlement, which was paid from
the Company's insurance coverage. The settlement did not contain
any admission of fault or wrongdoing by Hemispherx or any of the
individual defendants.


HESKA CORPORATION: To Defend "Fauley" Junk Fax Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heska Corporation will defend against a class action lawsuit by
Shaun Fauley, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

"On March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed against us by Shaun
Fauley in the United States District Court Northern District of
Illinois alleging our transmittal of unauthorized faxes in
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, as a
class action seeking stated damages of the greater of actual
monetary loss or five hundred dollars per violation," the Company
said. "We intend to defend the Company vigorously in this matter."


HI TECH: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Illegal Telemarketing Campaign
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Waterbury, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Hi Tech Remodeling, Group, Inc., and Does 1 - 10, Case
No. 3:15-cv-02824-L-RBB (S.D. Cal., December 16, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection with respect to the Defendant's illegal, nationwide
telemarketing campaign.

Hi Tech Remodeling, Group, Inc. operates a home remodeling company
which performs tasks such as installing or fixing roofs, bathroom
remodeling, kitchen remodeling, room additions and similar home
improvement projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
      Alanna J. Pearl, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KIRA M. RUBEL
      555 West Beech Street, Suite 230
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (800) 836-6531
      E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com


HOLLISTER CO: Slapped with $5M Suit Over On-Call Shifts Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that
retailer Hollister Company (Hollister) has been hit with a
California labor lawsuit over policies regarding on-call shifts
that many major retailers have already begun to back away from.
While there has been no word on whether Hollister will take a
similar cue, the lead plaintiff in what has been proposed as a
class-action lawsuit is looking for nothing less than $5 million
after accusing her former employer of improper compensation.

According to court documents, Maria Garcia worked for a year as a
sales clerk at Hollister in one of the retailer's Los Angeles
stores. One aspect of her job -- and those of other employees --
involved being available for on-call shifts either scheduled in
advance, or shifts for which employees were called in on a more
impromptu basis.

According to Garcia's California labor code lawsuit, employees
were required to be available as part of their workweek for two
kinds of on-call shifts: a scheduled stand-alone on-call, where
employees would be required to either report to the workplace or
at the very least call in to see if they were needed that day, or
call-in shifts that could be scheduled either immediately before
or after an employee's regular shift.

In all situations, an employee would have to clear the day to be
available for a call-in shift and were prevented from contacting
the employer to see if the employee would be needed after all,
prior to one hour before the scheduled start of their on-call
shift.

Here's where Garcia's California labor lawsuit comes in: were an
employee to report for a call-in shift, only to be told after the
fact that the employee wasn't needed after all, there was oft
times no compensation for the employee for his or her time, or so
it is alleged.

Garcia alleges such lack of compensation is a violation of
California Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law.

"While employees must treat all call-in shifts as mandatory,
defendant frequently does not allow employees to work a scheduled
call-in shift, thereby depriving the employee of the opportunity
to earn wages for the time they have made available to defendant,"
Garcia says, in her complaint. "Regardless of how many days and
hours employees are in fact permitted to work, employees are
required to mold their lives around the possibility that they will
work each and every call-in shift."

Garcia asserts that all too often, employees were not paid. She
also asserts in her California labor employment law class action
that Hollister did not pay employees who had left the employ of
the company in a timely manner, and failed to issue correct wage
statements to employees.

In addition to monetary compensation, Garcia and those similarly
situated are seeking an injunction to force an end to the
scheduling practice at Hollister -- a decision made by other large
retailers following an inquiry into the practice by the attorney
general for the state of New York last spring. Garcia et al want
Hollister to end the practice as well.

The California and labor law class action is Garcia v. Hollister
Company, Case number 2:16-cv-00154, in the US District Court for
the Central District of California.


HUMANA INC: Accord Reached in Kentucky Suits; Del. Cases Dropped
----------------------------------------------------------------
Humana 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 the Delawar
class actions over the Company's merger with Aetna, Inc., have
withdrawn the lawsuits pending approval of a settlement reached in
the class actions filed in Kentucky court.

On July 2, 2015, Humana entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Aetna Inc. and certain wholly owned subsidiaries of
Aetna Inc., which sets forth the terms and conditions under which
Humana will merge with, and become a wholly owned subsidiary of
Aetna.

In connection with the Merger, three putative class action
complaints were filed by purported Humana stockholders challenging
the Merger, two in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky
and one in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The
complaints are captioned Solak v. Broussard et al., Civ. Act. No.
15CI03374 (Kentucky state court), Litwin v. Broussard et al., Civ.
Act. No. 15CI04054 (Kentucky state court) and Scott v. Humana Inc.
et al., C.A. No. 11323-VCL (Delaware state court). The complaints
name as defendants each member of Humana's board of directors,
Aetna, and, in the case of the Delaware complaint, Humana.

"The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
individual members of our board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to our stockholders by entering into the
Merger Agreement, approving the mergers as contemplated by the
Merger Agreement, and failing to take steps to maximize the value
of Humana to our stockholders, and that Aetna, and, in the case of
the Delaware complaint, Humana aided and abetted such breaches of
fiduciary duties," the Company said. "In addition, the complaints
allege that the merger undervalues Humana, that the process
leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement was flawed,
that the members of our board of directors improperly placed their
own financial interests ahead of those of our stockholders, and
that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement improperly favor
Aetna and impede a potential alternative transaction. Among other
remedies, the complaints seek equitable relief rescinding the
Merger Agreement and enjoining the defendants from completing the
mergers as well as costs and attorneys' fees. We refer to all
these cases collectively in this report as the Merger Litigation."

On August 20, 2015, the parties in the Kentucky state cases filed
a stipulation and proposed order with the court to consolidate
these cases into a single action captioned In re Humana Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Civ. Act. No. 15CI03374.

On October 9, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Humana and the other named defendants in
the Merger Litigation signed a memorandum of understanding, which
we refer to as the MOU, to settle the Merger Litigation. Subject
to court approval and further definitive documentation in a
stipulation of settlement that will be subject to customary
conditions, the MOU resolved the claims brought in the Merger
Litigation and provided that Humana would make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed mergers.

The MOU further provided for, among other things, dismissal of the
Merger Litigation with prejudice and a release and settlement by
the purported class of Humana stockholders of all claims against
the defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection with
the Merger Agreement and transactions and disclosures related to
the Merger Agreement. The asserted claims will not be released
until such stipulation of settlement receives court approval. The
foregoing terms and conditions will be defined by the stipulation
of settlement, and class members will receive a separate notice
describing the settlement terms and their rights in connection
with the approval of the settlement.

In connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses. Humana will pay or cause to be paid
any court awarded attorneys' fees and expenses. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that a court will approve such
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. Because the MOU
contemplates that the Kentucky court will be asked to approve the
settlement, the plaintiffs have already withdrawn the Delaware
case.


IDI INC: Florida Court Dismissed "Heim" Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDI, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the a Florida court has
dismissed the case, Garrett Heim v. IDI, Inc., et al.

On or about July 22, 2015, IDI, Inc., Peter W.H. Tan, Derek
Dubner, and Jacky Wang were named as defendants in a class action
complaint alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws,
captioned Garrett Heim v. IDI, Inc., et al., Case No. 9:15-CV-
81019-BB, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

On September 10, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida dismissed the securities class action
lawsuit.  This action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
with no payment made to plaintiff or plaintiff's attorneys.


ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: "Tawil" Suit Transferred to New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tawil v. Illinois Tool Works Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:15-Cv-06808, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton). The New
Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-08747-FLW-
LHG to the Proceeding.

Plaintiff bought and installed Rain-X windshield washer fluid that
was unsuitable for their vehicles, leading to damaged electronic
windshield washer fluid sensors requiring expensive repairs.
Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to the New Jersey Products
Liability Act and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an injunction
barring Defendants from marketing and selling Rain-X for use in
all vehicles; and punitive.

Illinois Tool Works manufactures and sells industrial products and
equipment worldwide. It operates through seven segments:
Automotive OEM; Test & Measurement and Electronics; Food
Equipment; Polymers & Fluids; Welding; Construction Products; and
Specialty Products. The Automotive OEM segment produces components
and fasteners for automotive-related applications. The company is
based in Glenview, Illinois. South/Win engages in the manufacture
and distribution of car care products for consumer and commercial
use. It offers windshield washer fluids, RV and marine antifreeze
products, auto appearance products, marine appearance products,
pressure washer cleaning chemicals, and more. The company also
provides industrial and private label products, and is based in
Reidsville, North Carolina. The Defendants manufacture,
distribute, and promote Rain-X windshield washer fluid for use in
motor vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq
          Shanon J Carson, Esq
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3038
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4636
          E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          B. John Pendleton , Jr.
          James Vincent Noblett, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          51 John F. Kennedy Parkway, Suite 120
          Short Hills, NJ 07078-2704
          Telephone: (973) 520 2561
          Facsimile: (973) 520 2581
          E-mail: John.Pendleton@dlapiper.com
                  james.noblett@dlapiper.com


INEEDMD HOLDINGS: Settlement Talks Continue in "Makover" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ineedmd Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company and
its board of directors are currently involved in litigation
against Michael E. Makover, M.D. ("Makover"). On April 30, 2015,
Makover filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware alleging claims including breaches of
fiduciary duties. On October 29, 2015, by agreement of the
parties, the class action complaint was withdrawn and a first
amended verified complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware with Makover as the sole plaintiff. As of
the date of the Form 10-Q Report, the Company and Makover are
continuing good faith settlement discussions to work towards an
amicable resolution of this matter.


INNOVATIVE FOOD: "Aviles" Calif. Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
California Superior Court, Los Angeles Division, entitled Jerry
Aviles v. The Fresh Diet Inc., et al., Case No. BC 599373.  Fresh
Diet is a subsidiary of publicly traded Innovative Food Holdings,
Inc.

The complaint alleged purported violations of the California
Automatic Renewal Law, accusing Fresh Diet of offering materials
that do not contain in a prominent place appropriate language
relating to automatic renewal of the program they purchased, in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Sec. 17603, et al.

Court records show that Fresh Diet moved to dismiss this class
action case and the Court did so on Jan. 6, 2016.


ISORAY INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
IsoRay, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend against a securities class action
complaint.  An amended class action complaint has been filed in
the case.

On May 22, 2015, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in U.S. District Court against
IsoRay, Inc., its CEO/Chairman and its CFO.  The complaint related
to a press release issued by the Company on May 20, 2015 and is
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of IsoRay, Inc.
common stock from May 20, 2015 through and including May 21, 2015.

On October 16, 2015, an amended class action complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws was filed in U.S District
Court for Eastern District of Washington against IsoRay, Inc. and
its CEO/Chairman. The class period remains unchanged at 27 hours
and its CFO was dropped as a defendant. The Company had until
December 15, 2015 to respond to the amended complaint.

The complaint, as amended, asserts that the purchasers were misled
by the press release, and seeks, among other things, damages and
costs and expenses.

"We cannot predict the outcome of such proceedings or an estimate
of damages, if any. We believe that these claims are without merit
and intend to defend them vigorously," the Company said.


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Collie" Suit Over Invokana(R) Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luana Jean Collie v. Janssen Research & Development, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 15:-15-cv-603066 (S.D. Ala., December 15, 2015) arises
from the injuries to the Plaintiff as a proximate result of taking
the prescription drug Invokana(R), also known as canagliflozin.

Invokana (canafgliflozin) is a prescription drug for the treatment
of type 2 diabetes.

Janssen Research & Development, LLC operates a pharmaceutical
company with a principal place of business at 920 Route 202,
Raritan NJ 08869.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      B. Kristian W. Rasmussen, Esq.
      Richard A. Wright, Esq.
      CORY WATSON, P.C.
      2131 Magnolia Avenue, Ste. 200
      Birmingham, AL 35205
      Telephone: (205) 328-2200
      Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
      E-mail: rwright@corywatson.com

         - and -

      Michael B. Lynch, Esq.
      Amy E. German, Esq.
      THE MICHAEL BRADY LYNCH FIRM
      127 West Fairbanks Ave., Suite 528
      Winter Park, FL 32789
      Telephone: (877) 513-9517
      Facsimile: (321) 972-3568
      E-mail: Michael@mblynchfirm.com


JC FODALE: Faces "Meador" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Meador, Stephen Allen, Dallas Thompson and Paul Whitworth
v. JC Fodale Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01124 (W.D.
Tex., December 16, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

JC Fodale Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services provider,
which provides containment berms, vacuum trucks, wire line/TCP
services, mixing plants, laydown machines, frac tanks, gas
busters, construction services and 24-hour emergency response.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JETS: Settles Cheerleaders' Wage Class Action for $324,000
----------------------------------------------------------
John C. Ensslin, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that in a
move that could send a signal to teams in other NFL cities, the
Jets have agreed to pay nearly $324,000 to cheerleaders to settle
a class-action lawsuit in which women claimed they were cheated
out of wages, ordered to practices but not paid and forced to
cover work-related expenses, like makeup, hair care and
transportation.

The lawsuit, settled on Jan. 22 in state Superior Court in Bergen
County, is one of several filed against NFL teams as the league
faces pressure from lawmakers in New Jersey and other states to
pay cheerleaders according to labor laws.

The settlement comes as the National Football League is contending
with broader public relations fights over concussions and lawsuits
brought by former players.  It also occurs at a time when the NFL
has toughened its domestic violence policy after Commissioner
Roger Goodell apologized in August 2014 for his handling of an
incident in an Atlantic City hotel in which a surveillance camera
captured player Ray Rice knocking his fiancee unconscious in an
elevator.

The 52 current and former cheerleaders covered in the Bergen
County case were all members of the squad known as The Flight Crew
during the 2012 and 2013 seasons.

The lawsuit was filed in August 2014 by a former cheerleader
identified only as "Krystal C." in the court documents.  Her
lawyer, Patricia V. Pierce, said none of the women in the class
action were identified by name in the lawsuit to protect them from
other problems, including stalkers.

According to Ms. Pierce, the women were paid $150 per game and
issued cheerleader uniforms but were not paid for other work.

She said their compensation did not include time spent learning
cheerleader routines and practicing them.  She said they were not
reimbursed for expenses they incurred to conform to the image
required of the cheerleading squad.

For example, all the cheerleaders were required to have straight
hair, Pierce said.  So Krystal, who has naturally curly hair, had
to have hers straightened.

Ms. Pierce said the team did not pay for time and cost of travel
to and from home games.  The squad did not attend road games, she
said.

"When you figure all that up, they were making less than minimum
wage," Ms. Pierce said.

She said the Jets changed their employment practices with
cheerleaders after Krystal filed the suit.

Jets spokesman Bruce Speight referred to a statement drafted when
the two sides first reached a preliminary agreement to settle the
case in August.

"The Jets deny the claims and the parties have agreed to a
settlement to avoid the expense, time and distraction of
litigation," the statement read.  A spokesman for the team could
not be reached for comment.

As part of the settlement, Jets made no admission of "any
liability of wrongdoing whatsoever."

Under the terms of the agreement, the women will receive $2,559 to
$5,913 each, depending upon whether they worked one or both
seasons and whether they took part in 2012 and 2013 photo shoots
for the Jets' annual Flight Crew calendars.

Krystal also was awarded an additional $5,000 for her role in
initiating the class action lawsuit.  All told, the 52 women will
receive $205,433.

Their lawyers will be paid about $112,000 in fees and expenses. An
additional $6,500 will go to a claims administrator.

The lawsuit is part of a larger trend involving current and former
cheerleaders contesting the terms of their compensation.

According to an April 2014 story in the Los Angeles Times, former
cheerleaders for the Oakland Raiders, Cincinnati Bengals and the
Buffalo Bills have filed lawsuits against the teams alleging they
were owed compensation for unpaid work.

Earlier in January, state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck,
sponsored a bill that would extend employment protections normally
afforded under New Jersey law to cheerleaders affiliated with
professional sports teams.

"This would hopefully start calling attention to how these women .
. . are underpaid and not protected," she said.

Sen. Weinberg said she introduced the bill at the request of
Assemblywoman Rebecca Seawright, D-N.Y., who along with several
other lawmakers has co-sponsored a bill pending in Albany.

The New Jersey bill would require that cheerleaders are covered by
laws governing minimum wage and hours, workers' compensation,
unemployment and temporary disability benefits.

Sen. Weinberg said she was unaware of any other professional
sports teams in New Jersey that have cheerleaders. The Giants do
not have a cheerleading squad.

When asked about the pending legislation in New Jersey and New
York, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said, "We expect clubs to
comply with federal, state and local wage laws."

Ms. Pierce said similar legislation had been introduced in
California.

"I think it's long overdue," Ms. Pierce said.


KEEPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune,
reports that exotic dancers who perform at the Keepers Gentlemen's
Club in Milford claim they haven't been paid fairly.  They say
they haven't received minimum wage and aren't even allowed to keep
all the tips customers give them.  The women took their complaint
to the state court system last year, but a judge recently
concluded they will have to fight for fair wages before an
arbitrator instead.

While the case may involve seminude performers, it focuses on two
legal issues that have been very much in the employment law
mainstream in recent years: workers questioning whether they are
being improperly classified as independent contractors instead of
full-fledged employees; and contract clauses requiring worker
complaints to be adjudicated through arbitration rather than
litigated in court.

Six women brought a lawsuit against Keepers Inc. and its president
and director, Joseph Regensburger, in Superior Court in New Haven
in March 2015.  The plaintiffs -- Crystal Horrocks of New Haven,
Yaritza Reyes of New York, Dina Danielle Caviello of Wolcott,
Jacquelyne Green of Bristol, Sugeily Ortiz of Stratford and
Zuleyma Bella Lopez of Branford -- claim violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  The women claim that club management hasn't
paid them minimum wage for the hours they have worked and failed
to pay them time-and-a-half for overtime.

"The defendants have unjustly and unlawfully enriched themselves
at the expense of their employees," their lawsuit claims.

Stephen Bellis of the Pellegrino Law Firm in New Haven, who
represents the gentleman's club, filed a motion seeking a stay of
the proceedings until arbitration could take place.  According to
Mr. Bellis' motion, the women signed agreements to use binding
arbitration in any dispute with the club based on state or federal
statute, and also signed "employment lease agreements"
acknowledging they are independent contractors rather than full-
fledged employees.  The plaintiffs had claimed any entertainment
lease agreement should be void because it sought to implement an
allegedly "illegal employment scheme."

Disc Jockey Fee

In a 14-page decision issued Jan. 4, Superior Court Judge Robin
Wilson concluded the women's wage claims fall within the scope of
an arbitration agreement and should be decided by an arbitrator.
Wilson granted the defendants' motion for a stay of the court
proceedings.

"We feel Judge Wilson made the correct decision," Mr. Bellis said.
"There were contracts signed by the entertainers, in which they
agreed to go to arbitration in the case of any dispute."

Mr. Bellis said on Jan. 25 he is in the process of conferring with
attorneys to decide on an arbitrator and schedule arbitration
hearings. He said he expects any hearings to occur within the next
couple of months.

A. Paul Spinella of Spinella & Associates of Hartford, who
represents most of the dancers, did not immediately comment.  But
Hartford attorney

Kenneth Krayeske, who represents Ms. Caviello, said the women
sought to bring the court action on behalf of a class of exotic
dancers. With the case going before an arbitrator, only the women
involved in the complaint may secure damages.  "I hope we get many
more women in this industry to stand up," Mr. Krayeske said.

In their objection to the defendants' motion to dismiss, the
plaintiffs' attorneys wrote, "This is not a new issue for courts
across the country, as dancers in state after state have won
verdicts and arbitration awards stating they are employees and
therefore eligible for the benefits of employment, including
minimum wage and overtime.  Courts in multiple jurisdictions have
found the entertainer lease agreements, like the ones at issue in
this case, to be unjust and thus have voided them."

The women claim the exotic, or topless, dance club in Milford
brings in annual gross sales in excess of $500,000 a year.  The
women stated in their lawsuit that they performed on stage, in
common areas and in semiprivate rooms, and that they would earn
tips from customers.  They worked at the club from about 2011 to
2014, court documents show.

In general, the women claimed violations of the FLSA, citing
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime and unlawful deduction from wages.
According to their lawsuit, the club's management improperly made
them share their tips and gratuities.  They had to pay a "house
fee" as a condition of employment, and had to pay a fee to the
disc jockey on the night they worked, the lawsuit alleged.

"You can't make somebody pay to work," Mr. Krayeske said.  "It is
astonishing that this is allowed to happen.  It is an exploitive
business model.  These club owners have all the bargaining power.
They say the dancers can't work there unless they sign a contract,
and then they have to sign away all their rights."

Through their lawsuit, the women sought all lost wages and
economic benefits, costs and attorney fees, treble damages for
failure to pay wages, compensatory damages and interest.

"The plaintiffs, who have no real opportunities to profit from the
success of the defendants' business, have depended on customers'
tips and gratuities, which make their opportunities for profit or
loss a function of how much money customers have and are willing
to spend," their complaint states.

Their lawsuit claims the women were misclassified by the club as
"independent contractors," even though club management controlled
their work schedule, conduct, dress, songs they danced to and
rates they charged for dances.  Their litigation claims the
misclassification meant they weren't able to receive the benefits
associated with being full-fledged employees, such as workers'
compensation or unemployment benefits, if they were to lose their
jobs.

The women still can pursue their FLSA allegations, but they have
to go through an arbitrator, under Wilson's ruling.

"The arbitration agreement provides that the scope of the
arbitrator's authority is to decide any and all claims, state or
federal, that arise between the plaintiffs and the defendants,"
the judge wrote.  "The claim that the entertainment lease
agreement violates state and federal employment laws, as well as
public policy considerations, falls within the arbitration
agreement's 'any and all controversies' requirement."

Mr. Krayeske noted other exotic dancers have gotten remuneration
through arbitration.  In 2013, in D'Antuono v. C & G of Groton, an
arbitrator found that two exotic dancers who worked at the Gold
Club in Groton were employees who should have been paid wages.
The arbitrator in that case awarded one woman $58,757 and the
other $69,738.


LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER: Inmate May File Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the captioned case GLENN VERSER, No. N-72074, Plaintiff, v.
STEPHEN DUNCAN, et al., Defendants, Case No.: 3:15-cv-01263-SMY,
(S.D. Ill.), District Judge Staci M. Yandle granted Plaintiff's
motion to file an amended complaint and dismissed the newly
amended complaint as to Count 4 and Defendant Heather Cecil
without prejudice.

Glenn Verser was recently released from prison. At all times
relevant to this case, he was incarcerated at the Lawrence
Correctional Center in Sumner, Illinois. Proceeding pro se, Verser
brought this civil rights action in the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.  Although the original
complaint underwent a preliminary review, Plaintiff Verser (while
incarcerated) filed a proposed amended complaint, which the Court
construes as a motion for leave to amend. In accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), Plaintiff may amend the
complaint without the Court's permission; accordingly, the motion
to amend will be granted.

Verser generally alleges his constitutional rights were violated
during a strip search and cell shakedown conducted by the Orange
Crush Tactical Team at Lawrence on July 10, 2014. Verser has named
as defendants 69 Illinois Department of Corrections employees and
"Unknown Members of the Tactical Team Known as the Orange Crush."
Relative to the July 10, 2014 search effort, Plaintiff claims some
defendants conducted the search in a humiliating manner, violated
the Prison Rape Elimination Act, single-cuffed Plaintiff behind
his back despite knowing Plaintiff had a medical permit
prohibiting him being cuffed in that fashion, physically assaulted
him, and ignored his medical needs. Other defendants allegedly
failed to intervene to prevent those actions. "All defendants"
were purportedly informed of Plaintiff's medical permit and
ignored his "serious medical needs."

Plaintiff filed a motion to file an amended complaint.

In her Memorandum and Order dated December 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/slOE1wfrom Leagle.com, Judge Yandle granted
Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint.  The Court
dismissed without prejudice with respect to the newly amended
complaint, Count 4 and Defendant Heather Cecil and with respect
Counts 1-3 of the newly amended complaint shall proceed.

Glenn Verser, Plaintiff, Pro Se


LECOM COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Benion" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Benion, Zachary Goodgall, Damon Franklin, Leslie Morgan, and
all others similarly situated v. Lecom Communications, Inc., and
Lecom, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-14367-DML-MKM (E.D. Mich., December
16, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide telecommunications services to businesses
and individuals, and serve as a subcontractor for the national
cable service company Comcast.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      David M. Blanchard, Esq.
      BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
      221 North Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 929-4313


LINKEDIN: Judge Asked to Approve $13-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for The Daily Online, reports that more than
half a million LinkedIn members will receive $16 each as part of
the company's settlement of a lawsuit alleging it misappropriated
users' names by sending email invitations to their friends.

Those figures were revealed in new court papers asking U.S.
District Court Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of
California to grant final approval to the $13 million settlement.
The deal calls for LinkedIn to distribute at least $9 million of
the fund to members who claim their identities were wrongly used
by LinkedIn.

Class counsel says in a motion that the settlement is "fair,
reasonable and adequate."

They add that the settlement's monetary terms are "particularly
impressive in light of other recent class action settlements in
the area of digital privacy."

In the last several years, Web companies including Google and
Facebook have settled other privacy cases by agreeing to create a
fund that makes payments to nonprofits, but not to individual
users who were affected by the alleged lapses.

The papers state that around 550,000 users have submitted claims
to the company. Assuming they're valid, LinkedIn will end up
paying around $16 to each claimant. The lawyers who brought the
case could receive more than $3 million in attorneys' fees.

If accepted by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern
District of California, the deal will resolve a battle dating to
September of 2013, when a group of LinkedIn users accused the
company of violating the federal wiretap law by "hacking" into
their email accounts, in order to harvest their friends'
addresses.

The users -- including a former manager of international
advertising sales for The New York Times -- also alleged that
LinkedIn misappropriated their names and identities by sending a
series of three email invitations to their friends. While the
users acknowledged that the company asked them for permission to
grow their networks, they argued that the service made only
"cryptic disclosures" before harvesting email addresses and
sending invitations.

Koh narrowed the case in 2014, when she rejected the hacking claim
on the grounds that the users agreed to transmit an initial email
invitation to their friends. But she allowed the consumers to
proceed with claims regarding the two follow-up emails.

LinkedIn subsequently argued that it had a free-speech right to
send those follow-up emails, on the theory that the service helps
people to communicate with each other. In November of 2014 Koh
rejected that argument; soon after that decision, LinkedIn and the
consumers agreed to resolve the case out of court.

The settlement also requires LinkedIn to revise some of its prior
practices. Among others, LinkedIn will change the disclosures it
makes when asking people to grow their networks via the automated
"Add Connections" feature. Now, the company will explicitly state
that its "Add Connections" tool imports people's address books.
LinkedIn also will let people who use Add Connections wield more
control over which contacts receive the automated invitations and
follow-up emails.

Class counsel wrote that those new obligations "are designed to
address, remedy, and prospectively prevent the fundamental harms
that gave rise to this litigation."


LOGMEIN INC: Wins Dismissal of Customer Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that software provider LogMeIn on Jan. 27 won summary judgment and
dismissal of federal class action claims in Fresno, Calif. that it
did not properly inform customers that its free remote-access app
might be replaced by a paid-for app.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer Thurston found that lead plaintiff
Darren Handy was unable to refute LogMeIn's evidence that it did
inform users that it could terminate its LogMeIn Free app.

LogMeIn at one point provided two products that gave customers
remote access to desktop computers through a virtual private
network. LogMeIn Free, the free app, allowed access from another
laptop or desktop computer, while its paid app, Ignition, allowed
access from a tablet or smartphone.

Handy said he installed LogMeIn Free in 2009 and then bought
Ignition for $29.99 a year later, thinking it was a premium
supplement to LogMeInFree.

In early 2014, LogMeIn introduced a third product, LogMeIn Pro,
which required a subscription and annual fee. The company posted
on its website that it was planning to gradually migrate users of
Ignition and the free app to the new product, and said it would
unify its portfolio of free and premium remote access products
into the paid-only offering.

The LogMeIn Free app was discontinued, but the Ignition app
continued to work.

Handy claimed that Ignition and LogMeIn Free were so inextricably
intertwined that consumers would only use Ignition in tandem with
LogMeIn Free, so the company effectively discontinued both apps.

Thurston disagreed, pointing out that Handy used LogMeIn Free for
more than a year before buying Ignition, then used Ignition for
more than a year after LogMeIn Free was discontinued.

"The fact that plaintiff wanted to use both services and did so
does not establish that defendant's actions as to one product
constituted an action as to the other. The fact that some other
users wanted to use - and did use - both products and assumed that
they were meant to do so, proves nothing," Thurston wrote.

Because the products were not intertwined, there was no need for
LogMeIn to remind Handy when he purchased Ignition that LogMeIn
Free could be terminated, the judge said, noting that LogMeIn
Free's terms and conditions stated that the app could be
terminated.

"The failure of a consumer to read the terms and conditions before
accepting them is insufficient to avoid the contract," Thurston
wrote.

Nor did she buy Handy's false advertising claim based on LogMeIn's
statement on its website that it was going to "gradually" phase
out Ignition as it moved to LogMeIn Pro. Handy claimed that the
company never actually discontinued Ignition and that the
statement was intended to induce customers to pay for the new app.

But Thurston said that though Ignition continues to work, this
does not show that LogMeIn did not intend, or does not intend, to
discontinue Ignition at some point.

She added that the statement did not trick Handy, since he did not
buy a subscription as a result. Except for a few weeks, he
continued to use the service uninterrupted throughout 2014 and
2015, Thurston said.

"While he may be outraged by what he feels occurred to others, the
court is not clear why he believes that this outrage makes him
aggrieved such that he can vindicate this grievance in this
litigation," Thurston wrote, granting summary judgment and closing
the case.

LogMeIn declined to comment on the case and an attorney for Handy
did not return a request for comment.

The case captioned, DARREN HANDY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOGMEIN, INC.,
Defendant. Case No.: 1:14-cv-01355-JLT (E.D. Cal.).


LOKEY OLDSMOBILE: "Dettloff" Suit Goes to Middle Dist. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dettloff v. Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc.
et al., Case No. 15-007187-CI, was removed from Sixth Judicial
Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District Of Florida (Tampa). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02885-JSM-EAJ to the proceeding.

Lokey Oldsmobile retails automobiles. The company offers sale of
new and used automobiles and their parts and services. The company
is based in Clearwater, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blair Mendes, Esq.
          Isaac R. Ruiz-Carus, Esq.
          James L. Wilkes II, Esq.
          Joanna M. Greber, Esq.
          WILKES & MCHUGH, PA
          1 N Dale Mabry Hwy, Suite 800
          Tampa, FL 33609-2755
          Telephone: (813) 873 0026
          Facsimile: (813) 286 8820
          E-mail: bmendes@wilkesmchugh.com
                  iruiz-carus@wilkesmchugh.com
                  jwilkes@wilkesmchugh.com
                  jgreber@wilkesmchugh.com

               - and -

          Marchelle Angelique Wiley, Esq.
          REISBERG LAW
          777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1210
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 371 9617
          Facsimile: (305) 371 9628
          E-mail: mwiley@Riesberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Larry Martin Roth, Esq.
          Samantha Crawford Duke, Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
          300 S Orange Ave Ste 1400
          PO Box 11873
          Orlando, FL 32802-1873
          Telephone: (407) 872 7300
          Facsimile: (407) 841 2133
          E-mail: lroth@rumberger.com
                  sduke@rumberger.com


LYFT: Settles Drivers' Class Action in California Out of Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline O'Donovan, writing for Buzz Feed News, reports that
drivers suing Lyft as part of a class action lawsuit in California
settled their complaint outside of court on Jan. 26.

The $12.25 million settlement does not reclassify the more than
100,000 Lyft drivers in the class as employees, which the attorney
in the case, Shannon Liss-Riordan, said she had "hoped for" in her
statement.  The drivers will continue to be classified as
independent contractors, without access to the same benefits and
protections of Lyft employees.

In an email to Buzz Feed News, Liss-Riordan calculated that
drivers who drove more than 30 hours a week in half of the weeks
they spent working on Lyft "should get on average more than about
$1,000" each.  She said the size of this settlement is around 20%
of what she would have expected Lyft drivers to be awarded had she
won the case.

Boston-based attorney Ms. Liss-Riordan has become well-known for
her crusade to reclassify contract workers in the on-demand
economy as employees.  In a statement, she called the settlement a
"good resolution," and said, because of an arbitration clause in
the Lyft drivers' contracts, it was unlikely her firm would have
won the case.

"It would have been very difficult if not impossible to achieve
global changes at Lyft other than through a settlement agreement,"
she said.

In a separate statement, Lyft's general counsel Kristin Sverchek
said the company is "pleased," and committed to building a social
safety net for its drivers.

Lyft drivers will see some benefits from the settlement going
forward.  These changes include an update to the company's Terms
of Service that will, in theory, make it harder for drivers to get
kicked off the platform.

"Lyft will only be able to deactivate drivers for one of a list of
enumerated reasons, and drivers who are at risk of deactivation
will be given notice of this risk and opportunity to cure the
shortcoming before deactivation," the statement reads.  Drivers
who feel they have been wrongfully terminated or unfairly
compensated will be able to take those claims to a "neutral
arbitrator" -- a process that Lyft will have to pay for.

This outcome does not impact the status of the class action suit
led by Ms. Liss-Riordan against Uber, which is still slated to be
tried on June 20 of this year.  Ms. Liss-Riordan explained that,
for a variety of reasons including number of drivers and age of
the company, a payout to drivers in the case against Uber could be
significantly larger if her firm goes on to win at trial.


MACY'S INC: Faces Class Action Over "Phantom Pricing Scheme"
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony V. Lupo, Esq. -- anthony.lupo@arentfox.com -- Eva J.
Pulliam, Esq. -- eva.pulliam@arentfox.com -- and B. Thorne
Maginnis, Esq., of Arent Fox LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that Macy's, Inc. and subsidiary Bloomingdale's, Inc. were
recently served with a class action complaint alleging that the
retail chains misled consumers with a "phantom pricing scheme"
that inflated the savings available on items marked for sale.
According to the complaint, the stores listed artificially high
"regular" prices on "sale" items, increasing, by comparison, the
savings that consumers believed they were receiving.  This is the
latest of several recent class action lawsuits attacking retail
pricing strategies, and it serves as a reminder to retailers
nationwide to be careful when using price comparisons.

More on the Dispute

In 2014, plaintiffs Kristen Haley and Sylvia Thompson made
purchases at Macy's stores in California and Florida,
respectively.  Both claim that they were enticed to make these
purchases based on the savings advertised on the items' price
tags.  For example, Ms. Thompson claims to have purchased a
mattress that was advertised as being 50% off of the $5,089
regular price.  According to the complaint, however, these items
had not been previously offered by Macy's at the regular price.
The prices, plaintiffs claim, were "artificially inflated and
arbitrary," not reflecting either a bona fide price at which they
were previously sold by Macy's or the prevailing market price.

Ms. Haley and Ms. Thompson filed suit in the Northern District of
California against both Macy's and wholly-owned subsidiary
Bloomingdale's, alleging violations of California and Florida
unfair competition and false advertising laws.  While Ms. Haley
and Ms. Thompson say they were misled by price tags at Macy's
stores, they claim that Bloomingdale's has engaged, at Macy's
direction, in the same pricing scheme.  Further, they claim that
others have been similarly misled by the companies' prices.  In
the complaint, they seek to represent a class of "thousands" of
Macy's and Bloomingdale's customers who purchased items with
discounts that were based on inflated former prices.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable
relief, including disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment.

The Takeaway

Advertising items at a discounted price is a common and entirely
permissible strategy when done properly.  But this case should
remind retailers that class action lawyers are focusing their
attention on fashion and retail companies' pricing strategies.
Other retailers have faced similar scrutiny, with Saks
Incorporated recently receiving a class action complaint alleging
that the company offered "phantom" savings based on inflated
regular prices.

In addition, a number of recent lawsuits have focused on the
pricing strategies of outlet stores and discount retailers. As
discussed in a recent Arent Fox alert, Nordstrom Inc. is currently
defending a class action over the prices listed in its Nordstrom
Rack outlet stores.  Similarly, in June discount retailer
Burlington Coat Factory was served with a complaint alleging that
the company advertised misleading savings.

As these cases show, all retailers should be careful when using
price comparisons, ensuring that the goods were previously offered
at the higher price for a reasonable period of time.  Further,
when possible, retailers should conduct regular reviews of "sale"
and outlet store prices to better understand if they are compliant
with applicable state law, as well as the guidance provided by the
Federal Trade Commission and the Council for Better Business
Bureaus.


MARRONE BIO: Second Amended Complaint Filed on Jan. 11, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an amended
consolidated complaint is to be filed in the consolidated
securities class action no later than 60 days after the Company
announces the restatement(s) after which defendants will have 60
days to respond.

On September 2, 2015, an initial consolidated complaint was filed
on behalf of (i) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's publicly traded common stock directly in or

On September 5, 2014, September 8, 2014, September 11, 2014,
September 15, 2014 and November 3, 2014, the Company, along with
certain of its current and former officers and directors and
others were named as defendants in putative securities class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California. On February 13, 2015, these actions were
consolidated as Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v.
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. et al, Case No 2:14-cv-02571-MCE-
KJN.

On September 2, 2015, an initial consolidated complaint was filed
on behalf of (i) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's publicly traded common stock directly in or
traceable to the Company's August 1, 2013 initial public offering;
(ii) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded common stock directly in the Company's June 6,
2014 secondary offering; and (iii) all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock on
the open market between March 7, 2014 and September 2, 2014 (the
"Class Action").

In addition to the Company, the initial consolidated complaint
names certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors and the Company's independent registered public
accounting firm as defendants. The initial consolidated complaint
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising out of the
issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business and prospects, including its financial
statements, product revenues and system of internal controls.
Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused the Company's stock
price to be artificially inflated. The action includes claims for
damages, fees and expenses, including an award of attorneys' and
experts' fees to the putative class.

A Second Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Jan. 11,
2016, and is available at:

    https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/doc1/03308595657

Marrone Bio Innovations is represented in this litigation by:

          Judson Earle Lobdell, Esq.
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, Ca 94105
          Telephone: 415-268-6717
          E-mail: jlobdell@mofo.com

the individual defendants are represented by:

          John V. McDermott, Esq.
          Jonathan Charles Sandler, Esq.
          Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
          410 17th Street, Suite 2200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: 303-223-1100
          E-mail: jmcdermott@bhfs.com
                  jsandler@bhfs.com

Piper Jaffray & Co. and Roth Capital Partners, LLC, are
represented by:

          Charlene Sachi Shimada, Esq.
          Lucy Han Wang, Esq.
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
          One Market Street
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          E-mail: charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com
                  lucy.wang@morganlewis.com

and Ernst & Young, LLP, is represented by:

          Elizabeth Dianne Mann, Esq.
          Mayer Brown LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-229-9500
          E-mail: emann@mayerbrown.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hedglin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Panda Hedglin v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-
cv-02614 (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of
conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home
health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Lemons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Lemons v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02611 (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of
conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home
health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Rodriguez v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02613 (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of
conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home
health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Stafford" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Stafford v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-02615 (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of
conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home
health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Summerville" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ada J. Summerville v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
5:15-cv-02609-SL (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of
conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home
health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Swegan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Swegan v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
02610 (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of
conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home
health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MCCORMICK & CO: "Linker" Suit Moved from E.D. Mo. to D.C. Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Linker v. Mccormick & Co. Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01340, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02207-ESH to the Proceeding.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants allegedly misled and
likely deceived reasonable consumers by filling reduced products
with 25% less ground black pepper without changing the size of the
respective tins. Plaintiff brought this action to rectify the
injuries caused by McCormick's unlawful practices, and to enjoin
McCormick's ongoing deceptive representations concerning the
Reduced Products.

McCormick manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning
mixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the food
industry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Consumer and
Industrial. The company is based in Sparks, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          KEANE LAW LLC
          PO Box 16795
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 240 5278
          E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com


MCCORMICK & CO: "Pellitteri" Suit Transferred to Washington D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pellitteri et al. v. Mccormick &
Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 9:15-Cv-81521, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington,
DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
02209-ESH to the proceeding.

McCormick manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning
mixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the food
industry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Consumer and
Industrial. The company is based in Sparks, Maryland.


MCCORMICK & CO: "Theis" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to Wash. D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Theis v. Mccormick & Co. Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01228, was transferred from Illinois Southern, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington,
DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk Assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
02208-ESH to the proceeding.

McCormick manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning
mixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the food
industry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Consumer and
Industrial. The company is based in Sparks, Maryland.


MDL 2667: "Moore" Suit Moved to N.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Moore v. Medical Informatics
Engineering, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05595, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
(South Bend). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-00606-RLM-CAN to the proceeding.

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

The Moore case is being consolidated with MDL 2667 in re:
Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., Customer Data Security
Breach Litigation  The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 10,
2015. These actions share factual questions arising from a data
security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between May 7 and
May 26, 2015. According to plaintiffs, this data breach resulted
in the electronic theft of personally identifiable information and
personal health information of some 3.9 million individuals whose
healthcare providers used electronic medical record services
provided by MIE. In its December 10, 2015 order, the MDL panel
found that that these actions involve common questions of fact,
and that centralization in the Northern District of Indiana will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in
the MDL is Hon. Robert L. Miller Jr., United States District
Judge. The lead case is 3:15-Md-02667-RLM-CAN.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Concussion Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Chicago gave
preliminary approval on Jan. 26 to a reworked head-injury
settlement between thousands of former college athletes and the
NCAA that includes a $70 million fund to test for brain trauma.

U.S. District Judge John Lee praised the new deal for expanding
potential plaintiffs to athletes from sports beyond football,
hockey and other contact sports. But he suggested several changes
-- most notably ones modifying what would have been a blanket
protection for the NCAA from class-action lawsuits over
concussions, something the organization may find unacceptable.

The core of the agreement remains largely the same.  That includes
the NCAA creating the fund to test current and former athletes for
brain injuries they say they suffered while playing collegiate
sports.  The tests would gauge the extent of neurological injuries
and could establish grounds for individual athletes seeking
damages.

The NCAA is also required to toughen return-to-play rules after a
concussion, and all athletes will take baseline neurological tests
to start each year to help doctors determine the severity of any
concussion during the season.  A new, independent Medical Science
Committee will oversee the medical testing.

"To the extent that the Settling Plaintiffs and the NCAA are
agreeable to these modifications or are otherwise able to address
the Court's concerns, preliminary approval of the amended class
settlement is granted," Judge Lee wrote in his 53-page ruling.

The NCAA admits no wrongdoing in the settlement and has denied
understating the dangers of concussions.  Its chief legal officer,
Donald Remy, issued a cautiously worded statement that did not
indicate whether the organization might have concerns about the
ruling.

"While we are pleased the court has provided a preliminary pathway
to provide significant resources for the medical monitoring of
student-athletes who may suffer concussion, we are still examining
the conditions placed on preliminary approval," he said.

Jay Edelson, a Chicago-based attorney for athletes who had long
opposed the settlement, said he was pleased with the judge's
provisions for scaling back NCAA immunity from future suits.  He
said he believed the proposal would likely bar national class-
action suits but also allow class actions against individual
schools or, in some cases, even the NCAA.

"So we are thrilled," he said.  He said the NCAA might conclude
the scaling back of class-action protections is poison pill that
forces it to withdraw its backing.

The number of athletes who may require testing runs into the tens
of thousands.  In court filings, the plaintiffs cited NCAA figures
that said from 2004 to 2009 alone, 29,225 athletes suffered
concussions.  Judge Lee on Jan. 26 also ordered the plaintiffs'
attorney to begin the process of notifying those who could qualify
for settlement benefits.

In his December 2014 ruling rejecting the first deal, Judge Lee
portrayed it as unclear in sections and potentially underfunded.

Among the new elements in the reworked deal was stronger wording
mandating that all NCAA member schools must adopt tougher
concussion-management and return-to-play guidelines.  If they
don't follow the NCAA lead, they could lose some of the legal
protections from lawsuits.

To keep the NCAA from having to hold unwieldy talks with multiple
plaintiffs, 10 lawsuits filed from Georgia and South Carolina to
Minnesota and Missouri were consolidated into the one case in
Chicago, where the first lawsuit was filed in 2011.  Combined, the
suits identified several dozen athletes by name as having suffered
brain trauma.

The lead plaintiff was Adrian Arrington, a former safety at
Eastern Illinois who said he endured five concussions while
playing, some so severe he has said he couldn't recognize his
parents afterward.  Subsequent headaches, memory loss, seizures
and depression made it difficult to work or even care for his
children, filings said.  He later withdrew his support because of
the settlement, singling out provisions that largely shielded the
NCAA from class-action suits.

Another plaintiff who hasn't withdrawn his support is former
Central Arkansas wide receiver Derek K. Owens.  After several
concussions, he said he found he could no longer retain what he
had just studied.  His symptoms became so severe he dropped out of
school in 2011, telling his mother: "I feel like a 22-year-old
with Alzheimer's."


NBTY INC: Appeal in "Lary" Junk Fax Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an appeal in the
case, John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown, remains pending.

NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-
action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown,
Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.;
Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and
John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to
plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-
claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY,
and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants
on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an
unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.
On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order and
Opinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015,
Plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action
and that appeal is pending.


NV ENERGY: Net Metering Program Spurs Class-Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Meyers, writing for Clean Technica, reports that NV Energy,
the Nevada utility benefiting most from recent net metering
changes made by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission, will now
be a defendant in a class-action lawsuit filed by two individual
PV system owners.

The two plaintiffs, John Bamforth and Stanley Schone, argue that
they would never have invested in their PV systems had they known
Nevada's net metering program would be scaled back as dramatically
as it has been since December 23, 2015.

At the end of 2015 the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (NPUC)
voted in favor of a plan reducing payments made by NV Energy under
its net metering program.

The decision has not only caused outrage among more than 16,000
residential solar system owners in the state, it spurred the well-
covered employee layoffs and departure of leading US installers
SolarCity and Sunrun. The departure of these two companies
followed an August exit of Vivint Solar.

As reported by the Las Vegas Sun, the lawsuit, which was filed
Tuesday, alleges NV Energy, which is regulated by the NPUC, gave
the three-member panel false or incomplete information as it
considered the new rates.

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."

It said the two plaintiffs were seeking fiscal compensation
because they had invested in "expensive solar power systems that
do not provide the promised rebates, discounts and rates."

According to Las Vegas Sun reporter Daniel Rothberg, a number of
groups, including the state's Bureau of Consumer Protection, which
represents ratepayers in matters before the commission, are asking
the panel to revisit its decision.

This class-action lawsuit stands as the first attempt to challenge
the NPUC decision in court.


NV ENERGY: New Proposal to Customers May Moot Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Nevada's largest utility has offered to grandfather net-metering
rates for customers, as solar companies flee the state and a class
action challenges new rates that eliminate discounts.

"This grandfathering proposal is being offered in recognition of
NV Energy's desire to treat all customers, including those who had
previously made a decision to install rooftop solar, fairly," NV
Energy President and CEO Paul Caudill said.

The utility proposes allowing its net-energy-metering customers to
continue under old rules for up to 20 years, and said it will
submit its new grandfathered rate proposal to the Nevada Public
Utilities Commission on Feb. 1.

Net metering allows customers who generate their own energy via
solar power to feed electricity back to the grid, and gives
customers a discount based on the amount of electricity added to
the grid, according to the Solar Industries Association.

Nevada is among several states that are revising net-metering
rates, mostly because of the rapid adoption of solar power and
utilities reaching pre-set limits on net-metering customers,
according to Green Tech Media.

"Some states are tapping the brakes for solar by undermining this
key policy or adding new fees and charges on solar customers,"
N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center analyst Benjamin Inskeep said
in the center's recently published nationwide report, "The 50
States of Solar : A Quarterly Look at America's Fast-Evolving
Distributed Solar Policy Conversation."

Inskeep said 27 states are reviewing rates for solar energy, and
federal tax breaks and other incentives to adopt solar power are
scheduled to expire this year.

"These types of policy changes could hold back the spread of
clean, locally produced energy," Inskeep said.

In Nevada, net-metering customers received a rate discount via the
state's Excess Energy Credit, which is based on the kilowatt hours
of electricity received by NV Energy.

Net-metering customers stopped getting credits on Jan. 1, but NV
energy said it will apply banked credits until they are used up.

Nevada's net-metering rate change comes on the heels of NV
Energy's application to produce more solar energy at a facility
about 25 miles northeast of Las Vegas near the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area.

Advocates for Nevada's solar industry sought a stay of the new
net-metering rates, but the Nevada Public Utilities Commission on
Jan. 13 denied it, saying only 2% of Nevada residents use solar
power.

The commission held a day-long public hearing on Jan. 12, during
which some 500 residential customers showed up to protest the new
rates.

In the wake of the rate changes, several solar companies already
have laid off workers and announced plans to leave the state.

"This is a very difficult decision, but Governor [Brian] Sandoval
and his [Public Utilities Commission] leave us no choice,"
SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive said on Dec. 23. He added: "The people
of Nevada have consistently chosen solar, but . . . their state
government decided to end customer choice, damage the state's
economy, and jeopardize thousands of jobs."

Rive said Sandoval and Nevada's Office of Economic Development
helped bring solar power giant SolarCity to the Silver State in
2013 and encouraged the company to create new jobs, which it did
by hiring 2,000 local workers in two years.

The state's rooftop solar industry thrived in 2014, posting the
most solar jobs per-capita in the nation, Rive said. SolarCity was
the largest solar power employer.

"Now, in what amounts to a massive bait-and-switch for the local
solar industry and its customers . . . the governor's [Public
Utilities Commission] has effectively shut down the rooftop solar
industry and taken the extraordinary step to punish over 12,000
existing solar customers, including schools, with exorbitant fees
in what appears to be an attempt to protect the profits of the
state's largest utility," SolarCity said.

SolarCity, Vivant Solar and Sunrun all announced plans to close
operations in Nevada and lay off hundreds of jobs because of the
uncertainty of Nevada's solar industry. All three cited the lack
of a grandfathering clause for net metering customers.
NV Energy's offer to grandfather net-metering rates might be too
late to stop some or all of the solar companies from leaving the
state, but it might render a class action lawsuit moot.

Lead plaintiffs John Bamforth and Stanley Schone on Jan. 12 filed
a class action in Clark County accusing NV Energy of consumer
fraud, deceptive and unfair trade practices, unjust enrichment and
negligence for ending the net metering discount.

Their attorney Martin Little, with Jolley Urga Woodbury & Little,
was not available by telephone Jan. 27, to determine if the class
action might be rendered moot if the Public Utility Commission
approves NV Energy's request to grandfather net-metering rates for
up to 20 years.


OOMA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit for
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Ooma, Inc. ("Ooma") (NYSE:OOMA) pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering on July 17,
2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ooma
securities pursuant to the IPO, your rights may be affected by
this action. To get more information go to:
http://zlk.9nl.com/ooma.

The complaint alleges that Ooma failed to disclose material
information in its Registration Statement, including: (a) that
certain exceptionally large prior fiscal year sales to its largest
outside reseller were not recurring or being replaced in the
fiscal year leading into the IPO; (b) that the company's customer
churn rate, or rate of customer terminations or failures to renew,
had increased significantly as of the IPO as a result of customers
having endured eight-hour service outages in April and May 2015;
and (c) that 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
the company's business.

On July 17, 2015, Ooma successfully raised $65 million in its IPO.
Ooma's stock now trades at approximately half the IPO price of $13
per share, and recently closed at $6.49 per share on January 15,
2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
30 Broad Street -- 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Toll Free:  (877) 363-5972
Fax: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: ek@zlk.com


OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Claims by Class Members Fully Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company has fully and finally resolved all potential direct claims
by members of the putative class of securities claimants through a
settlement effectuated through an Equity Plan, which became
effective on August 5, 2014.

Under the terms of that settlement, the Equity Plan provides for
full satisfaction of the claims of the putative class through (i)
$7,000,000 in cash, which was paid on August 5, 2014, (ii) 15% of
the net litigation recovery in the action against Proskauer,
described below, (iii) $5,000,000 in cash, payable following the
entry of a final order resolving the Proskauer action, (iv)
$3,000,000 in cash, payable by the reorganized Company on August
5, 2015, (v) proceeds of any residual interest the Company has in
certain director and officer insurance policies, and (vi) any
remaining cash in the class E1 disputed claims reserve established
by the Equity Plan following resolution of all other class E1
claims. The settlement proceeds will be held in escrow pending
allocations and distributions to members of the putative class to
be determined by the district court overseeing the Exchange Act
claims.

The settled claims stem from the Company's filing of a Form 8-K on
October 22, 2012 disclosing that on October 19, 2012 the Audit
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, on the
recommendation of management, concluded that the Company's
previously issued financial statements for at least the three
years ended December 31, 2011 and associated interim periods, and
for the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012,
should no longer be relied upon.

Shortly thereafter several putative class action suits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Southern District") against the Company, its then
President and Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial
Officer, its then current and certain former members of its Board
of the Directors, its current independent registered public
accounting firm, and underwriters of the Company's public offering
of notes in March 2010 (the "Offering").

The Company's former independent registered public accounting firm
was later added as a defendant. Subsequent to the Company's filing
for relief under Chapter 11, these suits were consolidated and the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that does not name the
Company as a defendant. The consolidated suit is purportedly on
behalf of purchasers of Company securities between March 1, 2010
and October 19, 2012 and purchasers of notes in the Offering. The
plaintiffs allege that documents that the Company filed with the
SEC were defective, inaccurate and misleading, that the plaintiffs
relied on such documents in purchasing the Company's securities,
and that, as a result, the plaintiffs suffered losses. The
plaintiffs assert claims under the Securities Act against all
defendants and claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") against the then former President and former
Chief Financial Officer of the Company.

Following additional amendments on plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims
and motion to dismiss briefing, on April 28, 2014, the Southern
District denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims
filed by the then former President and former Chief Financial
Officer on the third amended complaint. On March 18, 2015, OSG's
former independent registered public accounting firm moved for
summary judgment and on May 29, 2015, the Southern District issued
an order granting that motion.

On July 1, 2015, the plaintiffs noticed an appeal of that order to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 2,
2015, the plaintiffs and OSG's former independent registered
public accounting firm filed a stipulation withdrawing that appeal
with prejudice.

On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs moved for the Southern District
to preliminarily approve settlements with respect to all of the
plaintiffs' remaining claims, including settlements with former
officers and directors of the Company, the Company's former
underwriters, and the Company's current independent registered
public accounting firm that contemplate payments of $10,500,000,
$4,000,000 and $1,750,000, respectively, on behalf of such
defendants.

On August 12, 2015, the Southern District preliminarily approved
those settlements, and a hearing on final approval of the
settlements is scheduled for December 1, 2015.

The plaintiffs in the Southern District action filed a proof of
claim against the Company in the Bankruptcy Court. Pursuant to a
settlement with such plaintiffs and the putative class on whose
behalf their claim is filed, their direct claims against the
Company are fully and finally resolved based on the Equity Plan
treatment described.

Separately, certain of the defendants in the Southern District
have filed claims in the Bankruptcy Court against the Company for
indemnification or reimbursement based on potential losses
incurred in connection with such action. Each of those
indemnification claims, asserted by certain former directors and
officers of the Company, have been released pursuant to the Equity
Plan or otherwise resolved by the Reorganized Debtors.

In addition, the indemnification claims asserted by the Company's
former underwriters have been resolved and paid pursuant to the
orders of the Bankruptcy Court and the Equity Plan. On October 5,
2015, following the resolution of all disputed Class E1 claims,
the Reorganized Debtors disbursed the remaining funds in the
Disputed Claims Reserve for Class E1 to representatives of the
putative class in accordance with the Equity Plan and confirmation
order The Equity Plan and orders of the Bankruptcy Court foreclose
the defendants in the Southern District from pursuing any other or
further remedies against the Company. As such, management
estimates the amount of its remaining exposure with respect to the
actions pending before the Southern District described at zero.


PAYMENT DATA: "McFarland" Exec. Compensation Suit Not Yet Served
----------------------------------------------------------------
Payment Data Systems, Inc. has not yet been served with the class
action lawsuit filed by Michael McFarland as of November 11, 2015,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

On June 26, 2015, Michael McFarland, derivatively on behalf the
Company, and individually on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated shareholders of the Company, filed a class-
action lawsuit in United States District Court, District of
Nevada. The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust
enrichment by the Company's Board of Directors and certain
executive officers and directors in connection with excessive and
unfair compensation paid or awarded during fiscal years 2013 and
2014. The lawsuit seeks disgorgement of excessive compensation as
well as damages in an unspecified amount.

"As of November 11, 2015, we have not yet been served," the
Company said.

"We believe the claims are without merit and it is unlikely that a
loss will be incurred, therefore we have not accrued for a
potential loss. However, the outcomes of the disputes are still
uncertain and it is possible we may incur legal fees and losses in
the future."


PETROLES THERRIEN: Quebec Court Splits Gas Price Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clyde & Co reports that in the context of this class action,
Jacques v. Petroles Therrien Inc., the Quebec Superior Court
recently granted a request to split the action, thereby splitting
the trial into two stages: a first stage during which damages will
be assessed and a second stage addressing liability.

In this case, the plaintiffs essentially claim that the defendants
engaged in anticompetitive activities to sell gas in Quebec.  The
Court had to rule on a motion by the defendants, who, prior to the
presentation of evidence on liability, wanted the Court to
determine the appropriate method for the calculation of damages as
well as their quantum.  The Court began its analysis by
reiterating the principles that should guide the judge seized of
such a motion.  It noted that although the general rule is that a
trial is heard as a whole, the splitting of an action is not an
extraordinary measure.  Splitting an action is appropriate if it
accelerates the judicial process, while reducing costs.  More
specifically, the Court must determine whether certain predefined
criteria favor splitting the action or not. Its analysis may be
summarized as responding to the following questions:

Are the issues to be determined during the first stage simple or
complex?

Are the issues to be determined during the first stage distinct
from those that will be dealt with during the second stage, or are
they closely linked?

Is the judgment to be rendered at the end of the first stage
susceptible of putting an end to the litigation, of limiting the
scope of the issues to be determined during the second stage or
likely to increase the chances of reaching a settlement of the
file?

What resources have the parties already dedicated to one or the
other issues or all of them taken together as a whole?

What advantages will splitting the action provide the parties in
comparison to the risks or inconveniences that it may cause?

The Court must thus ensure that splitting the action respects the
rule of proportionality and promotes access to justice.

In regard to the complexity of the issues, the Court noted that
the parties had obtained a total of eight expert reports on the
issue of damages and that, further to the Court's request, the
experts had met and prepared a joint report.  Although it was
agreed in the joint report that the same damage calculation
methodology would be used, some fundamental issues in regard to
the assessment of damages remained to be determined.  Thus,
considering the reports obtained and the complexity of the issues,
the Court ruled that this criterion favored splitting the action.

In regard to the second question, the Court was of the view that,
like in most cases, the issues regarding liability could be
treated separately from those regarding damages and that, in this
case, nothing indicated that these issues were closely linked.
The Court indicated that the expert reports already contained the
information required and the methodology to be used to assess the
damages.

With respect to the third question, the Court noted that the
defendants were unanimously of the view that a judgment
quantifying the damages would encourage them to settle the
litigation or at least limit the questions to be debated during
the second stage of the trial.  On the other hand, the Court noted
that the plaintiffs would only be inclined to settle if their
expert's theory was retained by the Court.  Considering that
splitting the action serves primarily the proper administration of
justice before aiming to put an end to litigation, the Court
concluded that, in this case, splitting the action could, all the
same, have a decisive influence on the continuation of the
dispute.

In regard to the resources already dedicated by the parties to the
litigation, the Court referred to the eight expert reports and the
joint report already prepared and indicated that it would be
useful to conduct a thorough analysis of the elements already
available considering all the work remaining to be done by the
parties in regard to the evidence on liability.

Finally, considering that splitting the action is merely a
procedural measure and would not cause the parties to lose any
rights, the Court granted the motion.

In closing, it should be noted that under the new Code of Civil
Procedure, an action may be split of the judge's own motion,
whereas previously, splitting the action had to be requested by
one of the parties.  It will be interesting to see if judges will
avail themselves of this new power in order to encourage recourse
to private dispute resolution methods and encourage the
proportionate and economical application of procedure, which,
moreover, are among the principle objectives of the new code.


PET VALU: Franchisee Class Action Dismissed by Ontario Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Gillian S.G. Scott, Esq. -- gscott@osler.com -- Jennifer Dolman,
Esq. -- jdolman@osler.com --Evan Thomas, Esq. -- ethomas@osler.com
-- and Stephanie Henry, Esq. --  sthenry@osler.com -- of Osler
Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that on
January 14, 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a
judgment for the franchisee class in the Pet Valu franchise class
action. This significant decision for franchisors resulted in the
dismissal of the class action in its entirety. Notably, the Court
of Appeal found any failure by the franchisor to disclose
information in a disclosure document does not amount to a breach
of section 3 (the duty of fair dealing) of the Arthur Wishart Act
(the AWA). As well, the Court of Appeal implicitly endorsed the
earlier decision in another franchise class action, Spina v.
Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., that held that franchisors do not have a
duty to disclose information to franchisees so that franchisees
can verify whether or not the franchisor is complying with the
franchise agreement. While the Pet Valu decision highlights and
provides important reasoning on certain class action procedural
points -- perhaps most importantly on the role of the case
management judge in defining common issues -- this Update focuses
on the Court's decision on substantive issues of particular
interest to franchisors.

The Pet Valu Proceedings

In January 2011, Justice Strathy certified a class action against
Pet Valu by current and former Pet Valu franchisees based on
allegations that Pet Valu failed to pass on the benefits of volume
rebates granted by their suppliers to their franchisees (2011 ONSC
287). Read our article in the February 2011 Osler Franchise Review
for our commentary on the certification decision.

Pet Valu subsequently moved for summary judgment. In October 2014,
Justice Belobaba granted summary judgment in favour of Pet Valu on
all but one issue (and the related common issue of damages) and
deferred a decision on those issues.

In January 2015, Justice Belobaba granted judgment for the
franchisees on the remaining issues. In doing so, he held that Pet
Valu had breached its statutory duty of fair dealing by creating
the expectation that it had "substantial purchasing power" that it
would use to obtain volume discounts that could be passed along,
at least in part, to its franchisees, which Justice Belobaba found
was a misrepresentation that Pet Valu failed to correct. Read our
April 2015 Osler Update for our commentary on Justice Belobaba's
January 2015 decision.

Pet Valu appealed.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed Pet Valu's appeal, finding that it had
not breached section 3 of the AWA. Although the decision turns on
the Court of Appeal's conclusion that Justice Belobaba erred in
considering the issue of whether Pet Valu had made a
misrepresentation to its franchisees when that issue had not been
certified, the Court of Appeal nonetheless commented on whether
there could have been a breach of section 3 if such a
misrepresentation had been made.

In doing so, the Court drew an important distinction between
misrepresentations in a disclosure document and misrepresentations
made in the course of the performance and enforcement of a
franchise agreement. The Court stated that a misrepresentation in
a disclosure document (or a failure to disclose material facts in
a disclosure document) cannot amount to a breach of section 3
because that misrepresentation does not occur in the "performance
and enforcement" of the franchise agreement as required by the
clear wording of the AWA. The Court also noted that specific
remedies for a franchisor's failure to comply with its disclosure
obligation under section 5 of the AWA are provided for by sections
6 and 7 of the AWA. The practical implication for franchisors is
that franchisees cannot rely upon section 3 to bring claims
concerning misrepresentations during the disclosure period.

In addition, the Court relied on the lower court's decision in
Spina, where the motion judge held that section 3 does not require
franchisors to disclose information to franchisees so that
franchisees can verify the franchisor's compliance with the
franchise agreement. The Court also indicated that section 3
cannot be relied upon to require franchisors to disclose
information so that franchisees can verify whether or not
statements made to the franchisees are correct. As Spina was a
lower court decision that was not appealed, the Court of Appeal's
endorsement of its reasoning will give it greater authority in
future cases.

The Court of Appeal's decisions in both Pet Valu and Spina
underline its commitment to a straightforward interpretation of
the clear wording of the AWA in determining the scope of the
section 3 duty of fair dealing owed between parties to a franchise
agreement.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Still Defending Class Suit v Radiancy Unit
----------------------------------------------------------
Photomedex, 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 a consolidated class action lawsuit filed in
Washington D.C. against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc.
and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's President.

On April 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev
Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon
and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who
purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various
violations of state business and consumer protection codes
including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade
practices, and breach of express and implied warranties.

The complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or,
alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing
in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified
amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs.

Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date,
Radiancy, has not been served. A mediation was scheduled in this
matter for November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached.

On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed this action in its entirety
for failure to state a claim. The Court specifically dismissed
with prejudice the claims pursuant to New York General Business
Law Sections349-50 and the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; the other counts against Radiancy were
dismissed without prejudice. The Court also granted Dr. Rafaeli's
motion to dismiss the actions against him for lack of personal
jurisdiction over him by the Court.

The Court denied the plaintiffs request for jurisdictional
discovery with respect to Dr. Rafaeli and plaintiffs request to
amend the complaint. Radiancy and its officers intend to continue
to vigorously defend themselves against any attempts to continue
this lawsuit.

On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs' attorneys refiled their putative
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia against only the Company's subsidiary,
Radiancy, Inc. The claims of the suit are virtually identical to
the claims originally considered, and dismissed without prejudice,
by the same Court.

A companion suit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, raising the same claims on
behalf of plaintiffs from New York and West Virginia against
Radiancy and its President, Dr. Dolev Rafaeli. That New York case
has now been removed to the D.C. Court and the cases are in
process of being consolidated into one action.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against this suit.
At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be
reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no
discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any
claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not
recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Wants "Cantley" Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
Photomedex, 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's
subsidiary, Radiancy, is seeking court approval to remove a class
action lawsuit pending in Kern County, California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was
served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in
the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by
April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It
alleges various violations of state business and consumer
protection codes including false and misleading advertising,
breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the
California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification
of the class, which consists of customers in the State of
California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices. The complaint
also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees
and other costs.

Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint; the case is now in
the discovery phase. On October 30, 2015, Radiancy filed to remove
this action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California; as a result of that filing, all discovery
in this case has now been stayed.

Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves
against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in this action.
At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be
reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no
discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any
claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not
recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Insurer Paid Plaintiffs' Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Photomedex, 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 in connection with
a $1.5 million settlement reached in a securities class action
lawsuit in Pennsylvania, the Company had paid its own legal fees
up to the deductible cap on its insurance policy, and all amounts
to be paid to plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel were paid by the
carrier of the insurance policy.

On December 20, 2013, PhotoMedex, Inc. was served with a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and its
two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and
Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The suit
alleges various violations of the Federal securities laws between
November 7, 2012 and November 14, 2013.

A mediation on possible settlement of this action was held on
November 10, 2014; the parties including the Company's insurance
carrier agreed on a possible settlement.

On August 11, 2015, the Court entered an order approving that
proposed settlement, which provides a fund of $1.5 million for the
benefit of those persons or entities who purchased securities
issued by the Company during the period November 6, 2012 and
November 5, 2013, inclusive. The settlement fund will also pay for
plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses approved by the Court with
respect to the action.

The Company maintains insurance that helped to defray the cost of
the proposed settlement, and does not expect the proposed
settlement to have a material impact on its financial results. The
settlement was approved by the Court on August 11, 2015. The
Company had paid its own legal fees up to the deductible cap on
its insurance policy, and all amounts to be paid to plaintiffs and
plaintiff's counsel were paid by the carrier of the insurance
policy.

Photomedex also disclosed that the Company was served on July 29,
2014 with an application to certify a class action, filed in
Israel District Court for Tel Aviv against the Company and its two
top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis
M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The plaintiffs'
who initiated this complaint have agreed to be part of, and be
bound by, the settlement reached in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company
and the same two top executives.


POPULAR INC: PCB Renews Arbitration Bid in "Valle" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Popular Community
Bank has renewed its motion to compel arbitration in the class
action case filed by Josefina Valle.

PCB has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community
Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court
(New York County). Plaintiffs, existing PCB customers, allege
among other things that PCB has engaged in unfair and deceptive
acts and trade practices in connection with the assessment of
overdraft fees and payment processing on consumer deposit
accounts. The complaint further alleges that PCB improperly
disclosed its consumer overdraft policies and, additionally, that
the overdraft rates and fees assessed by PCB violate New York's
usury laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including
punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

PCB removed the case to federal court (S.D.N.Y.) and plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court,
which the Court granted on August 6, 2013. A motion to dismiss was
filed on September 9, 2013.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
to limit the putative class to New York account holders. A motion
to dismiss the amended complaint was filed in February 2014. In
August 2014, the Court entered an order granting in part PCB's
motion to dismiss. The sole surviving claim relates to PCB's item
processing policy.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted
in the court's decision and order. PCB subsequently filed a motion
in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further
sought to compel arbitration.

In June 2015, this matter was reassigned to a new judge and on
July 22, 2015, such Court denied PCB's motion to compel
arbitration and granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
complaint to replead certain claims based on item processing
reordering, misstatement of balance information and failure to
notify customers in advance of potential overdrafts. The Court did
not, however, allow plaintiffs to replead their claim for the
alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. On August 24, 2015, PCB filed a Notice of Appeal as to
the order granting leave to file the second amended complaint and
on September 17, 2015, it filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On October 7, 2015, PCB renewed its motion to
compel arbitration.


POPULAR INC: Parties in "Quiles" Case Reached Deal
--------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit filed by Neysha Quiles have reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the suit.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") has been named a defendant
in a putative class action complaint captioned Neysha Quiles et
al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al., filed in December 2013
in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico (USDC-PR). Plaintiffs essentially allege that they and
others, who have been employed by the Defendants as "bank tellers"
and other similarly titled positions, have been paid only for
scheduled work time, rather than time actually worked. The
Complaint seeks to maintain a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of all individuals formerly
or currently employed by BPPR in Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands as hourly paid, non-exempt, bank tellers or other
similarly titled positions at any time during the past three
years. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Banco Popular
violated FLSA by willfully failing to pay overtime premiums.
Similar claims were brought under Puerto Rico law.

On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the
complaint. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs submitted a motion for
conditional class certification, which BPPR opposed.

On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an order whereby it
granted plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the
FLSA action. Following the Court's order, plaintiffs sent out
notices to all purported class members with instructions for
opting into the class. Approximately sixty potential classmembers
opted into the class prior to the expiration of the opt-in period.

On June 25, 2015, the Court denied with prejudice plaintiffs'
motion for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. On October 20, 2015, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the referenced action for an
immaterial amount, subject to their reaching an agreement on the
payment of reasonable attorneys' fees.


POPULAR INC: Bids to Dismiss "Fernandez" Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action
lawsuit by Nora Fernandez, et al. remain pending to date.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") and Popular Securities have
been named defendants in a putative class action complaint
captioned Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(SDNY) on May 5, 2014 on behalf of investors in 23 Puerto Rico
closed-end investment companies. UBS Financial Services
Incorporated of Puerto Rico, another named defendant, is the
sponsor and co-sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR was co-sponsor,
together with UBS, of nine (9) of those funds. Plaintiffs allege
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against Popular
Securities, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against
BPPR, and similar claims against the UBS entities. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, including disgorgement of fees and
attorneys' fees.

On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class
action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually
identical complaint in the USDC-PR and requested that the case be
consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services
Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the
USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties.
The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation
request and moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the
ground that the relevant agreements between the parties contain a
choice of forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The
Popular defendants joined this opposition and motion.

By order dated January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to consolidate. By order dated March 30, 2015, the court
granted defendants' motion to transfer.

On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
Southern District of New York containing virtually identical
allegations with respect to Popular Securities and BPPR.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on June
18, 2015. Such motions remain pending to date.


POPULAR INC: BPPR Still a Defendant in RadioShack ERISA Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") has been named a defendant
in a putative class action complaint titled In re 2014 RadioShack
ERISA Litigation, Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") has been named a defendant
in a putative class action complaint titled In re 2014 RadioShack
ERISA Litigation, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. The complaint alleges that certain employees of
RadioShack incurred losses in their 401(k) plans because various
fiduciaries elected to retain RadioShack's company stock in the
portfolio of potential investment options. The complaint further
asserts that once RadioShack's financial situation began to
deteriorate in 2011, the fiduciaries of the RadioShack 401(k) Plan
and the RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan (collectively, "the
Plans") should have removed RadioShack company stock from the
portfolio of potential investment options.

Popular was a directed trustee, and therefore a fiduciary, of the
RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan ("P.R. Plan"). Even though the
P.R. Plan directed Popular to retain RadioShack company stock
within the portfolio of investment options, the complaint alleges
that a trustee's duty of prudence requires it to disregard plan
documents or directives that it knows or reasonably should know
would lead to an imprudent result or would otherwise harm plan
participants or beneficiaries. It further alleges that Popular
breached its fiduciary duties by (i) failing to take any
meaningful steps to protect plan participants from losses that it
knew would occur; (ii) failing to divest the P.R. Plan of Company
Stock; and (iii) participating in the decisions of another trustee
(Wells Fargo) to protect the Plans from inevitable losses.


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Del. Court Approved Settlement of Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life 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 Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware has approved the settlement
of a consolidated class action lawsuit related to the Company's
merger with The Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited.

On February 1, 2015, Protective Life became a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited, a
kabushiki kaisha organized under the laws of Japan ("Dai-ichi
Life"), when DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. a wholly owned
subsidiary of Dai-ichi Life, merged with and into the Company (the
"Merger").  Prior to February 1, 2015, and for the periods
reported as "predecessor", the Company's stock was publicly traded
on the New York Stock Exchange. Subsequent to the Merger date, the
Company remains as an SEC registrant within the United States.

The Company is a holding company with subsidiaries that provide
financial services through the production, distribution, and
administration of insurance and investment products. The Company
markets individual life insurance, credit life and disability
insurance, guaranteed investment contracts, guaranteed funding
agreements, fixed and variable annuities, and extended service
contracts throughout the United States. The Company also maintains
a separate segment devoted to the acquisition of insurance
policies from other companies. Founded in 1907, Protective Life
Insurance Company ("PLICO") is the Company's largest operating
subsidiary.

After the entry into the Merger Agreement on June 3, 2014, four
lawsuits were filed against the Company, its then current
directors, Dai-ichi Life and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. on
behalf of alleged Company shareowners. On June 11, 2014, a
putative class action lawsuit styled Edelman, et al. v. Protective
Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV- 2014-902474.00,
was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On
July 30, 2014, the plaintiff in Edelman filed an amended
complaint.

Three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, Martin, et al. v. Protective
Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9794-CB, filed June 19,
2014, Leyendecker, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al.,
Civil Action No. 9931-CB, filed July 22, 2014 and Hilburn, et al.
v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9937-CB,
filed July 23, 2014. The Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the Martin, Leyendecker, and Hilburn actions under the caption In
re Protective Life Corp. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated
Civil Action No. 9794-CB, designated the Hilburn complaint as the
operative consolidated complaint (the "Delaware Action") and
appointed Charlotte Martin, Samuel J. Leyendecker, Jr., and
Deborah J. Hilburn to serve as co-lead plaintiffs.

These lawsuits alleged that the Company's Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties to the Company's shareowners, that
the Merger involved an unfair price, an inadequate sales process,
and unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
precluded competing offers, and that the preliminary proxy
statement filed with the SEC on July 10, 2014 failed to disclose
purportedly material information. The complaints also alleged that
the Company, Dai-ichi Life and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc.
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints sought injunctive relief, including enjoining or
rescinding the Merger, and attorneys' and other fees and costs, in
addition to other relief. The Delaware Action also sought an award
of unspecified damages.

With respect to the Edelman lawsuit, on September 5, 2014, the
court held a hearing to address motions to dismiss the lawsuit
filed on behalf of the Company, the members of the Company's
Board, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. On September 19, 2014,
the court granted those motions and dismissed the Edelman lawsuit
in its entirety and with prejudice, pending a possible appeal by
the plaintiff.

With respect to the Delaware Action, on September 24, 2014, the
Company, each of the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi
Life, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in that case,
which set forth the parties' agreement in principle for a
settlement of the Delaware Action. As set forth in the MOU, the
Company, the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi Life, and DL
Investment (Delaware), Inc. agreed to the settlement solely to
eliminate the burden, expense, distraction, and uncertainties
inherent in further litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing. The MOU contemplated that the parties
would seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for
the certification of a mandatory non opt-out class, for settlement
purposes only, to include any and all record and beneficial owners
of shares (excluding the members of the Company's Board and their
immediate family members, any entity in which any member of the
Company's Board has a controlling interest, and any successors in
interest thereto) that held shares at any time during the period
beginning on June 3, 2014, through the date of consummation or
termination of the Merger, including any and all of their
respective successors in interest, successors, predecessors in
interest, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators,
heirs, assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any
person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under,
any of them, together with their predecessors, successors and
assigns, and a global release of claims relating to the Merger as
set forth in the MOU.

As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Merger which are set forth
in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 25, 2014 and which
supplement the information contained in the Company's definitive
proxy statement filed with the SEC on August 25, 2014, as amended
on August 27, 2014. Nothing in the Form 8-K or stipulation of
settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality of any of the disclosures set forth in the Form 8-K.

The stipulation of settlement and release of all claims in the
Delaware Action was approved by the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware on June 16, 2015. The terms of the settlement had no
effect on the consideration received by Company shareowners in
connection with the completion of the Merger, and the amount of
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to the plaintiffs' counsel
did not have a material impact upon the Company.


RADIANT LOGISTICS: Co-Defendant Bankruptcy Stalls "Barahona" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a California
court is likely to schedule a status conference in January 2016,
at which time it may stay the entire case, Ingrid Barahoma v.
Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Accountabilities Staffing, Inc.,
Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA Distribution Services, Inc.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc.
("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the
"Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for
temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of
herself and the putative class, seeks damages and penalties under
California law, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along
with equitable remedies, alleging that she and the putative class
were the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices,
including certain wage and hour violations relating to, among
others, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for
work-related expenses.

Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointly employed by the staffing
companies and Radiant and DBA. Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's
allegations in their entirety, deny that they are liable to Ms.
Barahona or the putative class members in any way, and are
vigorously defending against these allegations based upon a
preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal standards.

If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims the
Company, as well as its co-defendants, could be liable for
uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when
evaluated against either the Company's assets or current and
expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged
against the Company's earnings in the particular quarter in which
any such damages arose, if at all. However, based upon the
Company's preliminary evaluation of the matter, it does not
believe it is likely to incur material damages, if at all, since,
among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages remains
highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii) the
Company does not believe as a matter of law it should be
characterized as Ms. Barahona's employer and co-defendant
Accountabilities admitted to being the employer of record, (iii)
any settlement will be properly apportioned between all named
defendants and Radiant and DBA will not exclusively fund the
settlement; (iv) wage and hour class actions of this nature
typically settle for amounts significantly less than plaintiffs'
demands because of the uncertainly with litigation and the
difficulty in taking these types of cases to trial; and (v)
Plaintiff has indicated her desire to resolve this matter through
a mediated settlement.

Plaintiff recently admitted in a report to the court that she is
unable to prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel
records she needs are in the possession of Accountabilities, and
the case has been stayed as to them pending resolution of their
chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The court is likely to schedule
a status conference in January 2016, at which time it may stay the
entire case. At this time, the Company is unable to express an
opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter.


RAYONIER INC: Motions to Dismiss Securities Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss the amended complaint in the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit are pending.

Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and
filing of the restated interim financial statements for the
quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the
"November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed
five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G.
Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker
arising from circumstances described in the November 2014
Announcement, entitled respectively:

     * Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No.
       3:14-cv-01395; filed November 12, 2014 in the United
       States District Court for the Middle District of Florida;

     * Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No.
       3:14-cv-01398, filed November 13, 2014 in the United
       States District Court for the Middle District of Florida;

     * Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier
       Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November
       13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
       Middle District of Florida;

     * Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No.
       3:14-cv-01429, filed November 21, 2014 in the United
       States District Court for the Middle District of Florida;
       and

     * Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No.
       1:14-cv-08986, initially filed in the United States
       District Court for the Southern District of New York and
       later transferred to the United States District Court for
       the Middle District of Florida and assigned as Civil
       Action No. 3:14-cv-01474.

On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated
into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters'
Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on
January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015.

On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated
Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a
defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the
filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin
Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants. Defendants timely
filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on May 15,
2015.

After oral argument on Defendants' motions on August 25, 2015, the
Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint without prejudice,
allowing plaintiffs leave to refile. Plaintiffs filed the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on
September 25, 2015, which continued to assert claims against the
Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and Messrs. Boynton and Vanden
Noort.

Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
on October 26, 2015, which are pending. At this preliminary stage,
the Company cannot determine whether there is a reasonable
likelihood a material loss has been incurred nor can the range of
any such loss be estimated.


RCS CAPITAL: Defending Against ARCH Trust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the defendants
are vigorously defending against the American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust Litigation.

In connection with the proposed acquisition by Ventas, Inc.
("Ventas") of all the outstanding stock of American Realty Capital
aHealthcare Trust, Inc. ("ARCH"), purported shareholders of ARCH
have filed multiple class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland and other jurisdictions. Two of these
actions named Realty Capital Securities among others, as a
defendant. The actions are: Shine v. American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al filed June 13, 2014 and Abbassi, et
al. v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al. filed
July 9, 2014. The actions also assert derivative claims on behalf
of ARCH against Realty Capital Securities.

On October 10, 2014, lead plaintiffs in the Maryland state court
action filed a "Consolidated Amended Derivative and Direct Class
Action Complaint," asserting direct and derivative claims of
aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against multiple
defendants, including Realty Capital Securities, arising from
their roles providing services to ARCH in connection with the
proposed acquisition of ARCH by Ventas and seek (i) to enjoin the
proposed acquisition and (ii) recover damages if the proposed
acquisition is completed (the "Maryland State Action").

A similar shareholder action, Rosenzweig v. American Realty
Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al, 1:14-cv-02019-GLR, was filed
in federal court for the District of Maryland (the "Maryland
Federal Action").

On January 2, 2015 and January 5, 2015, the parties to Maryland
State Action and the Maryland Federal Action executed separate
memoranda of understanding regarding settlement of all claims
asserted on behalf of each alleged class of ARCH stockholders in
each case. In connection with the settlement contemplated by each
memoranda of understanding, each action and all claims asserted
therein will be dismissed, subject to approval by each applicable
court. Pursuant to the executed memoranda of understanding, ARCH
made certain additional disclosures related to the Ventas
transaction.

The parties to the Maryland State Action executed a stipulation of
settlement as of August 13, 2015. The court has not issued a
Preliminary Approval Order. ARCH and Ventas have agreed to pay the
plaintiff's counsel in the Maryland Federal Action a mootness fee
of $0.5 million, contingent upon settlement of the Maryland State
Action pursuant to the terms of the stipulation of settlement and
dismissal of the Maryland Federal Action. Defendants have agreed
not to object or oppose any application for fees and expenses made
by lead counsel in the Maryland State Action provided such
application is for an award no greater than $0.5 million. There
can be no assurance that the applicable court will approve the
settlement outlined in the stipulation of settlement.

The Company believes that such lawsuits are without merit, but the
ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be predicted with certainty.
Neither the outcome of the lawsuits nor an estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonable possible losses is determinable at this
time. No provisions for any losses related to the lawsuits have
been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial as of
September 30, 2015. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could
have a material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of
the Company. All defendants had previously stated in court filings
that they believe that the claims are without merit and are
defending against them vigorously.


RCS CAPITAL: Feb. 2 Oral Argument Set in "Weston" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that oral argument
is scheduled for February 2, 2016, on the Company's motion to
dismiss the "Weston" amended complaint in its entirety.

On or about December 29, 2014, a securities law class action
lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New
York (Weston v. RCS Capital Corporation et al, 14 CV 10136)
against the Company and certain former or current officers and
directors of the Company. The lawsuit asserts the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading public statements pertaining to the Company's financial
position and future business and acquisition prospects.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
financial statements of ARCP were material false and misleading as
a result of accounting errors that were disclosed by ARCP on
October 29, 2014; (ii) the Company's announced acquisition of Cole
Capital Partners LLC and Cole Capital Advisors was at serious risk
due to the accounting issues at ARCP; and (iii) the Company's
revenue stream from its relationship with ARCP was in jeopardy as
a result of the accounting issues at ARCP announced on October 29,
2014.

A newly-appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
June 1, 2015, naming the Company, RCAP Holdings LLC, RCAP Equity
LLC, and certain former and current officers and directors of the
Company as defendants. The amended complaint alleges that the
Company's public statements in 2014 discussing the strength and
success of the Company's wholesale and investment banking
businesses, as well its public statements regarding the benefits
of the announced acquisition of Cole Capital, were materially
false and misleading because they failed to provide an accurate
portrait of the true strength and specific risks to the Company
and its wholesale brokerage and investment banking businesses.
Such statements allegedly misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
that certain Company executives, who also held roles with ARCP,
were engaged in a fraudulent scheme to misstate the financial
results of ARCP.

The amended complaint alleges defendants (except RCAP Equity LLC,
a holding company under common ownership with RCAP Holdings with
no ongoing operations, assets or liabilities) violated Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act in in connection with the
Company's June 2014 secondary stock offering. It further alleges
that the Company and certain defendants violated Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Weston amended
complaint in its entirety. Oral argument is scheduled for February
2, 2016. The Company believes the Weston amended complaint is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against its
allegations.


RCS CAPITAL: Has Until Feb. 11 to File Motions to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the court in
the ARCP Shareholder Class Action Litigation has issued a summary
order denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion to
dismiss and granting plaintiffs' leave to file on a second amended
complaint.  The Court has given plaintiffs until December 11, 2015
to file a second amended complaint to cure deficiencies that the
court identified in the amended complaint and defendants will have
until February 11, 2016 to answer or file motions to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

The Company was named as a defendant in a consolidated federal
securities law class action (Teachers Insurance and Annuity
Association of America, et al. v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. et al, Civ. A. 15-cv-00421) filed in federal
court in New York on January 21, 2015 brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of ARCP
between May 6, 2013 and October 29, 2014, including ARCP common
stock, preferred stock and debt securities. The lawsuit's claims,
premised on Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, allege generally that defendants issued or assisted in
the issuance of false and misleading statements to the investing
public, including in registration statements, prospectuses,
proxies and other public statements and press releases, concerning
ARCP's financial results as part of a scheme to artificially
inflate the value of ARCP's securities.

The complaint alleges that the Company is a "control person" of
ARCP under the securities laws and thus plaintiffs seek to hold
the Company responsible for the alleged misstatements of ARCP and
its officers and directors. The Company is also alleged to be a
"structuring advisor" to ARCP. Realty Capital Securities is named
as a defendant based on its role as a co-manager of ARCP's July
2013 convertible notes offering.

On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which,
like the original complaint, alleges that the Company is a
"control person" of ARCP under the securities laws. The amended
complaint also names Realty Capital Securities as a defendant
based on its role as a co-manager of ARCP's July 2013 convertible
notes offering.

The Company believes the amended complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations
contained in the complaint. The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss all of the claims against it and Realty Capital
Securities. Oral argument was held on October 27, 2015.

On November 6, 2015, the court issued a summary order denying in
part and granting in part defendants' motion to dismiss and
granting plaintiffs' leave to file on a second amended complaint.
The Court has given plaintiffs until December 11, 2015 to file a
second amended complaint to cure deficiencies that the court
identified in the amended complaint and defendants will have until
February 11, 2016 to answer or file motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint.


RENASANT CORP: Hearing Held to Approve Accord in Stockholder Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Renasant Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing has been
scheduled in November 2015 for a Maryland court to determine if
the settlement agreement in a stockholder class action lawsuit
should be approved.  No further updates were provided in the
Company's Form 10-Q report.

On December 31, 2014, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit,
Stein v. Heritage Financial Group, Inc. et al., was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Civil Division (the
"Court"), against Heritage Financial Group, Inc. ("Heritage"), the
members of its board of directors, HeritageBank of the South, the
Company and Renasant Bank. The complaint, which was amended on
February 18, 2015, alleged that the Heritage directors breached
their fiduciary duties and/or violated Maryland law in connection
with the negotiation and approval of the merger agreement by
failing to maximize shareholder value and failing to disclose
material information in the February 9, 2015 preliminary joint
proxy statement/prospectus and that Heritage, HeritageBank of the
South, the Company and Renasant Bank aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. In addition to monetary
damages in an unspecified amount and other remedies, the lawsuit
sought to enjoin Heritage and Company stockholders from voting on
the merger at their respective special meetings and to otherwise
enjoin the directors from consummating the merger.

While the defendants believed these actions were without merit, in
order to avoid the expense of litigation, Heritage, HeritageBank
of the South, the Company and Renasant Bank entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
("Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiff in which Heritage,
without admission of liability, agreed to make certain disclosures
related to the merger agreement in supplemental materials which
were filed with the SEC in a Form 8-K on May 18, 2015.  The
Settlement Agreement is subject to Court approval after notice to
the former shareholders of Heritage. The parties have finalized
the settlement documents and submitted the Settlement Agreement to
the Court for approval, which may lead to payment of attorney's
fees and costs of $262,500, which would conclude the litigation if
accepted by the Court. A hearing is scheduled in November 2015 for
the Court to determine if the Settlement Agreement should be
approved.


ROCK CREEK: Submits Responsive Documents in Illinois Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is continuing to produce
responsive documents to the Plaintiffs in an Illinois class action
lawsuit on a rolling basis, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On January 27, 2014, Howard T. Baldwin filed a purported class
action naming the Company, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
GNC Holding, Inc., or "GNC," as defendants.  The case was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  Generally, the complaint alleged that claims made for
the Company's Anatabloc(R) product have not been proven and that
individuals purchased the product based on alleged misstatements
regarding characteristics, uses, benefits, quality and intended
purposes of the product.  The complaint purported to allege claims
for violation of state consumer protection laws, breach of express
and implied warranties and unjust enrichment.  The Company has
agreed to indemnify and defend GNC pursuant to the terms of the
purchasing agreement between RCP Development and GNC. Consistent
with that commitment, the Company has agreed to assume the defense
of this matter on its own behalf as well as on behalf of GNC.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March
24, 2014. On January 13, 2015, the Court entered an order
dismissing the complaint in its entirety without prejudice.

On February 10, 2015, Mr. Baldwin filed an Amended Complaint
against Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Star Scientific,
Inc., RCP Development, Inc. f/k/a Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and GNC Holdings, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"). The Amended
Complaint also includes an additional named plaintiff, Jerry Van
Norman, who alleges that he is a citizen of Parkville, Missouri.
The Amended Complaint requests certification of an "Illinois
Class" consisting of all persons who paid, in whole or in part,
for Anatabloc(R) dietary supplement in Illinois between August 1,
2011 and the present for personal, family or household uses," and
a "Missouri Class" consisting of "all persons who paid, in whole
or in part, for Anatabloc(R) dietary supplement in Missouri
between August 1, 2011 and the present for personal, family or
household uses." The Amended Complaint is pleaded in seven counts:
(1) violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act of Illinois; (2) violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practice Act; (3) breach of express warranty under
Illinois law; (4) breach of express warranty under Missouri law;
(5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Illinois
law; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under
Missouri law; and (7) unjust enrichment.

Like the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint alleges that
Defendants manufactured, marketed and/or sold Anatabloc(R), a
dietary supplement purportedly derived from an anatabine alkaloid
and promoted Anatabloc(R) as a "wonder drug" with a number of
medical benefits and uses, from treating excessive inflammation
(associated with arthritis) to Alzheimer's disease, traumatic
brain injury (or concussions), diabetes and multiple sclerosis.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have never proven any of these
claims in clinical trials or received U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval for Anatabloc(R), and that Anatabloc(R)
"was never the 'wonder drug' it claimed to be." Plaintiffs allege
that they purchased Anatabloc(R) based upon claims that it
provides "anti-inflammatory support." Mr. Baldwin alleges that he
purchased Anatabloc(R) to "reduce inflammation and pain in his
joints," and Mr. Van Norman alleges that he "suffers back and knee
problems, as well as arthritis, and expected Anatabloc(R) to be
effective in treating these symptoms and purchased Anatabloc(R) to
help alleviate his symptoms." Both plaintiffs allege that
Anatabloc(R) did not provide the relief promised by the
Defendants.

Although the Amended Complaint does not include claims based on
the consumer protection laws and breach of warranty laws of
several additional states like the original Complaint, on February
10, 2015, counsel for plaintiffs also served a "Notice pursuant
to: Alabama Code Sec. 8-19-10(e); Alaska Statutes Sec.45.50.535;
California Civil Code Sec. 1782; Georgia Code Sec. 10-1-399;
Indiana Code Sec. 24-5-0.5-5(a); Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5,
Sec. 50-634(g); Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sec. 9(3);
Texas Business & Commercial Code Sec. 17.505; West Virginia Code
Sec. 46A-6-106(b); and, Wyoming Statutes Sec. 40-12-109 as well as
state warranty statutes," which purports to give notice to
Defendants on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a "class of
similarly situated individuals" that Defendants have "violated
state warranty statutes and engaged in consumer fraud and
deceptive practices in connection with its sale of Anatabloc(R),"
and demanding that "Defendants correct or otherwise rectify the
damage caused by such unfair trade practices and warranty breaches
and return all monies paid by putative class members."

The Defendants timely moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
March 10, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in response to the
motion to dismiss on April 9, 2015, and Defendants filed their
reply memorandum on April 22, 2015.  On April 28, 2015, the Court
entered an order lifting the stay of discovery that had been in
place in the case. The Plaintiffs served discovery requests on May
18, 2015, to which the Company responded on June 17, 2015.

The Company is continuing to produce responsive documents to the
Plaintiffs on a rolling basis. The next status hearing before the
Court was scheduled for September 24, 2015 and was reset for
November 23, 2015. To date, no amounts for loss contingency have
been accrued in the consolidated financial statements.


ROCKET FUEL: Shareholder Class Action Mulled
--------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP, a shareholder rights law firm, is
investigating potential claims on behalf of investors of Rocket
Fuel Inc. (NASDAQ:FUEL).  Rocket Fuel is a technology company that
provides artificial-intelligence digital advertising solutions.

Rocket Fuel faces a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
shareholders who purchased stock between September 20, 2013 and
August 5, 2014 (the "Class Period").  The shareholder class action
alleges that during the Class Period, Rocket Fuel and certain of
its officers and directors misled investors by failing to disclose
that a large percentage of ads Rocket Fuel brokered were being
"viewed" by automated fraudulent computer programs that it could
not identify and eliminate, which placed its operations and
financial performance in jeopardy.

Prior to the class action lawsuit being filed, Rocket Fuel stock
traded as high as $71.89 per share, on January 25, 2016, however,
the stock closed at just $3.15 per share.

If you are a long-term shareholder of Rocket Fuel, continuously
holding shares you may have standing to hold the Company harmless
from the damage the officers and directors caused by making them
personally responsible.  You may also be able to assist in
reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future
wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about the investigation or
your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471.  If you email, please
include your phone number.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York
and Georgia.  The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits.


SABINE OIL: Forest Oil Class Suit Remains Stayed Amid Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the class
action lawsuit related to the Company's combination with Forest
Oil Corporation is presently stayed in view of Sabine Oil's
bankruptcy filing.  The parties also are negotiating the
stipulation of settlement, Sabine Oil said.

On December 16, 2014, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and Forest Oil Corporation, a New York
corporation, completed the combination of their respective
businesses through a series of transaction agreements whereby
certain indirect equity holders of Sabine O&G contributed the
equity interests in Sabine O&G to Forest Oil Corporation. In
exchange for this contribution, the equity holders of Sabine O&G
received shares of Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation common stock and
Series A senior non-voting equity-equivalent preferred stock
collectively representing approximately a 73.5% economic interest
in Sabine and 40% of the total voting power in Sabine.  On
December 19, 2014, Forest Oil Corporation changed its name to
"Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation."

Following the May 6, 2014 announcement of the proposed
Combination, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by
Forest Oil shareholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by
the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those
breaches of fiduciary duty by Sabine entities in connection with
the proposed Combination. By order dated July 8, 2014, the six New
York cases were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In
re Forest Oil Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index No.
651418/2014.  On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated New
York action filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint seeks to
certify a plaintiff class consisting of all holders of Forest Oil
common stock other than the defendants and their affiliates.

The defendants named in these actions include the directors of
Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser,
James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond
I. Wilcox), as well as Sabine and certain of its affiliates
(specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC,
Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II
LLC).  The Consolidated Complaint also purports to identify FR XI
Onshore AIV, L.L.C. as a defendant, but no causes of action are
alleged against that entity.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the proposed Combination
arises out of a series of unlawful actions by the board of
directors of Forest Oil seeking to ensure that Sabine and
affiliates of First Reserve Corporation ("First Reserve") acquire
the assets of, and take control over, Forest Oil through an
alleged "three-step merger transaction" that allegedly does not
represent a value-maximizing transaction for the shareholders of
Forest Oil. The Consolidated Complaint also complains that the
proposed Combination has been improperly restructured to require
only a majority vote of current Forest Oil shareholders to approve
the Combination with Sabine, rather than a two-thirds majority as
would have been required under the original transaction structure.
The Consolidated Complaint additionally alleges that members of
Forest Oil's board, as well as Forest Oil's financial adviser for
the proposed Combination, are subject to conflicts of interest
that compromise their loyalty to Forest Oil's shareholders, that
the defendants have improperly sought to "lock up" the proposed
Combination with certain inappropriate "deal protection devices"
that impede Forest Oil from pursuing superior potential
transactions with other bidders.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts causes of action against the
directors of Forest Oil for breaches of fiduciary duty and
violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, as well as a
cause of action against the Sabine defendants for aiding and
abetting the directors' breaches of duty and violations of law,
and it seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin
consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative,
rescission and/or rescissory and other damages in the event that
the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is
resolved.

In addition to these New York proceedings, one putative class
action lawsuit has been filed by Forest Oil shareholders in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. That
action, captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01409-
MSK-CBS, was commenced on May 19, 2014, and plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint (the "Olinatz Complaint") on June 13, 2014. The
Olinatz Complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Sabine defendants in connection with the
proposed Combination, as well as related claims alleging
violations of Section 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misstatements
in a Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Forest Oil on May
29, 2014, which recommends that Forest Oil shareholders approve
the proposed Combination. The Olinatz Complaint names as
defendants Forest Oil and certain of its affiliates (specifically,
Forest Oil Corporation, New Forest Oil Inc., and Forest Oil Merger
Sub Inc.), the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James
H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll,
Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), and Sabine and certain
of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine
Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine
Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC), and seeks preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed
Combination or, in the alternative, rescission in the event the
proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is
resolved, as well as imposition of a constructive trust on any
alleged benefits improperly received by defendants.

On October 14, 2014, on motion by the Colorado plaintiffs, the
Court in the Colorado action entered an order directing the Clerk
of the Court to administratively close the action, subject to
reopening on good cause shown.

On November 11, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs in the New York action regarding a
settlement of that action, and that agreement is reflected in a
memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on that date.
The settlement, if consummated, will also resolve the Colorado
action.

In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum
of understanding, Forest Oil agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed transaction with Sabine, which
are contained in Forest Oil's November 12, 2014 Form 8-K, and
Sabine agreed that, within 120 days after the closing of the
proposed combination transaction, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC
will designate for a period of no less than three (3) years at
least one additional independent director, as defined in Section
303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, as a
Sabine Nominee (as defined in Section 1.4 of the Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger). The total number of Sabine
Nominees will remain unchanged, but at least one of the remaining
two Sabine Nominees that had not yet been determined was required
to be independent.

In connection with the closing of the Combination, Thomas
Chewning, an independent director as defined in Section 303A.02 of
the New York Exchange Listed Company Manual, was appointed as a
Sabine Nominee. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.

On March 13, 2015, plaintiffs informed Sabine that they believed
Sabine had materially violated the terms of the memorandum of
understanding by (i) failing to replace or create a mechanism to
replace an independent director who resigned from the board of
directors in January of 2015, and (ii) making changes to the terms
of the merger agreement that were not necessary or required to
facilitate the consummation of the proposed transaction without
first disclosing and permitting shareholders to vote on the
changes. Sabine disagrees with plaintiffs' position and believes
it has fully complied with the memorandum of understanding.

In an attempt to facilitate a resolution, however, Sabine offered
to: (i) appoint an independent director if an additional director
was added to the Board of Directors (bringing the total number of
directors eight in the next twelve months, and (ii) remove or
waive the "Reincorporation Penalty" provision.  Plaintiffs
accepted the offer on April 22, 2015, contingent upon the Parties'
reaching agreement on a stipulation of settlement, which they are
presently negotiating.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval.  In the event the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the New York Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims or actions that were or could have been brought challenging
any aspect of the proposed combination transaction, the Amended
and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, the merger agreement
originally entered into by Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Forest
Oil, New Forest Oil Inc. and certain of their affiliated entities
on May 5, 2014, any disclosure made in connection therewith,
including the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all other matters
that were the subject of the complaint in the New York action,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that the parties will negotiate in good faith
regarding the amount of attorney's fees and expenses that shall be
paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the Actions.  There
can be no assurances that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the New York Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.
The parties are presently negotiating the stipulation of
settlement.  At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the
potential outcome of this litigation or the ultimate exposure.

On July 15, 2015, Sabine filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  As a result of the
pending bankruptcy, this matter is currently stayed.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Hearing Held on Suit over Bail System
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Oakland, Calif., Jan. 26 tore into attorneys
challenging San Francisco's bail system as unconstitutional,
saying they need to "think about a legal avenue" to achieve their
goal, "to the extent that it exists."

"I understand the big picture. What I'm looking for from you and
what is your job is to figure out the legal avenue to get there.
That's not my job. And I don't see it here," U.S. District Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers told Phil Telfeyan with Washington, D.C.-
based Equal Justice Under the Law.

Telefeyan represents two women arrested in October 2015 -- Riana
Buffin,19, and Crystal Patterson, 29 -- on suspicion of grand
theft (Buffin) and assault (Patterson). Both were released without
charges, after spending several days behind bars because neither
could afford bail. Buffin's bond was set at $30,000, Patterson's
at $150,000.

Their putative class action lawsuit claims the City and County of
San Francisco unconstitutionally criminalize poverty by keeping
poor arrestees in jail because they can't afford to post bail.
They also claimed that California violated their rights because it
requires its 58 counties to set money bail schedules.

The women sought class certification and a preliminary injunction
to end the practice of bail. They got neither.

Gonzalez Rogers gave Telfeyan and his co-counsel Katherine Hubbard
30 days to come up with a legal analysis of how the case can
proceed in light of the fact that the California has not consented
to be sued.

"You now don't have a state defendant because they're immune,"
Gonzalez Rogers said, noting that bail is determined by the
Superior Court judges, who are state officials.

"You don't have the judges in this suit, and frankly, I don't
think you can sue them," she said. "Your legal theory seems
ambiguous and unformed."

Hubbard replied: "We feel our theory is clear. San Francisco,
which operates its county jail, is detaining arrestees pre-trial
in violation of the Constitution. They are detaining arrestees
based on wealth status because people who can't afford it are
permitted to walk out of jail and people who cannot must remain in
jail."

Gonzalez Rogers was not impressed: "I understand what you're
hoping to achieve, but you still have to do the legal analysis,
and pontificating at the mike is not legal analysis."

Telfeyan stepped in, saying a federal court could strike down a
state order if it violates the Constitution.

Gonzalez Rogers, a former Alameda Superior Court judge, was not
persuaded.

"You want me to issue an order to all of the judges in San
Francisco telling them that their orders are unconstitutional?"

She continued: "I hear your argument, but when you have statements
in your claim like the CCSF operates the Sheriff's Department,
county jail and Superior Court, it clearly suggests to me you
don't understand how it works. The Superior Court is a
constitutional branch of the California government. It gives me no
confidence in your ability to have articulated something that may
be successful."

Telfeyan told reporters later that he did not see the judge's
order as a setback.

"It sounds like we have 30 days to figure out exactly what she
needs to hear," he said. "She wants some clarification about what
the City and County of San Francisco is liable for. If the judges
are immune, then the only question is what liability does City and
County of San Francisco have for keeping people in its jail
illegally?"

He added: "The county cannot violate the federal Constitution even
if ordered to do so by a state judge."

Equal Justice has brought six successful lawsuits in cities and
counties in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Missouri. Two
actions in Georgia and Kansas are still being litigated.

Harmeet Dhillon, who represents the California Bail Agents
Association, said Gonzalez-Rogers got it right by asking for a
more definite statement of the case.

"Both my partner and I used to work at the same firm as her before
she joined the bench, and she's a pretty intelligent, thorough,
hard-hitting, not-going-to-be-fooled judge, and she wasn't having
any of their half-baked arguments," Dhillon said in an interview
outside the Oakland Federal Courthouse.

Dhillon said the plaintiffs' only way forward is to have the
state's bail statute declared unconstitutional.

"As the judge clearly articulated, she can't order state court
judges to do X, Y or Z. Today was a total loss for the
plaintiffs," Dhillon said.

"The county has to follow what the judges say. Sheriffs don't have
a right to ignore the judges, and a federal judge can't order them
to. What the state court judges are doing is applying a state
statute passed by the legislators. What a federal judge can do is
declare that statute unconstitutional, but that's not the relief
requested in this lawsuit."

Dhillon said the bail association will try to intervene in the
case if it moves ahead.


SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Event USA's Motion to Compel Discovery Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James D. Petersen denied Defendant Event USA
Corp.'s motion to compel discovery in the captioned case SCOTT
BOEHM and DAVID STLUKA, Plaintiffs, v. SCHEELS ALL SPORTS, INC.,
NICHOLAS MARTIN, SPORTS-4-LESS, LUKE WEIN, BEYOND STUDIO +
PUBLISHING, LLC, JOHN DOE 1, SCOOTER G. SPORTS, MICHAEL LOVELACE,
22 PROMOTIONS, LLC, GERALD MILLER, ANDREW WREDBERG, AW ARTWORKS,
LLC, JESSE WINIECKI, AMANDA McVEIGH, JOHN GEORGE, GAMEDAY SPORTS,
ANGELA CLEARY, EVENT USA CORP., BRIAN BOPREY, NANCY BOPREY, DAVID
THOMASON, WAUKESHA SPORTSCARDS, ROBB DOBRATZ, and MICHAEL CLEARY,
Defendants, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Intervenor,
SCOTT'S BREWERY COLLECTIBLES and SCOTT SVEHLA, Third-Party
Plaintiffs, v. WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party
Defendant, No.: 15-cv-379-jdp, (W.D. Wis.)

Plaintiffs filed a set of sharp-toned motions accusing some
defendants of violating the court's injunction order.  A
similarly-toned motion also was filed by defendant Event USA Corp.
accusing plaintiffs of discovery abuse.

Event USA has moved to amend its pleadings to add a crossclaim
against defendant David Thomason and to file a third-party
complaint against Dan Zimprich and Legends of the Field, LLC.
Plaintiffs have moved to sanction defendants Angela Cleary,
Michael Cleary, Gameday Sports, and Nicholas Martin for violating
the preliminary injunction, and for making misrepresentations to
the court.

Plaintiffs asked for both civil and criminal sanctions for
contempt. They requested that the court impose monetary fines,
shift their attorney fees, expand the terms of the injunction, and
enter directed verdicts or judgments of willfulness.

In his Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/X1vFAZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Peterson denied Event
USA's motion to compel discovery.  The Court also denied the
Plaintiffs Scott Boehm and David Stluka's motion for an extension
of time to respond to Event USA's motion to compel for being moot.

The Court said Event USA may file as a new docket entry an amended
pleading including a crossclaim against defendant David Thomason.
The Court also granted Nicholas Martin's motion to file a sur-
reply.

Moreover, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions against defendants Angela Cleary, Michael Cleary, and
Gameday Sports.  The Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against
Defendant Nicholas Martin is granted in part. The Court granted
the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against Event USA and
directed Plaintiffs to file documentation supporting the attorney
fees that they incurred in bringing these three sanctions motions
by January 4, 2016. Any opposition or response to the amount of
fees was due by January 11, 2016.

Danial A. Nelson, Esq. -- dnelson@nelsonmcculloch.com Kevin
Patrick McCulloch, Esq. and Nathaniel Kleinman, Esq. -- of Nelson
& McCulloch LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Scott Boehm

Frederick J. Strampe, Esq. -- fstrampe@borgelt.com April Katheryn
Toy, Esq. and Julia Blair Semenak, Esq. -- jsemenak@borgelt.com of
Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, S.C. serve as counsel for
Defendant Scheels All Sports, Inc.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Litigation over Bally Acquisition Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Nevada
court has dismissed with prejudice the litigation related to the
acquisition of Bally Technologies, Inc., and approved the
settlement in the case.

Complaints challenging the Bally acquisition were filed in August
2014 in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The actions
were putative class actions filed on behalf of the public
stockholders of Bally and name as defendants Bally, its directors,
Scientific Games Corporation and certain of its affiliates. The
complaints generally alleged that the Bally directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and
approval of the acquisition and that we aided and abetted those
alleged breaches. The plaintiffs sought equitable relief,
including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if
not enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs.

All of the actions were consolidated under the caption In re Bally
Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. A-14- 705012-
B) (the "Nevada Action"). In October 2014, plaintiffs filed a
motion for limited expedited discovery in connection with an
anticipated motion to enjoin the proposed transaction. Following
that, in October 2014, Bally and its directors filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and Scientific Games
Corporation and its affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the count
of the consolidated complaint alleging wrongdoing by Scientific
Games Corporation and its affiliates. Following that, the
plaintiffs withdrew their motion for expedited discovery and the
parties entered into preliminary settlement discussions.

On October 17, 2014, following arm's-length negotiations, the
parties to the Nevada Action entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") under which they agreed in principle to
settle all of the claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a class-
wide basis, subject to certain conditions, including confirmatory
discovery by the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and preliminary
and final approval of the Nevada court, which would consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. Bally,
Scientific Games and the other named defendants entered into the
MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and
vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, the claims
alleged in the Nevada Action.  The MOU provided that Bally would
make certain supplemental disclosures about the transaction in a
definitive proxy statement, which it did on October 20, 2014.

On November 18, 2014, Bally's stockholders approved the Bally
acquisition and the Bally acquisition was consummated on November
21, 2014.  After entering into the MOU, the plaintiffs completed
confirmatory discovery and concluded that the settlement
contemplated by the MOU was fair, reasonable and adequate and in
the best interests of the Bally public stockholders.

In April 2015, all parties to the Nevada Action entered into a
definitive stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and
release, providing for all claims that were or could be asserted
in the Nevada Action to be dismissed with prejudice on a class-
wide basis in accordance with the terms of the MOU, subject to
court approval.  Subsequently, plaintiffs moved for preliminary
approval of the settlement, class certification and notice to
class members.  The Nevada court approved the motion for
preliminary approval in June 2015. In October 2015, the Nevada
court dismissed the matter with prejudice, approved the
settlement, and awarded $450,000 to be paid by the Company for
plaintiff's' attorneys fees.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeal in Oregon State Lottery Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in a class action against the Oregon State Lottery and
other defendants is pending, Scientific Games Corporation said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

On December 31, 2014, a representative of a purported class of
persons alleged to have been financially harmed by relying on the
"auto hold" feature of various manufacturers' video lottery
terminals played in Oregon, filed suit in the Circuit Court of
Multnomah County, Oregon, against the Oregon State Lottery and
various manufacturers, including WMS Gaming Inc. The suit alleges
that the auto hold feature of video poker games is perceived by
players as providing the best possible playing strategy that will
maximize the odds of the player winning, when such auto hold
feature does not maximize the players' odds of winning. The
plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $134.0 million in monetary
damages. WMS Gaming Inc. and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss in February 2015.

In April 2015, the court granted the Oregon State Lottery's motion
to dismiss, stating the plaintiff had not satisfied the Oregon
Tort Claims Act. As a result of the dismissal, the court indicated
that all claims against WMS Gaming Inc. are moot. In June 2015,
plaintiffs filed an appeal on the matter.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the
lawsuit," the Company said.


SECRET TO LIFE COACHING: Former Clients File Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abby Haglage, writing for The Daily Beast, reports that a married
couple who ran a successful life-coaching business engaged in
fraud, theft, and racketeering, a new lawsuit alleges.

It's early 2015 in a Paris conference room and nerdy men in suits
are shouting: "I'm sassy, I'm sexy, I'm sensational!" The words,
indecipherable if not for the video's caption, are a part of a
warm-up game during a life-coaching retreat -- one aimed at
shaping the world's best life coaches.

A company called The Secret to Life Coaching (TSTLC) -- one that's
now under government investigation -- hosted the retreat.  Founded
in 2008 by Coral Rose Grant, TSTLC's stated mission is to help
people "live their best lives" and, ultimately, make a career out
of teaching others the same.

Recently, it is the subject of a major class-action lawsuit led by
two former clients, Cheri Lucas and April Fisher -- the latter of
whom taught classes for TSTLC.  Together, the two allege that the
company was part of a Ponzi scheme devised by Coral and her
husband, Mac, in which they pocketed investor money totaling
anywhere from $8 million to $20 million, using it to "live like
royalty."

Charging people hundreds of dollars to help them find the "life of
their dreams," they instead used it to live out their own.  The
mastermind behind the scheme, the two claim, was a "career
fraudster and federal felon" Kevin Trudeau, the "infomercial king"
who is serving time in prison for diet books.  Coral, they say,
not only visited Mr. Trudeau in prison, but spent money trying to
get him released.

Filed on behalf of "all persons who have entered into 'coaching
contracts' or 'investor contracts' with any of the defendants,"
Lucas and Fisher are asking for $30 million total in damages for
fraud, theft, and racketeering, as well as gross negligence and
deceptive trade.

The claim paints a grim picture of scam, with the master coaches
turning clients into players -- stripping them of hundreds of
thousands of dollars and feeding them lies about "happiness."

On TSTLF's website users are greeted by the words "Become a Life
Coach" in enormous white letters.  Below is a picture of Coral,
bronzed and beaming with platinum curls falling over her (you
guessed it) coral sweater.  Her bio describes her as a "true
humanitarian" whose mission is to "create peace on our planet."
Beside it is a recent video of Coral titled How Riches Come to
You.

Her husband, Mac, appears beneath her, a tall, dark-haired man
donning a suit and soul patch.  He's identified both as the Chief
Operating Officer as well as a "successful entrepreneur,
motivational speaker, Master Coach, and a leader in a network
marketing company."  Beyond enjoying life with Coral (his "soul
mate"), he loves "coaching people on stepping into their true
power."

Coral, who claims to have "learned the secrets to be able to live
every day on purpose and manifest her absolute dream life in every
way," spreads the word through radio and TV.  Underneath details
about her television program, The Secret to Life Coaching, she
writes to "Tune in every week to the Oxygen network!"
A spokesperson from Oxygen told The Daily Beast that no such show
airs on the network.

The core of the company's mission comes from its certification
section, which poses banal questions such as, "Do you like helping
people?" The course is said to last 90 days, consisting of weekly
60-minute classes with small groups of "like-minded people."  On
Facebook, the Grants seem to frequently change the price,
sometimes offering it for $15 per month, other times asking close
to $300 for the first course alone.

Their definition of "living your best life" seems fairly broad.
"From a middle aged soccer mom looking to lose a few pounds to an
upper level executive looking to negotiate a seven-figure business
deal, you will possess the confidence, skill and knowledge
required to make you an invaluable resource in the lives of your
Life Coaching clients," their certification page reads.  "As a
Life Coaching Professional, you can demand anywhere from $75 to
$500 per hour."

Where the breakdown seems to have happened, according to the
complaint, is what the Grants' call a "commission agreement."
Essentially a "coaching contract," the lawsuit explains it as a
"commission percentage or fee" rewarded to coaches who either
recruited coaching clients or taught coaching classes themselves.
It's money, they say, that never came.

On top of this, the Grants also "invited people (coaches, members,
clients) to become 'investors,' i.e. give them flat sums in
exchange for non-specific future returns."  Returns that,
according to the plaintiffs, never panned out.  Instead, Lucas and
Fisher said the Grants pocketed the money owed to coaches and the
money given by investors.

"The Grants live a lavish lifestyle with their ill-gotten gains.
They lease multiple mansions around the United States, fly around
the country in chartered private jets, and lease or own luxury
vehicles (Bentleys, for example)," reads the complaint.  "Put
simply, Coral and Mac Grant are con artists living high on the hog
with the millions they have stolen from their unsuspecting
contractors and investors."

After spending all of the money that they'd pocketed from
investors and commission fees, the Grants allegedly started
opening up smaller companies and telling clients to direct their
money there.  Before doing so, they canceled previous contracts,
citing "recent events," and noting that investors would not be
able to collect their money.

But the shady activity doesn't stop there, according to Lucas, who
alleges that Coral was given a roadmap for her Ponzi scheme by
Kevin Trudeau.  A former infomercial salesman, who was at one
pointed deemed the "best salesman of all time," Trudeau was
sentenced to 10 years in prison for a book called Natural Cures
"They" Don't Want You To Know About.

Lucas says she has proof that Coral got her ideas from Trudeau,
prompting the master life coach to donate funds from her company
to the Kevin Trudeau Legal Defense Fund.  She also alleges that
the scheme eventually became too large for Trudeau to support,
alleging that he "told [Coral] to stop."  Quotes from Trudeau
sometimes appear on the company's Facebook page, most recently
this one: "Attitude is more important than facts, because facts
are usually just opinions!"

If the Grants set out to help people live their best lives, they
may have gotten lost along the way.  According to the plantiffs'
attorneys, the two went as far as to steal from clients' life
savings.  "Coral and Mac Grant took advantage of a lot of people,"
they told The Daily Beast.  "They took millions of dollars with no
intention of giving it back."


SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Defending Suits over Martha Stewart Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sequential Brands Group, Inc. is defending a consolidated class
action lawsuit related to its merger with to Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc., Sequential said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of June 22, 2015 (the "MSLO Merger Agreement"), among the Company,
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("MSLO"), Singer Madeline Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("TopCo"), Madeline Merger Sub., Inc., a Delaware corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of TopCo ("Madeline Merger Sub"), and
Singer Merger Sub., Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of TopCo ("Singer Merger Sub" and, together with the
Madeline Merger Sub, the "Merger Subs"), pursuant to which the
Company will acquire MSLO.

In connection with the MSLO Merger Agreement, 13 putative
stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware during the period between June
25, 2015 and July 28, 2015 against MSLO, the MSLO board of
directors, the Company, Madeline Merger Sub, Singer Merger Sub and
TopCo. Such class action lawsuits allege that the members of the
MSLO board of directors breached their fiduciary duties and that
MSLO, the Company, Madeline Merger Sub, Singer Merger Sub and
TopCo aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
by members of MSLO board of directors. The Company has referred
the matters to external counsel.

On August 18, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order
consolidating these actions for all purposes under the caption In
re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al. to be the
operative complaint in the consolidated action. Based on
preliminary discussions, the Company believes that the
consolidated action is not likely to result in material liability
for the Company.


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Thump reports that January was full of ups and downs for SFX
Entertainment -- the events company that owns and operates several
major EDM festivals in North America, including Electric Zoo,
Mysteryland and Tomorrowland.  On January 25, 2015, Robert F. X.
Sillerman's company's share price tumbled by nearly 14% on the
New York Stock Exchange, bringing the price of a share to under 10
cents.  This comes after a turbulent year for SFX Entertainment,
in which the company experienced plummeting stock, considered
filing for bankruptcy, and faced legal action from its investors.

The EDM conglomerate is currently valued at $9.52 million.  When
the company went public in October 2013, it did so with a share
price of $13 a share and was valued at over $1 billion.

While the stock market wasn't doing any favors for the events
company, SFX Entertainment did find some financial respite in the
settling of a class action lawsuit.  Mixmag reported on Jan. 25
that according to documents obtained by the publication, SFX
settled an outstanding lawsuit brought against the company by
Paolo Moreno, an EDM promoter, and two other plaintiffs, who
claimed that the idea for SFX Entertainment was Moreno's.

Mixmag reported that despite the lawsuit progressing through
California's court system, it came to an abrupt end on January 22,
when it was dismissed by the plaintiffs for reasons the
publication did not expand on.

Mr. Sillerman, however, still has another class action lawsuit
hanging over his head.  In September of last year, a group of
investors sued Mr. Sillerman for misleading them into thinking he
had the financial resources to acquire the outstanding stock in
SFX Entertainment he didn't already own.

On January 21, a day before the Moreno lawsuit was settled, SFX
announced it had secured a much-needed investment lifeline from a
Canadian private equity firm.  In filings made to the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), Catalyst Capital Group announced a
$20 million investment in the company.  It remains to be seen if
the eleventh-hour investment, and settled lawsuit, will be enough
to save the ailing company.

When contacted by THUMP, a representative of SFX Entertainment
declined to comment on either the falling share price, or the
class action lawsuit.


SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Final Judgment & Dismissal Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shengdatech Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a New York
court has entered a final judgment and order of dismissal with
prejudice against all settling parties in the case, In re
ShengdaTech, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The Company is not part
of this settlement.

On October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw, through lead
counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd L.L.P., filed their third
amended putative class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of ShengdaTech between May 6, 2008 and March 15, 2010,
against (i) the Company, (ii) certain of the Company's former
officers and directors including Messrs. Mudd and Saidman (the
"Independent Directors"), and (iii) the Company's former auditor,
KPMG HK. The Third Amended Complaint arises out of alleged
misrepresentations in the Company's SEC filings and other public
statements made during the class period and asserts a claim
against the Company for the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereon.
While Plaintiffs claim damages against the defendants in an amount
to be determined at trial, Plaintiffs' concede that any recovery
against the Company under the Plan is limited to available
insurance coverage and proceeds.

On November 25, 2013, the Independent Directors and KPMG HK moved
to dismiss ("Motions to Dismiss") the Third Amended Complaint on
the grounds, among others, that it failed to state cognizable
claims against them. The Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint were fully briefed as of January 13, 2014. On July 1,
2014, the Court denied KPMG HK's Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice to renewal. On August 12, 2014, the Court granted the
Independent Directors' motion to dismiss the Third Amended and
Consolidated Complaint.  On October 24, 2014, Plaintiffs moved
("Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion") for relief from judgment under
Rule 60(b)(1) and (2) and for leave to amend their complaint under
Rule 15(a) and (d) against the Independent Directors.  On May 28,
2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion and motion
for leave to file an amended complaint.

On January 8, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to the
allegations raised against it in the Third Amended Complaint. In
its Answer, the Company denied all material allegations of
wrongdoing against it and raised certain affirmative defenses.

On March 27, 2015, Plaintiffs and KPMG HK executed a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") to resolve all
claims between them that were or could have been raised in the
litigation. On April 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement and
related papers including a memorandum in support, a form of notice
and the Stipulation. On June 8, 2015, the Court preliminarily
approved the Stipulation and following a hearing on September 17,
2015, the Court finally approved the Stipulation and the
settlement provided for therein. On September 25, 2015, the Court
entered a final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice
against all Settling Parties. The Stipulation did not resolve
Plaintiffs' complaint against the Company or its former officers
or directors.

On July 10, 2015, the Company and Plaintiffs informed the Court
that the parties anticipated filing a notice of dismissal of this
action as against the Company once there was a final order finally
adjudicating the Class 5 Proof of Claim.. As a result, on July 13,
2015, the Court entered an order dismissing the Company without
prejudice, provided any application to restore the Company as a
defendant be made within thirty days. Plaintiffs made no
application to restore the Company as a defendant.


SHERMAN FINANCIAL: FDCPA/RICO Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for InsideARM.com, reports that a federal judge
in Indianapolis has ruled that a lawsuit alleging violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the United
States Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO")
against Sherman Financial Group, one of the country's largest debt
buyers, cannot proceed as a class action because circumstances
vary too much among the class members.

In a decision filed on January 22, 2016, U.S. District Judge Tanya
Pratt said individual proof would be needed for each class member
to support their claims that Sherman subsidiaries did not own
consumers' debt when they tried to collect it.

The action was originally filed on November 9, 2012. (Cox, et al
v. Sherman Capital LLC, et al. U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Indiana, 1:12-cv-01654-TWP-MJD)

The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants did not actually own their
debts when the Defendant and their agents engaged in collection
activities against them and the prospective class members.

Plaintiff's argument hinges upon the practice of "securitizing"
pools of receivables.

From the Order:

"Underlying the argument that [Defendants] did not own the
Plaintiffs' debts is the Plaintiffs' understanding of the effects
of "securitization" on the debts.  Plaintiffs allege that shortly
after a consumer assumes a debt obligation or receivable, the
originating bank, through subsidiaries, pools the receivable with
others into a financial instrument that can be sold to outside
investors, which results in the creation of an asset-backed
security.  According to the Plaintiffs, the primary results of
securitization are:

   -- the originating bank is paid in full;

   -- the originating bank surrenders all control and ownership
including all rights, title, and interest over the receivables;

   -- the outside investors own the receivables as result of a
true sale;

   -- evidence of indebtedness is delivered to the Trustee;

  -- the originating bank transforms into the servicer for the
asset-backed security; and

  -- the originating bank cannot get the receivables back without
violating numerous agency rules.

Thereafter, if the consumer does not pay the debt obligation or
receivable, the originating bank (which now acts as the "servicer"
for the asset-backed security) has 180 days to collect upon the
receivable. If the originating bank is unsuccessful, the debt or
receivable is considered "charged-off".  When this occurs, the
originating bank (servicer) informs the investor who purchased the
receivable, and if the investor had a credit default agreement or
similar credit enhancement, the investor is paid in full.
According to Plaintiffs, once the investor is paid in full, there
is no longer a debt obligation.  Instead, the only thing that is
left over is "data" of the debt or receivable, therefore, the
originating bank can only sell the data and not the actual debt.

Despite the Plaintiffs' description of securitization and its
purported effect on their debts or receivables, Defendants claim
that they, nevertheless, obtained valid title to each of the named
Plaintiffs' debts directly from the originating banks.  In
addition, Defendants argue that there is competing evidence to
suggest that after a securitized receivable is "written off" by
the originating bank, the receivable or debt is automatically
removed from the securitized trust and is returned to the
originating bank rather than becoming merely "data".

The opinion discusses the various legal standards for class action
certification.  But the crux of the decision was that after three
years of contentious litigation and extensive discovery the
Plaintiffs could not produce evidence that their debts were
actually securitized, and thus the Plaintiffs still could not
affirmatively demonstrate evidence to establish their primary
legal theory in regards to the four named Plaintiffs' debts.

Judge Pratt wrote:

"If the named Plaintiffs' debts were not securitized and the
Plaintiffs must rely on a securitization theory to establish their
claims, then the named Plaintiffs' claims are not typical of the
class.  Alternatively, if the named Plaintiffs' debts were
securitized but the Plaintiffs' attorney cannot demonstrate
securitization for even the four named Plaintiffs, let alone a
class of tens of thousands of Indiana consumers, the Plaintiffs
may not be "adequate" for purposes of class certification.

The case would require an individualized review of the history of
each Plaintiff's debt obligation, from creation and securitization
through non-payment, "write-off", sale, and attempted collection.
Because of the significant number of individualized factual
issues, the Plaintiffs' claims appear to be unmanageable as a
class action under any definition."

insideARM Perspective

This case presented a fascinating legal issue regarding the impact
of "securitizations" of pools of receivables in a subsequent sale
of accounts.  The issue was the subject of extensive legal
maneuvering by both parties.  A review of the court docket found
529 docket entries over the past three years. In her opinion the
Judge noted, ". . . even a cursory review of the procedural
history of the case, reveals a history of contentious discovery
disputes with 'wins' and 'losses' on both sides."

In this case, the potential exposure for Sherman was enormous.
The Plaintiffs asserted that the number of class members could
easily number in the tens of thousands, noting that the Defendants
collected on over 1,174,222 Indiana consumer accounts between 2008
and 2013.  Plaintiff had also alleged that between November 2008
and November 2013, the Defendants collected over $79,940,415.50 on
over 1,174,222 Indiana consumer accounts.  In addition, over the
same period, the Defendants collected another $18,890,420.79
through 33,440 lawsuits against Indiana consumers.

Class action litigation is expensive, for both parties.  Assuming
this decision withstands any subsequent appeal it appears that
Sherman made a good decision to vigorously defend the case.


SIENTRA INC: Acknowledges C.D. Calif. "Flynn" Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a lawsuit styled
as a class action of Sientra's stockholders was filed on September
25, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The lawsuit names Sientra and certain of
its officers as defendants and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly false
and misleading statements concerning Sientra's business,
operations, and prospects.  The plaintiff seeks damages and an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
This lawsuit is in its initial stages, and no substantive
proceedings have occurred to date.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8, 2015, the case
is captioned John M. Flynn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIENTRA, Inc., Hani
Zeini, And Matthew Pigeon, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07548
(C.D. Cal., September 25, 2015).


SIENTRA INC: Two Stockholder Cases Filed in San Mateo Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that two lawsuits
styled as class actions of Sientra's stockholders were filed on
October 28, 2015 and November 5, 2015, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Mateo. The lawsuits name Sientra,
certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters
associated with Sientra's follow-on public offering that closed on
September 23, 2015 as defendants. The lawsuits allege violations
of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Act, in connection with allegedly false
and misleading statements in Sientra's offering documents
associated with the follow-on offering concerning Sientra's
business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages
and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees. The lawsuits are in their initial stages, and no
substantive proceedings have occurred to date.


SOCAL GAS: Two Porter Ranch Businesses File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Champaign Williams, writing for San Fernando Valley Business
Journal, reports that two Porter Ranch businesses filed a class-
action lawsuit against SoCal Gas Co. and parent company Sempra
Energy over the Aliso Canyon gas leak that has left thousands of
residents displaced and the neighborhood in a state of economic
disarray.

The natural gas leak was discovered on Oct. 23 seeping into the
air above Porter Ranch in the Santa Susana mountains, and small
businesses have suffered from a lack of clientele as a result.

The two businesses, real estate firm Saab Properties and family-
operated Nail Garden, hope to recover damages lost during these
past three months as residents have left the neighborhood in
droves, as reported by the Los Angeles Daily News.

The suit was filed on Jan. 22 in Los Angeles Superior Court with
law firms Panish Shea & Boyle in Los Angeles and Lancaster-based
R. Rex Parris Law Firm representing the plaintiffs.

News of these legal proceedings follows an announcement from SoCal
Gas spokeswoman Anne Silva stating the company has successfully
entered the fifth and final stage of its plans to fix and seal the
leaking well.

The utility announced on Jan. 25 that it anticipates the leak will
be resolved by late February, if not sooner.

"Once the well has been sealed, gas will no longer be entering the
well from the reservoir, and any remaining odors associated with
the leak are expected to quickly dissipate, allowing residents to
return to their homes," Ms. Silva said in a statement.


SOCAL GAS: Regulators Sue Over Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jablon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
regional air regulators sued the Southern California Gas Co. on
Jan. 26, seeking penalties that could surpass $25 million for a
monthslong natural gas leak that is blamed for sickening neighbors
and has prompted a mass evacuation of a San Fernando Valley
neighborhood.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District sued the utility
for creating a public nuisance.  The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court, further contends that "as a result of their
negligence, people were injured," said Kurt Wiese, the agency's
general counsel.

The gas company does not comment on pending litigation,
spokeswoman Kristine Lloyd said.

The utility has been under intense criticism and regulatory
scrutiny for a leak in an underground storage well at the huge
Aliso Canyon storage facility.  It was first reported on Oct. 23,
and the gas company has said it may not be able to plug the leak
until late next month.

The utility announced on Jan. 25 that a relief well designed to
intercept the leaking one has now reached a depth of about 8,400
feet and is 200 feet from its target.

The natural gas spewing into the air contains a smelly odorant as
well as traces of toxic chemicals such as benzene.  It has been
blamed for ailments including nosebleeds, headaches and nausea in
the nearby upscale suburban neighborhood of Porter Ranch.

On Jan. 23, a South Coast Air Quality Management District hearing
board ordered the gas company to permanently close and seal the
well.  It also ordered the utility to pay for an independent
health study for residents of the neighborhood and inspect all 115
wells at Aliso Canyon to help prevent future leaks.

The lawsuit said the air quality management district has received
more than 2,000 complaints of odor from people living or working
near the facility since the leak began.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has said that
benzene levels in 15 samples of air in the area were more than
double normal levels but none exceeded state standards for acute
exposure to benzene.

Officials have said that they don't expect long-term health
problems associated with the leak.

About 3,700 households in and around Porter Ranch have temporarily
moved out of their homes and around 2,400 more are awaiting
relocation.  Students from two local schools also have been
temporarily relocated.

The gas company could be liable for up to $250,000 in civil
penalties for each day of the leak if the lawsuit ends with a
determination that the utility knowing violated state law, failed
to act quickly and caused great bodily injury to the public, Wiese
said.  That works out to about $25 million to date.


SPENDSMART NETWORKS: To Defend "Marchelos" Texting Spam Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
will defend against the case, Peter Marchelos, et al v.
Intellectual Capital Management, et al.

On July 8, 2015, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS
Masterminds and SpendSmart Networks, Inc. were named in a
potential class-action lawsuit entitled Peter Marchelos, et al v.
Intellectual Capital Management, et al, filed in the United States
District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. This
litigation involves the same licensee and merchant as the Telford
lawsuit and the same attorneys represent the plaintiffs in this
action.  The complaint alleges that SMS Masterminds sent
unsolicited text messages to the plaintiff and other recipients
without the prior express invitation or permission of the
recipients and such plaintiff is now seeking unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

"We believe Plaintiff's allegations have no merit and will
vigorously defend against Plaintiff's claims," the Company said.


ST. LAWRENCE REGIONAL: April 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Notice

Did You Live at Any of the Following Institutions or Know Someone
Who Did?

St. Lawrence Regional Centre
between April 1, 1975 - June 30, 1983

Oxford Regional Centre
between April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1996 or in the
"Mental Retardation Unit" or "MR Unit" between
Jan, 1, 1969 - March 31, 1974

Durham Centre for Developmentally
Handicapped
between April 1, 1974 - Sept. 28, 1986

Northwestern Regional Centre
between April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1994

L.S. Penrose Centre
between April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1977

Midwestern Regional
Centre
between Sept. 1, 1963 - March 31, 1998

Muskoka Centre
between Aug. 28, 1973 - June 30, 1993

Bluewater Centre
between April 1, 1976 - Dec. 20, 1983

D'Arcy Place
between Sept. 1, 1963 - Dec. 31, 1996

Adult Occupational Centre
between Jan. 1, 1966 - March 31, 1999

Prince Edward Heights
between Jan. 1, 1971 - Dec. 31, 1999

Pine Ridge
between Sept. 1, 1963 - Aug. 31, 1984

A Lawsuit and Proposed Settlement May Affect You.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided that a class action
on behalf of a "Class" of people who lived at the above
institutions is allowed to go forward.  There is also a proposed
settlement to end the class action.

What is this case about?
The lawsuit says the Province of Ontario failed to properly care
for and protect people who lived at the Institutions.  The
Province of Ontario denies these claims.  The parties have reached
a proposed settlement to end the lawsuit.

If you are having a difficult time dealing with these issues you
can call 1-866-442-4465 (TTY: 1-877-627-7027).

Are you included?
You are included in this lawsuit if:

Compensation and legal fees
If the settlement is approved by the court, there will be a claims
process allowing former residents who are part of the Class to ask
for compensation.

KM LLP agreed that it would only be paid if there was a settlement
or a successful judgment.  KM LLP will seek the court's approval
of its legal fees of $3.7 million plus $481,000 for taxes.

All payments to the class members will come from the settlement,
after payment of legal fees, tax and a mandatory payment to the
Class Proceedings Fund of $2.9 million.

Your legal rights and options

DO NOTHING: by doing nothing you automatically stay in the class
action and wait to see if the settlement is approved on April 25,
2016.  You can then make a claim if the settlement is approved.
Staying in this Class will not impact the residence or supports
received from community based agencies which are funded by
Ontario.

GET OUT OF THE CLASS ACTION: If you do not want to be part of the
settlement and want to keep your rights to sue Ontario
individually over the claims in this case you need to remove
yourself.  If you remove yourself, you cannot get money from
this lawsuit.  To ask to be removed, send a letter to the Class
Action Administrator, postmarked no later than April 15, 2016,
that says you want to be removed from Clegg v. Province of
Ontario.

Include your name, address, telephone number, and signature.  You
can also get an Opt Out Form at www.schedule1facilities.ca

STAY IN THE CLASS ACTION BUT OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT: If you want
to stay in the lawsuit but you don't want the settlement approved,
you can object to the settlement.  If you want to object to the
settlement, you have to write to the Court and tell them why.  You
must send your written objection to the Class Action
Administrator.

You can ask to talk at the court hearing on April 25, 2016.

    * You lived at one or more of the Institutions
between the dates listed above and were alive as
of June 16, 2012; or

    * You are an estate trustee of someone who lived
at one of the Institutions but who died after June 16, 2012.

Who represents the former residents?

The Court has appointed Koskie Minsky LLP (KM LLP) to represent
the former residents as a Class.

The proposed settlement

The proposed settlement includes:
    * an approximately $35.9 million settlement fund;

    * a paper based claims process that will not require anyone to
testify in court; and

    * a release by class members of all claims against the
Province of Ontario stemming from the Institutions.

Approval hearing

The settlement, claims process and counsel fees are subject to
court approval.  The approval hearing shall be heard on April 25,
2016 at the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario.  Class
members may attend the hearing.  Any class members who wish to
object to the proposed settlement should provide written notice of
their objection to the Claims Administrator by April 4, 2016.

Contact information

If you need more information or wish to object, please contact the
Class Action Administrator, tollfree, at 1-866-442-4465 or TTY: 1-
877-627-7027, write to Schedule 1 Class Action Administrator,
3-505, 133 Weber Street North, Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 3G9, or by
email at: schedule1facilities@crawco.ca

Getting Notice to former residents

Family members, caregivers and friends of former residents are
asked to help in getting information to former residents.  Please
show this notice to people who are impacted by this lawsuit or
their caregivers.


STATE FARM: Underestimates Water Damage Claims, Calif. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that State Farm Insurance steers
claims to The ServiceMaster Co. and ServPro Industries because
they "underestimate and under-restore water damage claims," a
class action claims in Federal Court in San Diego, Calif.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Oral Argument This Year in Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, 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 in a
class action appeal is expected to occur in 2016.

Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. or
STRH, along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as
defendants in several individual and putative class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas,
California, Texas, and Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violations
of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or state
law for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection
with various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and sought unspecified damages.
All cases were transferred for coordination to the multi-district
litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the
class action. On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part
and denied in part the motion to dismiss the claims against STRH
and the other underwriter defendants in the class action. A
settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved by the Court and
the class settlement approval process was completed. A number of
individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remained
following the class settlement. STRH settled two such individual
actions. The other individual lawsuits were dismissed.

In two of such dismissed individual actions, the plaintiffs were
unable to appeal the dismissals of their claims until their claims
against a third party were resolved. In one of these individual
actions, the plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument in that appeal is
expected to occur in 2016. In the other remaining action, it is
unclear whether the plaintiffs will file a notice of appeal.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in Suit over 401(k) Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, 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 discovery
process has begun in a class action filed on behalf of the
participants of SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative
class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an
investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan
accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged
losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

This case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008. On October 26,
2009, an amended complaint was filed.

On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted
in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs
permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The
Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision
of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which
substantially similar issues are presented.

On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of
The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an
order remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case.

On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal
of this decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the filing of
this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer, which held that employee stock ownership plan
fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect to
employer stock plans. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case back
to the District Court for further proceedings in light of
Dudenhoeffer.

On June 18, 2015, the District Court entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The
discovery process has begun.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, 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
appeal related to the STI Classic Mutual Funds class actions
remains pending.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").

On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on
June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent
motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining
claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in
this action.

Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new
plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust filed a motion
to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted.

On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014,
the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with
the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the
original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals
requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the
appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9,
2014, and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December
16, 2014.

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


SUNTRUST BANKS: Cases Remanded Following "Tibble" Decision
----------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, 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 following the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Tibble v. Edison International, the
class action cases against SunTrust related to the STI Classic
Mutual Funds that are pending on appeal were remanded to the
district court.

On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former
officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a
putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.

On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November
12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay this case
until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Tibble v. Eidson
International.

On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tibble and held
that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate and apart from
investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudent investments.
After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the
District Court.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Thurmond" Case Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, 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,
Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., has
been stayed pending a ruling in a similar case currently before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. or STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company
("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative
class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal
"captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers.
More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of
private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure with Twin Rivers
certain loans referred to them by SunTrust results in illegal
"kickbacks" in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin
Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust
enrichment to the detriment of borrowers.

The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This
case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v.
First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case
that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time.

The second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al.
v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the
Edwards case also.

In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of
certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases
were lifted. SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmond
case which was granted in part and denied in part, allowing
limited discovery surrounding the argument that the statute of
limitations for certain claims should be equitably tolled.
Thurmond has been stayed pending a ruling in a similar case
currently before the Third Circuit. The Acosta plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their case.


TACO BELL: Bid to Decertify Classes in "Sandrika" Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone denied Defendants' motion to
decertify Plaintiffs' late meal period, rest break, and underpaid
meal period premium classes in the captioned case SANDRIKA
MEDLOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TACO BELL CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Case No.: 1:07-cv-01314-SAB, (E.D. Cal.)

In these consolidated actions, Plaintiffs assert class claims
against Defendants arising from the alleged violations of
California's Labor Code relating to the payment of minimum wages
and overtime and the provision of meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs
also assert claims under California's Private Attorney Generals
Act (PAGA), which authorizes "aggrieved employees, acting as
private attorneys general, to recover civil penalties for Labor
Code violations. . ."

Plaintiff's first motion to certify a class was filed on December
30, 2010 which sought to certify eight subclasses:

     1) the Late Meal Break Subclass,
     2) the Underpaid Automatic Adjustments Subclass,
     3) the On-Duty Meal Period Agreement Subclass,
     4) the Unpaid On-Duty Meal Period Subclass,
     5) the Rest Break Subclass,
     6) the Final Pay Subclass,
     7) the Vested Accrued Vacation Wages Subclass, and
     8) the Non-Management Employee Vacation Subclass.

It was denied without prejudice.

Defendants filed a motion to strike the PAGA allegations from
Plaintiff's First Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Court denied
Defendants' motion, but noted that there appeared to be some
confusion regarding which claims were raised on a class-wide basis
on behalf of the certified Meal Break Subclass and which claims
were raised solely on an individual basis by the named plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint which specified the claims that proceeded
on a class basis and the claims that proceeded on an individual
basis.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. In
response to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss, motion to strike, and motion to amend
or alter the order on class certification. The Court amended its
order on class certification to reflect that the only claims
proceeding on a class basis are the claims related to late meal
breaks, that the prerequisites for class actions set forth in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 apply to Plaintiff's claims
under California's Private Attorney Generals Act, and that only
the PAGA claims based upon late meal breaks may proceed on a
class-wide, representative basis.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the class certification order.
The Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion to amend order on
certification.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.  In response,
Defendants Taco Bell Corp. and Taco Bell of America, Inc. filed a
motion to decertify the late meal period, rest break, and
underpaid meal period premium classes. Defendants present two
arguments as to why the motions for decertification should be
granted:

     -- Defendants assert that Plaintiffs fail to meet the
        commonality requirement, because the issues of law and
        fact that Plaintiffs said would establish liability do not
        actually exist.

     -- Defendants assert that named Plaintiffs Medlock, Hardiman,
        and Leyva are not typical of the class they seek to
        represent.

In his Order dated December 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/gkEwUFfrom Leagle.com, Judge Boone denied
Defendants' motion to decertify Plaintiffs' late meal period, rest
break, and underpaid meal period premium classes as the Plaintiffs
have shown that certification on the late meal break class, rest
break class, and underpaid meal premium class is warranted.

The Court held that, according to Plaintiffs' allegations,
Hardiman, Medlock, and Leyva were still subject to Defendants'
policies for meal period and rest break scheduling. Therefore,
Hardiman, Medlock, and Leyva are typical of the class that they
seek to represent even if they personally were not aware of the
alleged uniform policy that employees had to work five hours
before taking a meal period. The Court next reviews each class
separately to determine if each class meets the commonality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) and the predominance and superiority
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). In this case, Plaintiffs'
allegations about Defendants' meal policy presents a common
contention capable of class-wide resolution. Rule 23 only requires
Plaintiffs to establish the existence of a common contention
capable of class-wide resolution -- the determination of its truth
or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity
of each one of the claims in one stroke. Plaintiffs need not show
that every question in the case, or even a preponderance of
questions, is capable of class-wide resolution, the Court said. So
long as there is 'even a single common question,' a would-be class
can satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).

According to the Court, Plaintiffs have identified a common issue
that establishes liability.  Although Defendants have presented
compelling evidence that the "Hourly Employee Guide," the
"Matrix," and the "Wallet Card" did not reflect the official
policy on the timing of meal breaks, and that the 2-2-2
methodology was used instead, the record is still susceptible to
the interpretation presented by Plaintiffs. The Defendants'
written policy documents appear to suggest that Defendants did not
authorize a meal break before the end of the fifth hour for a
shift over six hours whereas California law requires a meal break
before the end of the fifth hour of a shift that is longer than
six hours. The Plaintiffs have presented a common issue regarding
the legality of Defendants' policy pertaining to meal breaks for
employees with shifts over six hours in length.

The Court also finds that Rule 23(b) is met for this claim,
because questions common to the members of the class predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members and a class
action is a superior method for resolution of the controversy. The
Court does not find that this class is unmanageable, because as
stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented that
there are common proofs of liability. Therefore, the Court finds
that the meal break class is properly certified. The Plaintiffs
have presented a common issue regarding the legality of
Defendants' policy erroneously providing for a half-hour's worth
of pay for meal premiums when it should have been a full hour's
worth of pay.

The Court also finds that Rule 23(b) is met for this claim,
because questions common to the members of the class predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members and a class
action is a superior method for resolution of the controversy. The
focus of the action will be on the conduct of the Defendants and
their policy as opposed to the conduct of individual class
members. The Court does not find that this class is unmanageable,
because as stated, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented
that there are common proofs of liability on this claim.
Therefore, the Court finds that the underpaid meal period premium
class is properly certified. Defendants' written policies
documents appear to suggest that Defendants did not authorize a
second rest break in some circumstances where California law
requires a second rest break. As stated above, a single common
question can suffice to satisfy Rule 23's commonality requirement.

The Court also finds that Rule 23(b) is met for this claim,
because questions common to the members of the class predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members and a class
action is a superior method for resolution of the controversy. The
Court does not find that this class is unmanageable, because as
stated, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented that there
are common proofs of liability and the class-wide litigation will
promote greater efficiency. The focus of the action will be on the
conduct of the Defendants and their policy as opposed to the
conduct of individual class members. Therefore, the Court finds
that the rest break class is properly certified.

Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Esq. --
andrew.sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com -- Jonathan Sing Lee, Esq.
-- Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Raul Perez, Esq. --
Raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat, Esq. --
rebecca.labat@capstonelawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler, Esq. --
Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- and Matthew Thomas
Theriault, Esq. -- matthew.theriault@capstonelawyers.com -- of
Capstone Law APC; Monica Balderrama, Esq. --
MBalderrama@InitiativeLegal.com -- of Initiative Legal Group APC
serve as counsel for Plaintiff Sandrika Medlock

Morgan Patricia Forsey, Esq. -- mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Nora
K. Stiles, Esq. -- nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- and Tracey Adano
Kennedy, Esq. -- tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Taco Bell
Corp., a California corporation


TIMBERTECH LTD: CPG's Partial Motion to Dismiss Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle denied Defendant CPG
International LLC's partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended
class action complaint in the captioned case JOHN M. PERUTO, et
al., Plaintiff, v. TIMBERTECH LTD, et al., Defendant, Civil Action
No.: 15-2166 (JBS/JS), (D. N.J.)

Plaintiffs John M. Peruto and Lori A. Peruto began purchasing and
installing TimberTech's XLM decking product line for their second
home in Margate, New Jersey in May 2012.  Plaintiffs filed a
putative class action Complaint on February 11, 2015 against
TimberTech Ltd. (TimberTech) and CPG International LLC (CPG) in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, Law Division.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant marketed XLM decking as a high-
quality, low-maintenance, and long-lasting alternative to
traditional wooden decking materials, but that XLM decking is
prone to discoloration and fading soon after installation.
Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of implied warranty, breach
of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
(NJCFA), and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On March 25, 2015, CPG removed this action to the District of New
Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1446, 1453 and the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  Defendant previously filed a
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety.

In their opposition to CPG's motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs agreed
to withdraw their breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment
claims. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty
claim based on the Limited Warranty, Plaintiffs' negligent
misrepresentation claim based on an omission, and Plaintiffs'
NJCFA claim without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to file an
amended complaint curing deficiencies.  In particular, the Court
found that Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim failed to adequately allege an
ascertainable loss.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 16, 2015.

Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended NJCFA claim.
Defendant argues that although Plaintiffs have amended their
complaint to adequately allege an ascertainable loss, they still
have demonstrated neither unlawful conduct by CPG nor causation.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated December 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/bsDFvTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simandle denied
Defendant CPG's partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended
class action complaint. Defendant does not seek to dismiss
Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim on an affirmative misrepresentation
theory; even disregarding the marketing statements this Court
previously found to be mere puffery, the Amended Complaint
undeniably describes assurances of fact on which Plaintiffs and
their contractor could have reasonably relied. Rather, Defendant
argues that Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim should be dismissed "to the
extent Plaintiffs seek to proceed on an omission theory" because
they have not shown with enough particularity "that the defendant
acted with knowledge." Plaintiffs, the judge said, are correct
that the Rule permits intent and knowledge to be alleged
generally. Plaintiffs may not rest upon conclusory statements to
generally allege knowledge and intent any more than they can for
any other element of a claim under Ashcroft v. Iqbal. "Even under
a relaxed application of Rule 9(b), boilerplate and conclusory
allegations will not suffice."

Judge Simandle explained that the amended complaint alleges
plausible grounds for knowledge and intent to omit accurate
information about the product's shortcomings, based upon their
receiving reports of defects and failures of the product's
essential characteristics. One can readily infer that the
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant received reports of premature
wear and discoloration in this product, and that Plaintiffs'
decking suffered from the same deficiency, and yet Defendant
continued to sell the product without improving it, while
maintaining silence about the deficiencies that were contradicted
by its sales materials touting their resistance to fading and
wear. Plaintiffs have thus adequately alleged a claim under the
NJCFA under an affirmative misrepresentation theory. The Amended
Complaint identifies actionable unlawful conduct, an ascertainable
loss, and causation. The Court will deny Defendant's motion to
dismiss to the extent it seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim
under an affirmative misrepresentation theory.

Christopher Michael Placitella, Esq. and Michael Coren, Esq. of
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. serve as counsel for Plaintiffs
John M. Peruto and Lori A. Peruto

Lorna A. Dotro, Esq. -- ldotro@coughlinduffy.com -- and Mark K.
Silver, Esq. -- msilver@coughlinduffy.com -- of Coughlin Duffy LLP
serve as counsel for Defendant CPG International LLC


TORCHMARK CORP: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Proctor" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Torchmark Corporation's stays in
Oklahoma federal district court after the court denied plaintiff's
motion to remand the case, Torchmark 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.

Litigation was filed on February 10, 2015 against Torchmark
subsidiary, Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company in Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma District Court (Proctor v. Globe Life And
Accident Insurance Company, Case No. CJ-2015-838) asserting claims
for breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing
and for false representation, deceit and conversion in connection
with Globe's denial of plaintiff's claim on a life insurance
policy for non-payment of premium. Plaintiff, who had alleged that
Globe had improperly retained 12 monthly premium payments on a
policy that was treated as lapsed or not returned to in-force
status, seeks actual and punitive damages, prejudgment interest,
attorney fees, costs and other relief. Plaintiff subsequently
amended his complaint to add allegations of conversion and civil
theft on behalf of a purported class of Globe's U.S. policyholders
who had paid premiums retained by Globe when their policies were
lapsed and not reinstated at the time of the premium payments.

Globe removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma (Case No. 15-CV-0070-M) on July 10, 2015 and
filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2015. The Court denied
plaintiff's Motion to Remand back to state court on October 26,
2015, but will allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint to
assert a putative class action in federal court.


TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: March 22 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (NASDAQ:TSEM) between
April 30, 2012 and January 13, 2016.

You are hereby notified that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the USDC for the Central District of California. If
you purchased or otherwise acquired Tower Semiconductor between
April 30, 2012 and January 13, 2016, your rights may be affected
by this action. To get more information go to:

http://zlk.9nl.com/tower-semiconductor

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the value of net tangible
assets of the acquisition of a fabrication facility from Micron
Technology Inc. was artificially inflated; (2) the value of net
tangible assets of the acquisition of 51% of TowerJazz Panasonic
Semiconductor Co., Ltd. from Panasonic Corporation was
artificially inflated; (3) Tower's Series F Debentures were
incorrectly accounted for to understate debt; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Tower's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Tower Semiconductor you have until March
22, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.  The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation involving financial fraud, and
have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Stipulated Judgment Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Shasta County
Superior Court has granted final approval of a Stipulated
Judgement concluding a shareholder class action lawsuit.

On January 24, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against TriCo, North Valley Bancorp and certain other
defendants in connection with TriCo entering into the merger
agreement with North Valley Bancorp. The lawsuit, which was filed
in the Shasta County, California Superior Court, alleges that the
members of the North Valley Bancorp board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to North Valley Bancorp shareholders by
approving the proposed merger for inadequate consideration;
approving the transaction in order receive benefits not equally
shared by other North Valley Bancorp shareholders; entering into
the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection
devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be
paid to the North Valley Bancorp shareholders. The lawsuit alleges
claims against TriCo for aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties injunctive relief prohibiting
consummation of the merger, rescission, attorneys' of the merger
agreement, fees and costs, and other and further relief.

On July 31, 2014 the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of this
lawsuit. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding and in consideration for the full
settlement and release of all claims, TriCo and North Valley
Bancorp agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to
the proposed merger, which are contained in a Current Report on
Form 8-K filed by each of the companies. The memorandum of
understanding contemplated that the parties would negotiate in
good faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a
stipulation of settlement.

The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement dated May 18,
2015 that is subject to customary conditions, including final
court approval following notice to North Valley Bancorp's
shareholders.

At a hearing in Shasta County Superior Court on October 26, 2015,
the Court approved and entered a final Stipulated Judgement
concluding the case and dismissing all the named individual
director defendants. The court awarded the plaintiff $250,000 in
fees. A liability related to this potential settlement was
established by North Valley Bancorp prior to its acquisition by
TriCo on October 3, 2015, and that liability was recorded by TriCo
as part of its purchase accounting of North Valley Bancorp on
October 3, 2015.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Bank Denies Claims in Butte Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares' bank subsidiariy denies the charges alleged in
the first amended complaint in a class action lawsuit, TriCo said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

On September 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against
the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to the observance of meal and rest periods and seeking to
represent a class of current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
personal bankers, or employees with the same or similar job
duties, employed by Defendants within the State of California
during the preceding four years.

On or about June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
expanding the class definition to all current and formerly hourly-
paid or non-exempt branch employees employed by Defendant's within
the State of California at any time during the period from
September 15, 2010 to final judgment.

The Bank has responded to the First Amended Complaint, denying the
charges, and the Bank intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit
against class certification and liability.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Denies Allegations in Sacramento Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares and its bank subsidiary deny the charges alleged
in a class action lawsuit by a personal banker, TriCo said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On January 20, 2015, a current Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a First Amended Complaint against
Tri Counties Bank and TriCo Bancshares, dba Tri Counties Bank, in
Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to wage statement violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent
a class of current and former exempt and non-exempt employees who
worked for the Bank during the time period beginning October 18,
2013 through the date of the filing of this action.

The Company and the Bank have responded to the First Amended
Complaint, deny the charges, and intend to vigorously defend the
lawsuit against class certification and liability.


UNITED STATES: Tribe Can't Apply Equitable Tolling, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Gregory and Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA,
report that an American Indian tribe that mistakenly relied on a
related class action to delay suing the federal government isn't
entitled to a pause on the statute of limitations on its claims,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The court, in a unanimous decision Jan. 25 by Justice Samuel A.
Alito, ruled that the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin's
litigation mistake didn't justify applying equitable tolling to
the tribe's claims under the Indian Self-Determination Act for
contract support costs under the Contract Disputes Act.

The ruling "limits the potential for statutes of limitations to be
equitably tolled, making compliance with the time limits to
present claims and to file suit even more important,"
Wendy Gerwick Couture, a professor at University of Idaho Law in
Boise who has written about equitable tolling, told Bloomberg BNA
in a Jan. 25 e-mail.

"Menominee is a reminder that, just because a party's strategic
decision was rational at the time it was made does not mean that
the Court will intervene in equity if, with the benefit of
hindsight, it was the wrong decision," she said.

"This raises the stakes substantially for parties who are
considering whether to opt out of class actions, such as
institutional investors considering whether to opt out of
securities class actions," Ms. Couture said.

Narrow Ruling

But, at least related to Indian law, a prior assistant secretary
for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior told
Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 25 e-mail that the specific issue in this
case "is narrow and not likely to repeat."

"Significant new claims related to these kinds of contracts have
not continued to develop" after a change in policy under the Obama
Administration, Kevin K. Washburn said.

"Similar suits are not likely to arise again, for Menominee or any
other tribes," he said. "Moreover, the tribe retains the majority
of their claims, including those that were within the six year
statute of limitations when they filed in 2004 and those that
arose thereafter."

Mr. Washburn's tenure at Interior ended in December.  He is now a
professor of Indian Law at the University of New Mexico School of
Law in Albuquerque.

Acting on Bad Advice

A separate putative class action involving the tribe's claims
failed to receive class certification.

The tribe then missed the six-year statutory deadline for its
individual claims which sought to recover overhead costs for the
tribe's provision of health-care services to members under a
federal contract (16 CLASS 1366, 12/11/15).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the
tribe's "legal misunderstandings and tactical mistakes" in not
timely filing its claims didn't constitute "external obstacles"
that would justify tolling under Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631
(2010).  Holland allows for equitable tolling if a party shows
that it has 1) diligently pursued its rights, and 2) "some
extraordinary circumstance" prevented timely filing.

No 'Extraordinary Circumstance.'

The tribe called this test "overly rigid." But the Supreme Court
reaffirmed it's holding in Holland that the two requirements are
"distinct elements" that both must be satisfied.

The court also reaffirmed that the second prong is met only where
the circumstances are beyond the litigant's control.

Bad advice from the tribe's class counsel didn't constitute an
"extraordinary circumstance" that would excuse the tribe's failure
to meet the deadline, the court said.

The tribe's mistaken reliance on the putative class action "was
not an obstacle beyond its control," the court said.

Geoffrey D. Strommer of Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker LLP in
Portland, Ore., argued for the tribe.

Ilana H. Eisenstein of the Department of Justice in Washington
argued for the federal government.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Suits Filed in Texas State Court Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 25, 2015, that class action lawsuits filed in a state
court in Texas have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

In May and June 2015, alleged Eagle Rock Energy unitholders filed
two derivative and class action lawsuits in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas (the "state lawsuits"). An additional class
action lawsuit was filed in June by another alleged Eagle Rock
Energy unitholder in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (the "federal lawsuit" and, together
with the state lawsuits, the "lawsuits").

"The federal lawsuit names Eagle Rock Energy, Eagle Rock Energy
GP, L.P., our general partner, our board of directors, Vanguard,
and Talon Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of
Vanguard, as defendants," the Company said.

"The federal lawsuit alleges a variety of causes of action
challenging the Merger, including alleged breaches of fiduciary or
contractual duties and alleged aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of duty," the Company said.  "The federal lawsuit alleges
that the Merger (a) provided inadequate consideration to our
unitholders, (b) was not subject to minority unitholder approval
due to the voting and support agreement between Vanguard, Natural
Gas Partners VIII, L.P., and certain of its affiliates, and (c)
contained contractual terms (e.g., the no-solicitation, matching
rights, and termination fee provisions) that may have dissuaded
other potential merger partners from making alternative proposals.
The federal lawsuit also alleges that defendants have violated
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-
9 promulgated thereunder. In general, the federal lawsuit alleges
that the registration statement filed in connection with the
Merger failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material
details concerning (a) Eagle Rock's and Vanguard's financial and
operational projections, (b) the analyses of the Merger conducted
by Eagle Rock's and Vanguard's financial advisors, and (c) the
background of the Merger. Based on these allegations, the federal
lawsuit seeks to have the Merger rescinded. The federal lawsuit
also seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees."

"On November 11, 2015, the state lawsuits were voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice. Prior to their dismissal, the state
lawsuits alleged similar claims against the same defendants as the
federal lawsuit, except that the state lawsuits did not allege
claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
or Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Partnership believes
that the lawsuits are without merit."


VANGUARD NATURAL: Time to Respond to "Hurwitz" Case Not Yet Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 25, 2015, that the Defendants' date to answer, move to
dismiss, or otherwise respond to a class action lawsuit filed by
Robert Hurwitz has not yet been set.

These class action lawsuits were filed in connection with the
merger by purported LRR Energy, L.P. unitholders:

     * Barry Miller v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Case No. 11087-
VCG, filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
June 3, 2015 ("Miller Lawsuit")

     * Christopher Tiberio v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Cause No.
2015-39864, filed in the 334th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas on July 10, 2015 ("Tiberio Lawsuit")

     * Eddie Hammond v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Cause No. 2015-
40154, filed in the 295th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas on July 13, 2015 ("Hammond Lawsuit")

     * Ronald Krieger v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Civil Action No.
4:15-cv-2017, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on July 14, 2015 ("Krieger Lawsuit")

     * Robert Hurwitz v. Eric Mullens et al., Civil Action No.
1:15-cv-00711-UNA, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware on August 18, 2015 (the "Hurwitz
Lawsuit").

"The Miller Lawsuit, Tiberio Lawsuit, Hammond Lawsuit, and Krieger
Lawsuit were filed against us, our General Partner, our Board,
Vanguard, Merger Sub and the other parties to the Merger
Agreement. The Hurwitz Lawsuit is filed against our Board,
Vanguard, and Merger Sub (the "Defendants")," the Company said.

On July 17, 2015, the Krieger Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice. On July 23, 2015 the Miller Lawsuit was also
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On July 28, 2015 the
Tiberio Lawsuit and the Hammond Lawsuit were both nonsuited
without prejudice.

The Hurwitz Lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated Sections
14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. "In general, the Hurwitz
Lawsuit alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus filed in
connection with the Merger failed, among other things, to disclose
allegedly material details concerning (i) the background of the
Merger, (ii) the financial analyses conducted by the
Partnership's and our conflicts committee's financial advisors in
connection with the Merger, (iii) the Partnership's and Vanguard's
financial and operational projections, and (iv) alleged conflicts
of interest held by one of our financial advisors," the Company
said.

The Hurwitz Lawsuit seeks, among other relief, to rescind the
Merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.  The plaintiff
in the Hurwitz Lawsuit has not yet served the Defendants, and the
Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond
to the Hurwitz Lawsuit has not yet been set.


VECTOR GROUP: Ligget Group Involved in 3 Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that three actions were
pending for which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs
were seeking class certification where Liggett Group LLC
("Liggett") is a named defendant as of September 30, 2015. Other
cigarette manufacturers are also named in these actions.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied
warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action,
violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection
statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering
statutes.

Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of relief,
including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple
damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of
medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of
profits, and injunctive and equitable relief.

Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of
limitations and federal preemption.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class
certification hearing has been held. In 2013, plaintiffs' filed a
motion to stay the case and that motion was granted.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class
action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who
allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to
cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to
recover $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually
and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class.
The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of
the defendants.

In February 2000, in Smith v. Philip Morris, a case pending in
Kansas, a class action was commenced against cigarette
manufacturers alleging they conspired to fix cigarette prices in
violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs sought to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. Class
certification was granted in November 2001. In March 2012, the
court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and
dismissed plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. In July 2014, the
court of appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. In August
2014, plaintiffs sought review by the Kansas Supreme Court, which
the court denied in June 2015, thereby concluding this litigation.

Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues.
Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After
two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the
plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969
should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of
damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered
judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the
ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

In April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which subsequently
declined review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope
of the ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30
plaintiffs have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett
defendants, which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial.
The court intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six
consolidated trials, each with five plaintiffs.

The trial court set the first two dates for the consolidated
trials for June 13, 2016 and December 4, 2016. With respect to
Liggett, the trial court requested that Liggett and plaintiffs
brief whether any claims against Liggett survive given the outcome
of the first phase of the trial.  Briefing of that issue is
underway. If the case proceeds against Liggett, it is estimated
that Liggett could be a defendant in less than 25 of the remaining
individual cases.

In addition to the cases described, numerous class actions remain
certified against other cigarette manufacturers including cases
alleging, among other things, that use of the terms "lights" and
"ultra lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices.
Adverse decisions in these cases could have a material adverse
affect on Liggett's sales volume, operating income and cash flows.


VECTOR GROUP: Health Care Cost Recovery Case Pending v. Liggett
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that one Health Care
Cost Recovery Action was pending as of September 30, 2015, against
Liggett Group LLC ("Liggett"), Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. American
Tobacco Company, a South Dakota case filed in 1997, where the
plaintiff seeks to recover damages based on various theories of
recovery as a result of alleged sales of tobacco products to
minors. The case is inactive. Other cigarette manufacturers are
also named as defendants.

The claims asserted in health care cost recovery actions vary, but
can include the equitable claim of indemnity, common law claims of
negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied
warranty, breach of special duty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, claims under state
and federal statutes governing consumer fraud, antitrust,
deceptive trade practices and false advertising, and claims under
RICO. Although no specific damage amounts are typically pleaded,
it is possible that requested damages might be in the billions of
dollars.

In these cases, plaintiffs typically assert equitable claims that
the tobacco industry was "unjustly enriched" by their payment of
health care costs allegedly attributable to smoking and seek
reimbursement of those costs. Relief sought by some, but not all,
plaintiffs include punitive damages, multiple damages and other
statutory damages and penalties, injunctions prohibiting alleged
marketing and sales to minors, disclosure of research,
disgorgement of profits, funding of anti-smoking programs,
additional disclosure of nicotine yields, and payment of attorney
and expert witness fees.


VECTOR GROUP: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Set for trial Thru Sept. 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of September
30, 2015, there were nine Engle progeny cases scheduled for trial
through September 30, 2016, where Liggett (and/or the Company) is
a named defendant. Trial dates are, however, subject to change. In
Shulman, an Engle progeny case, trial commenced October 16, 2015.


VIVINT SOLAR: Motion to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Shareholder Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class action
lawsuit remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.  The
Honorable Katherine B. Forrest issued a 42-page Opinion & Order
granting that motion to dismiss on Dec. 10, 2015, a copy of which
is available at http://goo.gl/WSDTLyat no charge.

In November and December 2014, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered
these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt
v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2015.

On May 6, 2015, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
complaint.


VIVINT SOLAR: Class Suits Filed Related to SunEdison Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is
facing class action lawsuits in Delaware and Utah related to the
proposed acquisition by SunEdision Inc.

On July 31, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Court of Chancery State of Delaware against the Company's
directors, SunEdison Inc. ("SunEdison"), and TerraForm Power
("TerraForm"), alleging that the proposed acquisition by SunEdison
is unfair to the Company's stockholders. On August 7, 2015, a
second putative class action lawsuit was filed in the same court
alleging similar claims, and including 313, Acquisition, LLC as a
named defendant. Both complaints seek injunctive relief and
unspecified damages.

On or about September 10, 2015, two purported class action
lawsuits were also filed in Utah's Fourth District State Court
(the "Utah Actions"), alleging similar claims to the complaints
previously filed in the Delaware Chancery Court.

On September 22, 2015, the Company, through counsel notified
plaintiff's counsel in the Utah Actions that pursuant to the
Company's Articles of Incorporation, any such derivative action
was subject to exclusive jurisdiction in the Delaware Chancery
Court, and accordingly, the Utah Actions should be dismissed. In
the event the Utah Actions are not voluntarily dismissed, the
Company anticipates the cases will ultimately be consolidated into
one case.

In view of the Company's indemnification obligation to its
directors, the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if
any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision.
If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in these cases, it is
possible that the impact could be material to the Company's
results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome
becomes probable and estimable.


VIVINT SOLAR: Customer Class Action filed in Kern County, Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a putative class
action lawsuit was filed in September 2015 in the Kern County
Superior Court of the State of California, seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief with regard to the Company's customer agreements
in California. The complaint essentially alleges that certain
versions of customer contracts fail to satisfy California Code
provisions including home solicitation and home improvement laws.

The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the claims
asserted in this matter. Although the Company cannot predict with
certainty the ultimate resolution of this suit, it does not
believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition. It is not possible to estimate the amount or range of
potential loss, if any, at this time.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Catlett" Suit Goes from Utah to MDL 2672
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Catlett v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Case No. 2:15-cv-00681, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-05686-CRB
to the Proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Catlett case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew G. Deiss, Esq.
          Brent A. Orozco, Esq.
          Diana Fay Bradley, Esq.
          DEISS LAW PC
          10 W. 100 Street, Suite 425
          Salt Lake City, CA 84101
          Telephone: (801) 433 0226
          E-mail: adeiss@deisslaw.com
                  borozco@deisslaw.com
                  dbradley@deisslaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher B Sullivan, Esq.
          PRICE PARKINSON AND KERR
          5742 West Harold Gatty Drive
          SLC, UT 84116
          Telephone: (801) 530 2900
          E-mail: sullivan@ppktrial.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dan R. Larsen, Esq.
          Kimberly Neville, Esq.
          Kristen E. Olsen, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY (UT)
          136 S. Main Street, Suite 1000
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1685
          E-mail: larsen.dan@dorsey.com
                  neville.kimberly@dorsey.com
                  olsen.kristen@dorsey.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Feldman" Suit Transferred to MDL 2672
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Feldman Et Al. v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02894, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-CV-05688-CRB to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Feldman case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan W. Bernstein, Esq.
          Scott Daniel Forney, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN AND FELDMAN PA
          900 Bestgate Rd., Suite 200
          Annapolis, MD 21401
          Telephone: (410) 573 0017
          Facsimile: (410) 573 0049

The Defendant is represented by:

          John L. Hone, Esq.
          Ronald G. DeWald, Esq.
          LIPSHULTZ AND HONE CHTD
          8630 Fenton Street, Suite 108
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587 8500
          Facsimile: (301) 495 9759


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gall" Suit Moved from Iowa to MDL 2672
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gall v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00106, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-
cv-05664-CRB to the Proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Gall case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Madison Smith, Esq.
          SMITH AND MCELWAIN LAW OFFICE
          505 Fifth St., Suite 530
          Sioux City, IA 51101
          Telephone: (712) 255 8094
          E-mail: smitmcel@aol.com

               - and -

          Kevin Daniel Stanley, Esq.
          Lauren Elise McClain, Esq.
          HUMPHREY FARRINGTON AND MCCLAIN PC
          221 W. Lexington, Suite 400
          P.O. Box 900
          Independence, MO 64051
          Telephone: (816) 836 5050
          Facsimile: (816) 836 8966
          E-mail: kds@hfmlegal.com
                  lem@hfmlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David N. May, Esq.
          BRADSHAW FOWLER PROCTOR & FAIRGROVE
          801 Grand Avenue, Suite 3700
          Des Moines, IA 50309-8004
          Telephone: (515) 246 5888
          Facsimile: (515) 246 5808
          E-mail: may.david@bradshawlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Scoggins" Suit Goes to MDL 2672
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Amy Campion Scoggins v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. et al., Case No. BC599850,
was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:15-cv-09567-PSG-AFM to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandra T Steele, Esq.
          Thomas Vincent Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI AND KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481 1554
          E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com
                  tgirardi@girardikeese.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Zachary Edelstein, Esq.
          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          Neil M Soltman, Esq.
          Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229 9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625 0248
          E-mail: aedelstein@mayerbrown.com
                  jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                  nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
                  mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Smith" Suit Moved from Illinois to MDL 2672
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Smith V. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01053, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-05683-CRB to the Proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Smith case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark R. Niemeyer, Esq.
          NIEMEYER GREBEL & KRUSE LLC
          10 S. Broadway, Suite 1125
          St Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241 1919
          Facsimile: (314) 665 3017

               - and -

          Trent Miracle, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259 2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259 2251
          E-mail: tmiracle@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Kruse, Esq.
          NIEMEYER GREBEL & KRUSE LLC
          10 S. Broadway, Suite 1125
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241 1919
          Facsimile: (314) 665 3017

               - and -

          Paul J. Hanly Jr., Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN & SHERIDAN LLP
          112 Madison Avenue-7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: (212) 784 6401
          Facsimile: (212) 784 6420
          E-mail: phanly@hanlyconroy.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James K. Toohey, Esq.
          JOHNS & BELL LTD
          33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: toohey@jbltd.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Langs, Esq.
          Garrett L. Boehm Jr., Esq.
          JOHNSON & BELL LTD
          33 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 372 0770
          E-mail: langs@jbltd.com
                  boehmg@jbltd.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Stanley" Suit Goes from Colo. to MDL 2672
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Stanley et al. v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02113, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-05650-CRB to the proceeding.

This class action concerns the intentional installation of defeat
devices on over a reported 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009. Defendant marketed
those vehicles as environmentally-friendly cars with high fuel
efficiency, performance, and very low emissions. Defendant
allegedly failed to manufacture those vehicles with those
attributes.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Stanley case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gillian Marie Fahlsing, Esq.
          THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
          1641 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 861 8800
          E-mail: gfahlsing@hannonlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Allison Rachel McLaughlin, Esq.
          Michael L. O'Donnell, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 17th Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244 1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244 1879
          E-mail: odonnell@wtklaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Investor Claims in Germany
--------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that dozens of large shareholders in Volkswagen AG
plan to sue the carmaker in a German court, seeking compensation
for the plunge in its shares due to its emissions test cheating
scandal.

Law firm Nieding + Barth said it would lodge a case with a
regional court in Brunswick (Braunschweig, seeking hundreds of
millions of euros in damages on behalf of 66 institutional
investors from the U.S. and Britain.

"On top of that, we collected several thousands of private
investors. Therefore we think we are the biggest platform for
suits against Volkswagen in Germany," said Klaus Nieding of
Nieding + Barth.

Volkswagen's (VW) shares have lost almost a third of their value,
or about 22 billion euros ($24 billion), since it admitted in
September to misleading U.S. regulators about emissions with the
help of on-board engine control software.

The law firm plans to use so-called capital market model claims, a
German legal procedure which--for lack of U.S. style class-action
lawsuits--uses court rulings won by individual investors as
templates to set damages for others that are equally affected.

VW, which declined to comment, is facing a legal onslaught on
several fronts. U.S. owners of vehicles with higher-than-stated
emissions are expected to seek billions of dollars in damages,
while the U.S. Justice Department has sued VW for up to $46
billion under the Clean Air Act.

Nieding + Barth said it would argue that VW had been aware of its
violation of diesel emissions rules before its first statement on
the matter in September and should have informed the public
earlier.

Germany's Bafin watchdog said its probe of whether VW breached
disclosure rules was so complex it would likely take several more
months.

Bentham Europe, a litigation finance group backed by U.S. hedge
fund Elliott Management and Australian-listed IMF Bentham, said in
November it was in contact with VW's top 200 investors about
launching a damages claim in Germany as soon as February.

German lawyer Andreas Tilp in October filed a lawsuit on behalf of
retail investors.

The Financial Times first reported the planned litigation in
Germany.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: South Korean Car Owners to File Class Suit in US
------------------------------------------------------------------
KBS World Radio reports that South Korean owners of Volkswagen's
3.0-liter diesel vehicles plan to file a class-action suit against
the German carmaker in the United States.

Local law firm Barun said on Jan. 26 that it will file a class-
action suit in the U.S. first and then in South Korea.

Barun explained its decision came as Volkswagen acknowledged to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) that its 3.0-liter
diesel cars were part of the emissions-cheating scheme in addition
to 2.0-liter ones.

The law firm added that as the legal suits concerning Volkswagen's
3.0-liter diesel cars are already under way in the U.S., it only
needs to convene the South Korean victims in order to file a
class-action suit in the U.S.

Around 85-thousand Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche 3.0-liter diesels
sold in the U.S. were revealed to be equipped with software
engineered to cheat on emissions tests.

In South Korea, around 100-thousand 3.0-liter diesel cars
manufactured by Volkswagen and its affiliates are presumed to have
the illegal devices.


WALT DISNEY: Former Employees File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Mohammad Omar, writing for LearnBonds, reports that Walt Disney Co
has been accused by two former tech employees of replacing
domestic staff with less costly immigrant workers living in the US
on H-1B visas.  The two employees, Leo Perrero and Dena Moore,
filed class-action lawsuits against the firm in Tampa federal
court, Florida on January 25. The lawsuits also name HCL Inc. and
Cognizant Technologies among the defendants.

Disney abused immigration system, says attorney

Mr. Perrero and Ms. Moore are among more than 250 Disney workers
who were laid off around a year ago from the IT section of Walt
Disney World--the Florida theme park complex.  Mr. Perrero claims
he was fired despite his high performance ratings and was asked to
train his replacement -- an immigrant worker -- during his final
months.  This was made mandatory by the firm in order to be
eligible for bonuses and severance packages.

According to the lawsuits, the firms are in violation of federal
law as they mislead employees while filling out firms to sponsor
workers for the visas. Both HCL Inc. and Cognizant had claimed
under oath that the working situation for 'similarly situated
employees would not be adversely affected'.

"Every time they file these, they are lying and falsifying
documents.  Disney is aware there are these requirements and
Cognizant and HCL are lying," says Attorney Sara Blackwell, who is
representing the plaintiffs.

Ms. Blackwell states that the lawsuits aims to "kick them
[outsourcing companies] at their business model, to stop them from
systemically abusing the immigration system".  She also alleges
that Walt Disney Co is conspiring with the outsourcing firms to
fill speciality positions with low cost foreign labor.

In November 2015, Ms. Blackwell also brought filings with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of more than a
dozen former Disney employees.  The employees, who were dismissed
earlier in the year in January, were replaced by overseas workers,
mostly from India on H-1B visas.  The dismissed employees claimed
that they faced discrimination on the basis of their American
citizenship and age.

Complying with law, companies respond

Meanwhile, Walt Disney Co has responded that the lawsuits are
"based on an unsustainable legal theory and are a wholesale
misrepresentation of the facts."  The firm claims that it hired
back more than 100 people into other roles and offered Moore
another position at comparable pay.  It says that H-1B visas are
used by many employers in the US and the firm has complied with
all applicable employment laws.

Cognizant has also issued a statement saying that it "fully
complies with all U.S. regulations regarding H-1B visas.  The
outsourcing firm stated that it has a 'robust internal compliance
team that ensures our practices are not merely compliant with
existing laws in letter and spirit, but also adhere to best
practices."

However, as per the lawsuits, Mr. Perrero was told by Walt Disney
Co that he would not be able to work at the firm for at least one
year, while other were asked to wait for one year before they
could work with the company again.  Ms. Moore, who gave interviews
for several positions at the company, was reportedly told that the
jobs were only for H-1B holders or foreign citizens.

H-1B Visas- A Hot Political Issue

The H-1B visa program was created back in 1990 by the US Congress.
Under the program, a limited number of foreign workers in
"specialized jobs" were allowed to work in the US to address a
paucity of American workers.  Currently, the program has an annual
cap of 85,000 six-year visas, though some exemptions are allowed
for people employed in universities.

The H-1B visa has become a burning political topic in the US,
especially with immigration being a key topic of discussion in the
presidential debates.

Companies such as Facebook Inc have voiced their support for
increases in the number of H-1B visas.  This has been endorsed by
the group Partnership for a New American Economy, of which Walt
Disney Co CEO Bob Iger is co-chairman, and US Sen. Marco Rubio,
R-Fla, a Republican presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has introduced a bill
that calls for a cut in the number. Earlier in June, Nelson had
asked for a Department of Homeland Security investigation into
H-1B visas following reports of layoffs of Walt Disney workers.

In December 2015, the Obama administration proposed steps to help
some high-skilled, foreign workers to remain in the country
without being tied to their employers.  Under the new rules,
certain visa holders would be allowed to switch jobs more easily
while waiting for a green card. Critics lambasted the move,
terming it as an abuse of US immigration law.

Workers like Mr. Perrero are pessimistic about the future of US
citizens like himself.  He recently featured in an ad by the
Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group opposing any
increase in H-1B visas.

"I don't have to be angry or cause drama.  But they are just doing
things to save a buck, and it's making Americans poor," said
Mr. Perrero to the New York Times.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss Shanklin Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company has filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the claims in
the second amended complaint in the class action filed by Alex
Shanklin.

On October 24, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit brought by
former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the "Shanklin
Litigation"), naming the Company's subsidiaries Wilhelmina
International, Ltd. and Wilhelmina Models, Inc. (the "Wilhelmina
Subsidiary Parties"), was initiated in New York State Supreme
Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in the prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa
Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin
Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust
enrichment and are alleged to arise out of matters relating to
those involved in the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and
reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model
images.  Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin
Litigation include other model management companies, advertising
firms, and certain advertisers.

On January 6, 2014, the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss.

On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to
Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants.  Further,
on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation
wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the
case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted
therein against the model management defendants, and stating that
the case "may involve matters in the public interest."  The
judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske
Litigation, which dismissed that case.

Plaintiffs have retained substitute counsel, who has filed a
Second Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
The Second Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff
models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent
contractors, of Wilhelmina and the other model management
defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in
several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly
failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay
required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and
not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages
and deductions therefrom were computed.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as
a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial,
plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as
the court deems proper.

On October 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss as to
most of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint.  The motion to
dismiss was to be fully briefed by December 2015.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Second Amended
Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously
defend itself.


WINDSOR, CANADA: Legal Fees in Bingo Suit Reach $1.7-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------
Dave Battagello, writing for Windsor Star, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed against Windsor and Tecumseh has cost
the municipalities a combined $1.7 million in legal fees, so far.

"This litigation file has gone on for nine years," Windsor Mayor
Drew Dilkens said of the $850,000 share paid by the city.  "No
doubt, it's a lot of money -- money that could have been directed
to roads, sewers or better projects for taxpayers.

"But we are being sued and have to defend the best interests of
the city."

The ALS Society launched legal action against the city starting in
2007 as part of the so-called bingo lawsuit, while Tecumseh faced
a similar challenge from the Belle River District Minor Hockey
Association.

Both municipalities are accused of collecting an excessive amount
of license fees for charity bingos or other fundraising gaming
events.

Under the lawsuit, the court has previously determined every
organization that ever paid for a gaming license from either
municipality could be entitled to refunds of every fee paid dating
back to 1993.  That could potentially cost the two municipalities
a combined $80 million if they are forced to return the fees.

In the initials stages of the lawsuit, Mr. Dilkens said the city
and town decided to share legal representation and costs, rather
than hire two separate law firms.  Toronto lawyer Scott Hutchison
was retained to represent the municipalities.

"At the end of the day, we don't think we have done anything
wrong," Mr. Dilkens said.  "But the stakes here are huge.  This
was not going to go away.  So with a lawsuit of this magnitude,
you need (lawyers) who know what they are doing."

Despite the high cost of legal fees to date, the lawsuit is
nowhere near complete. For nearly a decade, the case has been
mired in pre-trial motions and actions.

The latest motion played out during a high-profile hearing on
Jan. 25 when lawyers for the charities asked the court to stop an
"opt-out" campaign launched in January by Windsor and Tecumseh.
The municipalities are urging charities to back out of the
lawsuit.

Legislation in Ontario around class-action lawsuits automatically
includes every party impacted, unless they ask to opt out.

The court in December granted a 120 opt-out period, which lasts
until May 15.

Mr. Dilkens was hopeful the actual trial will finally start soon
afterward -- or at least some time this year.

The London-based Lerners legal firm represents the charities.

The mayor would not comment on what Lerners stands to gain from
the bingo lawsuit case.

"My experience based on my practice in law is that it would not be
uncommon for a legal team for the plaintiff to receive between 30
to 40 per cent (of a contingency file)," said Mr. Dilkens.

"But in any class-action case, the judge always decides what fees
are reasonable at the end of the matter."


WINDSOR, CANADA: Foundations Asked to Opt Out of Bingo Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Chiasson, writing for CBC News, reports that the mayors of
Windsor and Tecumseh launched a public awareness campaign urging
charitable organizations to opt out of class-action lawsuits that
could leave the two communities on the hook for $70 million.

Launched by the ALS Society of Essex County and Belle River
District Minor Hockey Association, the lawsuits allege Windsor and
Tecumseh charged excessive fees for bingo licenses.

Both the ALS Society and the Community Gaming and Entertainment
Group are listed as plaintiffs in the suit against Windsor. In the
suit against Tecumseh, the hockey association is listed as a
plaintiff alongside the Essex County Dancers Incorporated as well
as the Community Gaming and Entertainment Group.

The groups are seeking compensation for every organization that
paid license fees for bingo and charitable gaming events dating
back to 1993. Every charitable organization that paid the fees is
automatically included in the lawsuit unless they specifically opt
out, according to a joint news release issued by the two mayors.

Tecumseh Mayor Gary McNamara recognizes the daunting challenge of
trying to kill the lawsuit. "I believe there are many charitable
organizations across our communities that really are unaware of
what's happening," he said. "We want to make sure that all of the
charitable organizations that have had at least one bingo since
1993 are aware of what this means."

Defining license fees

The lawsuits claim the excessive bingo fees are actually illegal
taxes and every penny charged to the organizations should be
repaid. The lawsuits, filed against each municipality by lawyers
from Lerners LLP, are almost identical and will likely be seen as
test cases for other cities, said McNamara, who is also president
of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

If successful, the lawsuits could redefine how local governments
charge for bingo licenses. Many more legal battles could be on
their way in other communities, according to McNamara.

"All municipalities in Ontario that license and operate bingos and
charitable organizations would be subject to this lawsuit
eventually," McNamara said.

Both municipalities plan to fight the lawsuits to the end. "We
believe those are not excessive taxes," McNamara said. "Those are
our fees that are required to administer ... the licences."

Spreading the word

Spreading the word to each organization will be a challenge,
considering Windsor alone has more than 900 different groups that
have paid for bingo licenses over the past 23 years. Neither
municipality can meet with the groups directly without someone
from Lerners present, according to Dilkens.

"But we are allowed to do a campaign like this during the opt-out
period,so that's why you see [us on] radio, TV, Internet and
social media really trying to draw attention to this issue," he
said.

A successful lawsuit would financially affect the communities come
budget time, considering Tecumseh would be on the hook for $7
million and Windsor could end up possibly paying back more than
$60 million.

Dilkens used city council's recent decision to support a $100
million levy for a new mega-hospital as an example of how long it
takes to generate that kind of cash. "It would have a real
significant impact on the city of Windsor and its taxpayers for a
long time," he said of the potential of having to pay out millions
of dollars.

Response to opt-out campaign

The head of the Windsor Regional Hospital Foundation wants to
remove the organization's name from the lawsuit. The foundation
board of directors plans to meet in the coming days to discuss
their options. They discovered they were part of the lawsuit,
explained executive director Ron Foster.

When they meet, Foster will likely recommend the foundation opt
out. "We don't feel that the fees overall were excessive," he
said. "I think we would recommend opting out, but that is the
board's decision."

Lawyers from Lerners LLP, the firm that filed the lawsuit, don't
approve of the mayors asking organizations to opt out. "I don't
think it's appropriate," lawyer Peter Kryworuk told Radio-Canada.

He did not want to comment about the specifics of the lawsuit, but
said it would still go ahead, even if groups opt out.


YAHOO! INC: Violates Investment Company Act, Union Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Yahoo's investment securities make up 90% of the company's
value, so it must register as an investment company, a union
pension fund claims in a shareholders federal class action in San
Jose.

Lead plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Pension Fund claims Yahoo's board
of directors and top executives are violating the Investment
Company Act of 1940. It also accuses the individual defendants of
unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty.

The pension fund wants Yahoo to fire its executive officers,
including CEO Marissa Mayer, and its entire board.

Yahoo, founded in 1994, describes itself on its corporate website
as "the world's largest start-up," which has "grown into a company
that helps you find what you're looking for on any Internet-
connected device."

The company is globally known for its many Internet-related
services, including Yahoo Search, Yahoo Mail, Yahoo Messenger, and
Yahoo Groups.  But the most significant and valuable aspects of
its business are its publicly traded investments, the union says.

"Yahoo's own financial statements, since 2013, show that the
overwhelming majority of its assets, revenues, and income are
derived from its investment business, not from its core business
operations," the complaint states.

Income from Yahoo's operations for 2013 was only 32.7% of its
total net income attributable, while income from investments
accounted for 67.3%, the shareholders say.  The numbers were even
more "shocking" in 2014, with 1.2% coming from operations income,
compared to a "staggering" 98.8% for investment income, according
to the complaint.

Yahoo signed a joint venture with Softbank Corp. in 1996 and
formed Yahoo Japan, a publicly traded company that is majority-
owned by Softbank and meant to establish and manage a local
version of Yahoo's properties in Japan.

Yahoo holds approximately 2 billion shares of Yahoo Japan common
stock, valued at $7.4 billion, which represents approximately 25%
of Yahoo's market capitalization and almost 20% of Yahoo's assets,
according to the complaint.

The company in 2005 bought approximately 46% of the outstanding
common stock of Alibaba.com Corp., China's biggest online
marketplace and online payment system.

Yahoo holds approximately 384 million shares of Alibaba common
stock valued at about $27 billion, which represents 89% of Yahoo's
market capitalization and 70% of its assets, the complaint states.

The combined value of Yahoo's financial stake in Yahoo Japan and
Alibaba exceeds Yahoo's total market value by more than $7 billion
and represents 90% of Yahoo's current assets, according to the
complaint.

"As a company whose assets are and have been primarily invested in
publicly traded securities, Yahoo is an investment company under
the ICA [Investment Company Act]. Yahoo has, however, failed to
register as an investment company as required by the ICA, and is
otherwise failing to comply with the structural limitations and
the investor protection mandates of the ICA," the shareholders
say.

Yahoo announced in January 2015 that it would spin off all of its
remaining holdings in Alibaba into a newly formed independent
registered investment company called SpinCo, which the complaint
calls "an apparent effort to remedy this ICA violation."

Yahoo called off the spinoff in December, opting to try a reverse
spinoff, which would see Yahoo's assets -- other than the Alibaba
stake - placed into a newly formed company, the stock of which
would be distributed pro rata to Yahoo shareholders.

Yahoo's stock has continued to decline since its announcement that
the Alibaba spinoff would not happen.

Yahoo has not registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, so it's operating illegally as an unregistered
investment company, the shareholders say.  They say Yahoo should
oust all its board members and current and former officers who
have "breached their fiduciary duties to Yahoo and its
stockholders by causing Yahoo to illegally operate as an
unregistered investment company and exposing shareholders to
potential catastrophic liability."

The union seeks class certification, disgorgement, permission to
pursue two of the four counts derivatively, and damages for ICA
violations, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

A Yahoo spokeswoman said the company does not comment on pending
litigation.

The shareholders are represented by James Wagstaffe with Kerr &
Wagstaffe, in San Francisco, who did not respond to a request for
comment Jan. 28.  He may be reached at:

     James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
     Kerr & Wagstaffe
     100 Spear St
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Tel: 415-371-8500


* Ark. State Justices Respond to Campaign Donation Questions
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hammersly, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that five of
the seven Arkansas Supreme Court justices answered questions or
issued statements regarding their campaign donations and court
decisions.

Chief Justice Howard Brill, appointed in 2015 to fill an unexpired
term, has not run for office and declined to be interviewed.

Here's more of what Arkansas Supreme Court justices and former
justices had to say:

Justice Karen Baker

Justice Baker wrote that she has heard 28 class-action cases since
joining the high court in January 2011.

Campaign finance records show her 2010 and 2014 campaigns received
$66,000 total from four class-action law firms that have donated
to Supreme Court campaigns in the past 12 years.

The firms are Keil & Goodson of Texarkana; Nix Patterson & Roach
of Daingerfield, Texas; Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check of Radnor,
Pa., and Jason Roselius of Oklahoma City, who has been affiliated
with several law firms in the past decade.

Others also have donated significant amounts to other justices'
campaigns: the Crowley Norman firm of Houston, Texas, and
attorneys Reggie Whitten and Michael Burrage of Oklahoma, who were
affiliated with multiple firms over a decade.

Justice Baker said she has followed procedural rules regarding
class-action cases, as well as court precedents.

The rules governing class-action cases have "been the standard of
the court for many years," Justice Baker wrote.

Justice Paul Danielson

Justice Danielson said he shares ethics experts' concerns about
campaign money and judicial elections, but said, "That's news to
me," when told that his campaign finance reports showed a total
$23,500 from Keil & Goodson and Nix Patterson in 2006 and 2008.

"You may see a trend now, but that doesn't mean we could see it
back then.  I've talked to other judges.  It wasn't common
knowledge.  It wasn't on our radar," said Justice Danielson, who
is retiring at the end of this year.

Justice Danielson said he has no idea why the class-action law
firms donated to his campaigns.

"Sometimes people support you because they like you," he said.
"Sometimes it's because they don't like your opponent."

Justice Courtney Goodson

Justice Goodson, whose 2010 campaign accepted $142,500 from the
six class-action law firms, sent a short response to the
newspaper's written questions:

"I believe that judges should be accountable to the voters and
that the Supreme Court belongs to the people.  That's why, as a
justice, I take extraordinary measures to ensure that the
extensive rules and guidelines established by the Court and the
committee on judicial ethics are closely followed."

Justice Josephine Hart

Justice Hart did not respond to the newspaper's calls or letters.
Her 2012 campaign reported $22,000 from Keil & Goodson, Nix
Patterson, Crowley Norman and Kessler Topaz.

She was with the unanimous majority in two decisions in 2012 and
2013 that favored donor law firms, including Keil & Goodson and
Nix Patterson, court records show. She disqualified herself,
stating no reason, from two Keil & Goodson cases in 2015.

Justice Robin Wynne

Justice Wynne responded to the newspaper's questions through a
campaign manager, Linda Napper.  She said Justice Wynne had no
knowledge of who donated to his campaign.

His 2014 campaign reported $25,000 from Keil & Goodson, Nix
Patterson, Kessler Topaz and Jason Roselius.

Justice Wynne recused in 2015 from two class-action proceedings
involving donor firms.  He did not state the reasons.

Justice Rhonda Wood

Elected in 2014, Wood said she has taken part in just one opinion
involving the donor law firms, Shelter Insurance v. Goodner (CV-
15-111), in December.

A five-justice majority of Danielson, Justice Baker and three
special justices found in favor of the plaintiffs represented by
class-action attorney John Goodson and co-counsels.

Justices Wood and Brill dissented.  Justices Wynne, Hart and
Courtney Goodson recused.

Before the Shelter decision, Justice Wood wrote in an email that
her decisions in other class-action cases show she analyzes all
cases fully and does not have any inherent bias.

Justice Wood's 2014 campaign reported $17,000 from Nix Patterson
and Kessler Topaz.

Her biggest donor group was the nursing home industry, which
contributed more than $70,000 to her campaign, according to
campaign contribution records.  Nursing home operators in Arkansas
also are big group donors to political races, including the
Supreme Court.

Justice Wood ran unopposed and returned the nursing home
contributions, campaign records show.

Retired Justice Jim Gunter

"All of the cases I'm familiar with were looked at objectively,"
said Justice Gunter, who retired from the Arkansas Supreme Court
in early 2013.

He avoided knowing who his donors were, he said, and wasn't aware
his 2004 campaign had reported $27,610 from Keil & Goodson and Nix
Patterson attorneys and family members.

Justice Gunter said his campaign followed state laws for
contributions to candidates, including Arkansas' maximum
contribution then of $1,000 per candidate per election.

A former prosecutor and judge in Texarkana, Justice Gunter said he
had known members of John Goodson's family for years.  Retired
Justice Donald Corbin was the only other justice who said he was a
longtime acquaintance of attorneys or family members with Keil &
Goodson and other donor firms.


* Fifth Circuit to Tackle Class Action Waiver Issue in 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelline Linton, Esq., of BakerHostetler, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that arbitration agreements are practical tools
that help employers protect confidential information and avoid the
costs associated with traditional litigation.  They can also be an
extremely effective mechanism for employers to reduce exposure to
risky employment litigation and potentially abusive collective
action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Nevertheless, since its 2012 decision in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357
NLRB 184, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") has
consistently maintained that the National Labor Relations Act
("NLRA") prohibits arbitration agreements that require employees
to waive the right to pursue labor-related class and collective
actions -- despite provisions allowing workers to opt out of, or
into, the waivers.

Since D.R. Horton, state and federal courts have repeatedly
rejected the Board's stance and upheld class and collective action
waivers on the basis that the NLRA or FLSA fails to contain a
congressional mandate for an employee's right to engage in
collective actions; therefore, the clear mandate of the Federal
Arbitration Act in favor of arbitration prevails.  In 2013, the
Fifth Circuit outright overturned the Board's precedent-setting
D.R. Horton decision on appeal (D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737
F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013). The Second, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh
Circuits likewise found D.R. Horton unpersuasive (Sutherland v.
Ernst & Young, LLP, 726 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2013); Owen v. Bristol
Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2013); Richards v. Ernst &
Young, LLP, 734 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2013); Walthour v. Chipio
Windshield Repair, 745 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2014)).

Instead of the Board seeking review with the U.S. Supreme Court,
it circumvented the Circuits and issued a second decision in
Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB 72 (2014), to rehabilitate its D.R.
Horton standards. On October 26, 2015, the Fifth Circuit reversed
Murphy Oil on appeal (Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 14-60800
(5th Cir. Oct. 26, 2015)) (and the NLRB's en banc petition was
denied without recorded dissent).  The Board now has 90 days from
that decision to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

In the meantime, the NLRB has held firm despite the Fifth
Circuit's recent reversal.  In 2015, the Board issued 35 published
decisions that found arbitration agreements unlawful based on the
D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil principles.  The Board issued 15 of
those rulings in the second half of December alone. The Board's
decisions have implicated national franchisors, such as Citigroup,
24 Hour Fitness, and Domino's Pizza.

In 2016, the Fifth Circuit will again tackle the issue for a third
(and fourth) time. On January 4, 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc. asked
the appeals court to review the Board's December 24 decision that
held its class action waivers violated employees' rights, despite
containing a clause that allowed employees to opt out (24 Hour
Fitness USA Inc. v. NLRB, No. 16-60005 (5th Cir.)).  On January
13, Employers Resource filed a petition requesting the Fifth
Circuit to overturn the NLRB's December 17 ruling that the
company's arbitration agreement flouted federal labor law,
although the arbitration agreement did not expressly ban class or
collective action arbitration proceedings (Employers Resource v.
NLRB, No. 16-60034 (5th Cir.)).

While the Fifth Circuit is likely to rule as it previously did,
the Board has shown no immediate interest in petitioning for
Supreme Court review.  Short of all the circuit courts rejecting
the Board's stance, only the nation's highest court can fully
resolve the matter.  And it appears more than likely that the
Supreme Court will uphold class action waivers if (or when) given
the chance.  The High Court has traditionally favored arbitration
and held that the Federal Arbitration Act provides broad authority
to enter into and enforce arbitration agreements.  Most recently,
at the end of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court released an opinion
reaffirming federal policy enforcing arbitration agreements --
DirecTV Inc. v. Imburgia, No. 14-462, 136 S. Ct. 463 (2015) -- in
which the Court held state law was preempted by the Federal
Arbitration Act.

That being said, the NLRB will likely continue to ratchet up its
aggressive stance against any arbitration agreement that limits
class or collective actions for employment-related claims;
however, to date, the only federal courts of appeals to consider
the issue have rejected the NLRB's view.  2016 may very well be
the year that marks that final showdown, as the Board's continued
attacks create ample opportunity for the issue to soon appear
before the nation's highest court.

Bottom Line: For the foreseeable future, employers still should
weigh the cost-benefit analysis of including class or collective
action waivers in their arbitration agreements with employees
against the possibility of one day needing to seek judicial review
-- at least until the U.S. Supreme Court takes a stand.


* Fla. Charities to Get Funding From Unclaimed Class-Action Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attiyya Anthony, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that on Jan.
26, 12 charitable organizations from across the state each
accepted checks for $144,000 at an awards ceremony at Mandel JCC
at 8500 Jog Road in Boynton Beach.  Six charities in Palm Beach
County are among the latest philanthropic organizations to receive
funding through a legal doctrine that allows unclaimed class-
action funds to be donated to charity.

The Kravis Center for Performing Arts in West Palm Beach, Mandel
Children's Wish List of Palm Beach and Friends of Green Cay Nature
Center in Boynton Beach and eight other non-profits, some based as
far north as Jacksonville, received a donation.

Judith Mitchell, chief executive officer of the Kravit Center for
Performing Arts, said the money that her organization received
will go toward expanding the organization's art program.  "We are
thrilled to be included," Ms. Mitchell said.  "We appreciate the
chance to be good stewards of this money."

With the cy pres legal doctrine, lawyers have turned individual
small class-action payouts into million-dollar donations for non-
profits all over the nation.  "Cy pres" is a doctrine that
translates to "as near as possible."  When it comes to class-
action settlements, it means that a defendant must donate any
unclaimed money to charities, rather than putting it back into
their bank accounts.

Patrick Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- an attorney with
Dworken & Bernstein, an Ohio-based class-action law firm that
specializes in cy pres, said that over the past 10 years, lawyers
have awarded more than $30 million to charities using this law.
He said this option isn't often exercised, simply because lawyers
and judges aren't familiar with it.

"Many judges and lawyers haven't dealt with class-action lawsuits
and don't know that this is an option," Ms. Perotti said.  "It's
good because those people who don't claim their money are still
helping out and their families or even themselves will benefit in
some way."

The most recent million-dollar payout is the result of a
settlement of a class-action lawsuit in Palm Beach County.  If the
"cy pres" doctrine wasn't used, the $1.7 million could have gone
back to the defendant.

Martin Kaye, president of the Friends of Green Cay Nature Center,
said that the money will go toward educating the community about
the importance of the environment.  "It's incredible," Mr. Kaye
said. "I call [Patrick Perotti] Santa Claus."

Mr. Kaye said that without the donation, the nonprofit would rely
on proceeds from its gift shop and private donations.


* Securities Class Action Filings Up 11% to 189 in 2015
-------------------------------------------------------
Federal securities class action litigation rose to 189 filings in
2015, an 11 percent increase over 2014 levels, according to
Securities Class Action Filings -- 2015 Year in Review, a report
issued by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.  The market losses
associated with these filings increased significantly from the
depressed levels observed in 2014.

The Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) Index(TM), which calculates
investor losses at the time that an alleged fraud is made public,
rose 86 percent, from $57 billion in 2014 to $106 billion last
year.  This was the largest annual DDL increase since 2008, and
was caused by the reappearance of filings with DDL values
exceeding $5 billion (mega filings).  Mega filings returned to
previous annual levels after sinking to historic lows in 2014.
The litigation exposure of IPOs has also increased since the
financial crisis in 2008.

"Companies on U.S. exchanges were more likely to be the target of
a securities class action in 2015 than at any time since the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act took effect in the late
1990s," said John Gould, a senior vice president of Cornerstone
Research.  "Most measures of litigation activity increased
distinctly in 2015, including filings against companies
headquartered in China and other Asian countries."

"To understand the 2015 data one must appreciate the remarkably
low level of 2014 activity," said Professor Joseph Grundfest,
director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse and former SEC Commissioner.  "Securities class
actions are driven by monster cases, and those cases were almost
completely lacking in 2014, where not a single filing had market
losses over $5 billion at the time when the alleged fraud was
disclosed. Contrast that with five such cases in 2015.  That's all
you really need to know to explain why 2015 looks so much more
active than 2014 -- but still below the peaks observed in the
past."

Key Trends

   -- The Consumer Non-Cyclical sector again had the most filings
in 2015.  This sector is predominantly composed of Biotechnology,
Healthcare, and Pharmaceutical firms, which collectively totaled
43 filings.

   -- For U.S. exchange-listed companies, 4 percent were subject
to filings in 2015, up from 3.6 percent in 2014 and the third
consecutive yearly increase.

   -- There were as many filings in the Ninth Circuit as at any
time in the data period.  The four largest industry subsectors by
number of filings in the Ninth Circuit were Internet,
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical, and Semiconductor.  Filings in the
Second and Ninth Circuits together made up just over 60 percent of
all filings in 2015.

   -- Filings against companies in the Financial sector were well
below historical averages, declining from 26 in 2014 to 17 in
2015.  For the first time since 2006, there were no filings
against banks.

   -- The Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL) Index(TM), a measure of market
capitalization losses during the class period, increased 73
percent in 2015 to $371 billion, the largest annual dollar
increase since 2007.  MDL remains well below historical averages,
however.

   -- IPOs fell from 207 in 2014 to 117 in 2015, but remained
above post dot-com bubble levels.

   -- Beginning with the 2012 filing cohort and continuing through
the 2014 filing cohort, evidence from the timing of dismissals in
the first three years after filing indicates that dismissal rates
have subsided.

Gould and Grundfest are available to speak with the media about
Securities Class Action Filings -- 2015 Year in Review.  The
report can be downloaded from the Cornerstone Research and the
Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse
websites.

                     About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all
phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings.  The firm
works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry
practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each
assignment.  Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for
consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous,
state-of-the-art analysis for over 25 years.  The firm has 600
staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, Menlo
Park, New York, San Francisco, and Washington.

     About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
                        Clearinghouse

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) --
http://securities.stanford.edu-- is an authoritative source of
data and analysis on the financial and economic characteristics of
federal securities fraud class action litigation.  The SCAC
maintains a database of more than 4,000 securities class action
lawsuits filed since passage of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.  The database also contains copies of more
than 45,000 complaints, briefs, filings, and other litigation-
related materials filed in these cases.



                            *********

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  * * *