CAR_Public/160208.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, February 8, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 27


                            Headlines


AALMOST THERE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ADAMS TILE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AL SIEGEL'S: Faces "Lara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMERIANA BANCORP: "Stein" & "Ewing" Cases Dismissed
AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued in Ga. Over Property Insurance Policies

AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Direct Customers Appeal Claims Dismissal
ARIES SHUTTLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Ozores" Suit Says
ASCENA RETAIL: May 20 Final Hearing of Class Action Settlement
ASSISTED CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
AUTOMATED BOOKKEEPER: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Says

BALANS BRICKELL: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
BARNES & NOBLE: Trial to Begin May 3 in "Nguyen" Lawsuit
BARNES & NOBLE: 2nd Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Complaint Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Lina" Case Remains Stayed
BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Jones" Case Remains Stayed

BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Suit to Proceed in State Court
BEST BUY: Awaits 8th Cir. Ruling on Class Certification Appeal
BOB EVANS: Settlement in Snodgrass et al. Cases Has Initial OK
BOB WONDRIES: Faces "Meredith" Suit Over Vehicle Pricing Policies
BUSINESS INFORMATION: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over FCRA Violation

CBE GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hill" Action Claims
CHASE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rotberg" Suit Says
CHICO'S FAS: To Defend Against "Ackerman" Case
CHICO'S FAS: Motion to Dismiss "Altman" Suit Pending
CIGNA CORPORATION: MOU Reached in Suit over Anthem Merger

CORMEDIX INC: "Li" Suit Remains Pending in N.J.
CR BARD: Faces "Ricker" Suit in Penn. Over Defective IVC Filter
CSRA INC: "Strauch" Plaintiffs to Submit Cert. Bid in January
DEBT RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
DEUTSCHE BANK: Illegally Reneges Limit Order Offers, Suit Says

DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued Over Failure to Monitor Plan Investments
DJM ADVISORY: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
EAGLE EYE: Faces "Tiefenbrun" Suit Over Hydro Mousse Defects
FAST AUTO: "Saunders" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIFTH STREET FINANCE: Facing 3 Securities Class Actions

FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Illegally Collects Debt, "King" Action Claims
FRESNO PLUMBING: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GALENA BIOPHARMA: $20-Mil. Settlement Reached in Securities Case
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Duluth Suit Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Minneapolis Suit Over Aluminum Sulfate

GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces TeeMark Suit Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate
GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Settlement Reached in N.J. Class Suit
GREGORY A SANOBA: Illegally Collects Debt, "McGriff" Suit Claims
INFORMATION ON: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
INTEL CORP: Faces Workers' Suit in Calif. over ERISA Violations

ISG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Yu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IXIA: $3.5MM Class Action Settlement Hearing Set for Feb. 22
J.B. HUNT: Truck Drivers Sue in Los Angeles Court
KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
KKR FINANCIAL: Del. Supreme Court Affirmed Merger Suit Dismissal

LAKELAND BANCORP: MOU Reached in Pascack Merger Suit
LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
LIFE CARE: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LIQUID HOLDINGS: "De Vito" Class Action Filed in N.J.
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Butter Chicken Lasagna Due to Bone

LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Chickpea Products
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Multigrain Buns Due to Spoilage
LODE KING: Recalls 2014, 2015 Trailer Models Due to Injury Risk
LTD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maslaton" Suit Claims
LTP MANAGEMENT: Faces "Camacho" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

LUTRON ELECTRONICS: Recalls Custom-Made Roman Shades
LVNV FUNDING: Faces "Coleman" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
LYFT INC: Sent Spam Text Messages, "O'Connor" Action Claims
MACOPHARMA: Recalls LCRD2 and MTL1 Filters
MAID RITE: Recalls Meat Variety Pack Due to Gluten, Milk & Wheat

MAJOR LEAGUE: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Minor League Discovery Bid
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Palmer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Sponhaltz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MCDONALD'S CORP: Defrauds Customers over Cheese Sticks, Suit Says
MDL 1917: Best Buy Received $75-Mil. from Case Settlement

MDL 1950: Settlements Reached by Remaining Class Suit Parties
MEDBOX INC: "Crystal" Case Stayed Pending Settlement Approval
MERIDIAN-HENDERSON: Sued in Ohio Over Employment Discrimination
MICHAELS COS: Defending Against 38 Claims by Ex-Store Managers
MICHAELS COS: Still Defending Suits by Graham et al.

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Odar" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Frankel" Suit Over Collection Policies
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Reich" Suit Over Collection Policies
MITSUBISHI: Recalls 2014 & 2015 Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Falsely Marketed Products, "Dabish" Suit Says

MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Faces "Gates" Suit for Misleading Packaging
MYHEALTH MEDICAL: "Siegel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
NATIONAL AUTO: Faces "Evans" Suit in N.J. Over Automated Calls
NATIONAL PATIENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Moskowitz" Suit Says
NEWMAR: Recalls Dutch Star Class A Motorhome 1998 Models

NINE ENERGY: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NOVA NATURE: Recalls PlantBaby(R) Rattle Trumpets
NYCO CHEMISTS: Faces "Lymberatos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Held on Demurrers in Merger Suit
ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls Ortho Vision Analyzers

PANTHER WELL: "Stallworth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Suit Claims
PINTY'S DELICIOUS: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Milk & Mustard
PIONEER CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Goodwin" Suit Says
PIONEER CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Goodwin" Action Claims

POLARIS: Recalls 2016 ATVs Due to Injury Risk
POLARIS: Recalls 600, 800 Model 2015 Switchback Snowmobiles
POST HOLDINGS: E.D. Pa. Court Ruled on Bid to Certify Subclasses
PRATT INSTITUTE: Sued Over Employment Gender Discrimination
PREMIERE GLOBAL: Plaintiff Withdraws Injunction Bid

PROFLOW LLC: Faces "Munger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Faces "Rosen" Suit Over Kickback Payment
QUIKSILVER INC: Bankruptcy Stays Securities Class Suits
READY BAKE: Recalls Baguette and Ciabatta Due to Spoilage
RED SKYE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cline" Suit Claims

RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Breen" Suit Claims
REY PIZZA: Faces "Amat" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RGS FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
RIDGE WOOD: Recalls Honey Products
RITE AID: Faces "Herring" Suit Over Misleading Proxy Statements

ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Parties in N.J. Suit Agree to Mediation
RONA INC: Recalls Six-Light and Nine-Light Chandeliers
SAKSCO GOURMET: Recalls Baby King(R) Rattle Keys
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces False Advertising Suit in Calif.
SIGNET JEWELERS: N.Y. Court Vacates Portion of Arbitrator Award

SIGNET JEWELERS: 2nd Cir. Denies Petition for En Banc Review
SIGNET JEWELERS: Class Cert. Bid in "Tapia" Case Pending
SIGNET JEWELERS: Dismissal of Zale Acquisition Claims on Appeal
SIMBA TOYS: Recalls Cotoons(R) Keys Rattle Due to Choking Hazard
SOLUTIONS 2: Recalls Gaming Headsets Due to Infection Risk

SPARK ENERGY: Sued in N.J. Over Excessive Natural Gas Charges
STRYKER MEDICAL: Recalls Position Pro Mattress
STRYKER ORTHOPEADICS: Recalls Ball MDM and ADM Ball Impactor Tips
SUPERCOM LTD: Sued in New York Over Misleading Financial Reports
TARGA RESOURCES: Houston Judge Won't Halt Vote on Merger

TARGET CORPORATION: Actions Remain Pending over 2013 Data Breach
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hartman" Suit Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Action Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Action Says
UGI CORPORATION: Direct Customers Appeal Claims Dismissal

ULTA SALON: Class Cert. Ruling in "Moore" under Appeal
ULTA SALON: Expects Approval of "Galvez" Accord This Year
ULTA SALON: Defending "Paez" Class Suit in California
ULTA SALON: Defending Against "Quinby" Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
VIOLIN MEMORY: Class Suit over 2013 IPO in Discovery Phase

WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court Appeal in "Braun/Hummel" Pending
WAL-MART STORES: ASDA Unit Defending 6,000+ Equal Value Claims
WARNER ROBINS: "Lawrence" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
WC BRADLEY: Faces "Zinn" Suit in Fla. Over Defective Gas Grills
WORLD OF CHANTILLY: Faces "Alfaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

WYNDHAM INTERNATIONAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says
ZICAM LLC: Falsely Marketed Pre-Cold Medicines, Action Claims


                            *********


AALMOST THERE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Riffence Thomas v. Aalmost There Towing, L.L.C., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00847-JWD-SCR (M.D. Lo., December 18, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Aalmost There Towing, L.L.C. is in the business of providing
towing services, jumpstart services, lockout services, tire change
services and refueling services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel B. Davis
      Randall E. Estes
      ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
      850 North Boulevard
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 336-3394
      Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
      E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com


ADAMS TILE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymundo Gomez and Jesus Espinosa v. Adams Tile & Terrazzo, Inc.,
Reuben Adams, and Scott Adams, Case No. 3:15-cv-00121-CDL (M.D.
Ga., December 21, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a tile and terrazzo flooring business with
its principal place of business at 1101 Old Creek Road, Suite B1,
Athens, Georgia 30607.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas F. Martin, Esq.
      Kimberly N. Martin, Esq.
      MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP
      Post Office Box 1070
      Tucker, GA 30085-10170
      Telephone: (770) 344-7267
      Facsimile: (770) 837-2678
      E-mail: tfmartinlaw@msn.com
              kimberlymartinlaw@gmail.com


AL SIEGEL'S: Faces "Lara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Lara v. Al Siegel's Discount Furniture, Inc., Alan Siegel,
and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC604884 (Cal. Super.
Ct., December 18, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Al Siegel's Discount Furniture, Inc. offers a wide selection of
upholstered & wood furniture, mattresses & customized couches.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      T. Joshua Ritz, Esq.
      T. JOSHUA RITZ & ASSOCIATES
      ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
      14724 Ventura Blvd Ste. 510
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 788-1123
      Facsimile: (818) 788-1126


AMERIANA BANCORP: "Stein" & "Ewing" Cases Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Ameriana Bancorp said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015, that the
class action complaint captioned Shiva Stein v. Ameriana Bancorp,
et al., filed under Case No. 49D01-1507-PL-022566 in the Marion
Circuit Court, Indiana and the complaint captioned Darrell F.
Ewing v. Ameriana Bancorp, et al., filed under Civil Action No.
1:15-cv-01491 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana against the Company, its board of directors
and First Merchants Corporation, related to the merger of the
Company and First Merchants Corporation have been dismissed with
prejudice.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued in Ga. Over Property Insurance Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Anderson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. American Family Insurance Company and American Family
Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-00475-CAR (M.D. Ga.,
December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to assess for diminution in value to their insureds' properties
resulting from the water damage and to pay such diminution in
value.

The Defendants operate an insurance company and maintain their
principal place of business at 6000 American Parkway, Madison,
Wisconsin 53783.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Kopelman, Esq.
      Clint W. Sitton, Esq.
      KOPELMAN SITTON LAW GROUP, LLC
      3405 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      E-mail: clint@kopelmansitton.com
              richard@kopelmansitton.com

         - and -

      Adam P. Princenthal, Esq.
      PRINCENTHAL & MAY, LLC.
      5901 Peachtree Dunwoody Road
      Building A, Suite 525
      Sandy Springs, GA 30328
      E-mail: adam@princemay.com

         - and -

     C. Cooper Knowles, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF C. COOPER KNOWLES
     3405 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 500
     Atlanta, GA 30305
     E-mail: cknowles@cckfirm.com

         - and -

      James C. Bradley, Esq.
       Michael J. Brickman, Esq.
      Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
      RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
      1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd. (29464)
      Post Office Box 1007
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
      E-mail: jbradley@rpwb.com
              mbrickman@rpwb.com
              nfields@rpwb.com


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Direct Customers Appeal Claims Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amerigas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that direct customers
have filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit over the dismissal of their claims in the class
action lawsuit over portable propane cylinders.

Between May and October 2014, more than 35 purported class action
lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the
Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their
direct and indirect customers.  The class action lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor
colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable
propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to
persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers
and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state
antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative
classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.

In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct
customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief
brought by indirect customers.  The direct customers have filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit. The indirect customers have filed an amended complaint
claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin,
Maine, and Vermont law.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising
from such litigation.  We believe we have strong defenses to the
claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company
said.


ARIES SHUTTLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Ozores" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frankie Ozores and Jonathan Flores, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Aries
Shuttle Chicago, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-11485 (N.D. Ill., December
21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Aries Shuttle Chicago, LLC owns and operates a transportation
company in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


ASCENA RETAIL: May 20 Final Hearing of Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended October 24, 2015, that a court has
scheduled a hearing for May 20, 2016, to consider final approval
of the settlement of a class action lawsuit related to Justice's
promotional practices.

The Company is a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits
that allege that Justice's promotional practices violated state
comparative pricing laws in connection with advertisements
promoting a 40% discount. The plaintiffs further allege false
advertising, violation of state consumer protection statutes,
breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and unfair benefit
to Justice. The plaintiffs seek to stop Justice's allegedly
unlawful practice, and obtain damages for Justice's customers in
the named states. They also seek interest and legal fees.

In July 2015, an agreement was reached to settle the lawsuits on a
class basis with all Justice customers who made purchases between
January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2015 for approximately $50
million, including payments to members of the class, payment of
legal fees and expenses of settlement administration. As a result,
the Company established a reserve for approximately $50 million
during Fiscal 2015.

The proposed Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court for
preliminary approval on September 24, 2015. As of October 24,
2015, the Company continues to believe that the previously accrued
$50 million reflects a liability that is both probable and
reasonably estimable.

Subsequent to the end of the first quarter, on October 27, 2015,
the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
directed that notice be provided to the class members. The Company
paid approximately $50 million into an escrow account on November
16, 2015.

The settlement remains subject to an opportunity for class members
to object or exclude themselves from the settlement, final
approval by the Court after consideration of any objections and a
potential appeal. The Court has scheduled a hearing on final
approval for May 20, 2016. Once final non-appealable approval is
granted, it will resolve all claims in all of the outstanding
class actions on behalf of customers who made purchases between
January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2015, and any claims for
purchases outside that time frame.


ASSISTED CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Yang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Assisted Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
02118-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal., December 19, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Assisted Credit Services, Inc. operates a debt collection company
located in Costa Mesa, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne A. Sinnett, Esq.
      SINNETT LAW, APC.
      444 West C Street, Suite 230
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 752-0703
      Facsimile: (619) 330-2120
      E-mail: ws@sinlegal.com


AUTOMATED BOOKKEEPER: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JWD Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Napa Auto Care of Cape Coral,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. The Automated Bookkeeper, Inc.
ezandpaperless.com and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-00794-SPC-
MRM (M.D. Fla., December 21, 2015) seeks to put an end to the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles without the
recipient's prior express invitation or permission.

The Defendants own and operate an accounting services company in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


BALANS BRICKELL: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Balans Brickell, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-24617-JAL (S.D. Fla., December 16, 2015) is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Balans Brickell, LLC operates a restaurant located at 901 S Miami
Ave, Miami Beach, FL 33139.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Esq.
      Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
      KU & MUSSMAN PA
      6001 NW 153 Street, Suite 100
      Miami Lakes, FL 33014
      Telephone: (305) 891-1322
      Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
      E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
              louis@kumussman.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Trial to Begin May 3 in "Nguyen" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a trial date of May
3, 2016, has been set in the case, Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California against the Company. The complaint is
styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California
state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for
HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's website in August
2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and
false advertising under both New York and California state law,
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law,
and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance
of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a
specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does
not specify an amount.

The Company submitted its initial response to the complaint on May
18, 2012, removing the case to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, and moved to compel
plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant
to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012.  The
Company also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to transfer
the action to New York.

The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration, and
the Company appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The court granted the Company's motion to stay on
November 26, 2012, and the action had been stayed pending
resolution of the Company's appeal from the court's denial of its
motion to compel arbitration.

On August 18, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's denial of the Company's motion to compel
arbitration. On September 2, 2014, the Company filed a petition
for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On October 14, 2014, the court denied the Company's
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on October 23,
2014, the mandate issued returning the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

The Company then refiled its motion to dismiss the complaint and
motion to transfer the action to New York. On February 17, 2015,
the court denied the Company's motion to transfer.

On June 16, 2015 the court granted-in-part the Company's motion to
dismiss to the extent certain California unfair business practices
and false advertising claims sought restitution or injunctive
relief and denied-in-part the Company's motion to dismiss as to
the remaining claims. The surviving claims are for breach of
contract under New York law, violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, and violation of two New York consumer
protection statutes.

The parties currently are engaging in discovery. On July 30, 2015,
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification; the Company's
opposition was filed on September 17, 2015 and the court held a
hearing on the motion on November 6, 2015. All dates for the case
have been scheduled, including a trial date of May 3, 2016.


BARNES & NOBLE: 2nd Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company's second
motion to dismiss to dismiss an amended complaint in the PIN Pad
Litigation remains pending.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including
damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were
transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single
consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second
motion to dismiss. That motion is pending.


BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Lina" Case Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that all proceedings in
the case, Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. et al., have been stayed pending appeal.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making the
following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at
Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to
present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay
for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties;
(4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for
business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage
statements.

The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these
salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from
California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no
allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations
or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.

The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On
July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy
his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over
individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class
representative, or that a class action was a superior method to
adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
on August 29, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the trial court stayed
all proceedings pending appeal.

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


BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Jones" Case Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that all proceedings in
the case, Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. et al., have been stayed pending appeal in the
related Lina action.

On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported Private
Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc.
and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the
State of California making the following allegations with respect
to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in
California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to
pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time
penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide
reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide
itemized wage statements.

The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that Jones
and other "aggrieved employees" were improperly classified as
exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint
contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged
violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the
plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees.

On May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action
is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action
and assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served
with the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013.
On November 18, 2014, the court stayed all proceedings pending
appeal in the related Lina action.

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


BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Suit to Proceed in State Court
------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the case, Cassandra
Carag individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Barnes & Noble, Inc., Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1
through 100 inclusive, has been remanded to state court.

On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra
Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court,
asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non-
exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding
four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged
off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and
rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records,
and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay
errors during employment. Via the complaint, Carag seeks to
recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes
& Noble employees within California from November 27, 2009 to
present.

On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the state
court and concurrently requested removal of the action to federal
court. On May 30, 2014, the federal court granted Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff's
motion to strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint
(referring the latter motion to the lower court for future
consideration).

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


BEST BUY: Awaits 8th Cir. Ruling on Class Certification Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company's appeal
from a class certification order remains pending before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The Company said, "In February 2011, a purported class action
lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et
al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This
federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to
the public."

"Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and
certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July 2011,
after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene
LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal
2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with
prejudice. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter
or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October
2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the
court's decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such
decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff did in October 2012.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November
2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A
hearing was held on April 26, 2013. On August 5, 2013, the court
issued an order granting our motion to dismiss in part and,
contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the motion to dismiss in
part, holding that certain of the statements alleged to have been
made were not forward-looking statements and therefore were not
subject to the "safe-harbor" provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Plaintiffs moved to certify the
purported class.

"By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of
persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between
10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and
who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals granted our request for interlocutory appeal.
Oral argument was held in October 2015, and we await a decision.

"The trial court has stayed proceedings while the appeal is
pending. We continue to believe that these allegations are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend our company in this matter."


BOB EVANS: Settlement in Snodgrass et al. Cases Has Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Evans Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 23, 2015, that a settlement
agreement executed by parties in the Snodgrass, Utterback and
Mackin litigation has received preliminary Court approval.

In August 2012, a former Bob Evans Restaurant employee filed an
action against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, styled David Snodgrass v. Bob Evans
Farms, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cvg-00768 ("Snodgrass"). The lead
plaintiff alleged that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by misclassifying assistant managers as exempt
employees and failing to pay overtime compensation during the
period of time the employee worked as an assistant manager. The
plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of alleged back wages,
liquidated damages, statutory damages and attorneys' fees. The
lead plaintiff sought to maintain the suit as a collective action
on behalf of other similarly situated assistant managers employed
at Bob Evans Restaurants between August 2009 and present.

In December 2013, the Court in Snodgrass granted conditional
certification of those assistant managers that elected to opt-in
to the collective action.

In May 2014, the same plaintiffs' counsel in the Snodgrass matter
filed essentially duplicative claims under the overtime laws of
the State of Ohio and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, styled
Utterback v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC Case No. CV14826909 in the Court
of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio ("Utterback") and Mackin
v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-450 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ("Mackin"),
respectively. Neither the Utterback nor Mackin proceedings have
been certified for class status at this time.

"While we continue to believe that our assistant managers were
properly classified as exempt from the respective Federal and
State overtime requirements and that we have meritorious defenses
to the claims in each of the Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin
matters, as previously reported in our Annual Report in Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2015, in the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2015 we received an unfavorable ruling related to the
Snodgrass litigation and determined a settlement of all three
matters was in the best interest of the Company," the Company
said.

In June 2015, counsel for all parties attended the second
mediation in the Snodgrass matter in an attempt to resolve each of
the Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin litigation matters. On July
31, 2015, the Company and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to resolve all claims presented in the
Snodgrass, Mackin and Utterback cases for the total sum of up to
$16,500 on a claims made basis.  A Settlement Agreement was
executed by the parties on October 2, 2015, and the Court provided
preliminary approval on October 23, 2015.


BOB WONDRIES: Faces "Meredith" Suit Over Vehicle Pricing Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Meredith, an individual, and on behalf of himself and all
otllers similarly situated v. Bob Wondries Associates, Inc.,
d/b/a Wondries Toyota, et al., Case No. EC064832 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 18, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, specifically by selling
vehicles for more than the advertised price thereby charging a
higher price to a credit customer than a cash customer.

Bob Wondries Associates, Inc. is engaged in the business of
buying, repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the general
public, and, taking vehicles in trade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
      LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
      Foster City, CA 94404
      Telephone: (650) 341-0300
      Facsimile: (650) 403-1783
      E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com


BUSINESS INFORMATION: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over FCRA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kelly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Business Information Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
06668-CDJ (E.D. Pa., December 17, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Business Information Group, Inc. operates an information
technology services firm in south central Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL PC
      4084 University Dr. Suite 202A
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 424-7572
      E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

         - and -

      Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
      763 J Clyde Morris Blvd Ste 1-A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com

         - and -

      James A. Francis, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
      Land Title Bldg 19th Fl., 100 S. Broad St.
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone: (215) 735-8600
      Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
      E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


CBE GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hill" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Drew Hill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. The CBE Group Incorporated, Case No. 3:15-cv-02868-H-JLB (S.D.
Cal., December 18, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making unsolicited calls to consumers' wireless telephone without
prior express consent.

The CBE Group Incorporated provides accounts receivable management
and debt collection services for clients in the education,
financial, and healthcare.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patric Alexander Lester, Esq.
      LESTER AND ASSOCIATES
      5694 Mission Center Road, Suite 358
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 665-3888
      Facsimile: (314) 241-5777
      E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com


CHASE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rotberg" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shoshana Rotberg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Chase Receivables and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-
cv-08715 (D.N.J., December 17, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Chase Receivables operates as the debt collector for Verizon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Gideon Kelsen, Esq.
      1415 Queen Anne Road, Suite 206
      Teaneck, NJ 07666
      Telephone: (201) 692-0073
      Facsimile: (201) 692-0151
      E-mail: bgkelsen@kelsenlaw.com


CHICO'S FAS: To Defend Against "Ackerman" Case
----------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company intends
to vigorously defend against the case, Ackerman v. Chico's FAS,
Inc.

In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
representative Private Attorney General action filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Ackerman v.
Chico's FAS, Inc.  The Complaint attempts to allege numerous
violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest
periods, wage statements, and failure to reimburse business
expenses, among other things. The Company denies the material
allegations of the Complaint and filed its Answer on July 27,
2015.

The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend. As a result, the Company does not believe that
the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.


CHICO'S FAS: Motion to Dismiss "Altman" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company's motin
to dismiss the case, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc.,
remains pending.

In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in July 2015 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Altman v. White House
Black Market, Inc.  The Complaint alleges that the Company, in
violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits
of a credit or debit card number or an expiration date on
customers' receipts.

The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and
filed a motion to dismiss on September 9, 2015, which is pending.
The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend. As a result, the Company does not believe that
the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.


CIGNA CORPORATION: MOU Reached in Suit over Anthem Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, that a
Memorandum of Understanding has been reached among parties in
litigation relating to the merger with Anthem Inc.

Putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported Cigna
shareholders on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.  Five of the actions, Leach v. Cigna Corp., et al.,
Civil Action No. 11354-CB, Copelli v. Cordani, et al., Civil
Action No. 11373-CB, Patel v. Cigna Corp., et al., Civil Action
No. 11377-CB, Messenger v. Cigna Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
11383-CB and Litwin v. Cigna Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
11396-CB (collectively, the "Delaware Actions") were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. A sixth action, Solak
v. Cordani, et al., Civil Action No. HHD-CV-15-6061337-S (together
with the Delaware Actions, the "Cigna Merger Litigation"), was
filed in the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of
Hartford (the "Connecticut Court" or the "Court").

The Cigna Merger Litigation relates to an agreement and plan of
merger dated July 23, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), among Anthem
Inc. ("Anthem"), Anthem Merger Sub Corporation ("Merger Sub") and
Cigna, pursuant to which Cigna will merge with and into Merger Sub
(the "Merger").

Effective November 24, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company, the Company's directors,
Anthem and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
("MOU") to settle the Cigna Merger Litigation. The MOU resolves
the Cigna Merger Litigation, subject to further definitive
documentation in a stipulation of settlement, and provides that
the Company will make the supplemental disclosures. The
stipulation of settlement contemplated by the parties will contain
customary conditions, including, among other things, Court
approval following notice to the Company's shareholders.  If the
Court approves the settlement, the Cigna Merger Litigation will be
dismissed with prejudice and all claims that were or could have
been brought in any actions challenging any aspect of the Merger,
the Merger Agreement and any related disclosures will be released.
In connection with the settlement, subject to the ultimate
determination of the Court, plaintiffs' counsel may receive an
award of reasonable fees. This payment will not affect the amount
of the consideration to be received by any Company shareholder in
the Merger. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the
Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation. The MOU may terminate, if, among
other reasons, the Court does not approve the settlement or the
Merger is not consummated for any reason.


CORMEDIX INC: "Li" Suit Remains Pending in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit against Cormedix Inc. remains
pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On July 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, captioned Li v. Cormedix Inc., et al., Case 3:15-cv-05264.
The complaint asserts claims that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Plaintiff alleges generally that the defendants made
materially false or misleading statements and omissions
concerning, among other things, the Company's Neutrolin product,
the alleged use of stock promoters and alleged sales of stock by
Company insiders.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

The Company believes that it has substantial legal and factual
defenses to the claims in the class action and intends to
vigorously defend the case.


CR BARD: Faces "Ricker" Suit in Penn. Over Defective IVC Filter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Ricker v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-02453-JEJ
(M.D. Penn., December 21, 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


CSRA INC: "Strauch" Plaintiffs to Submit Cert. Bid in January
-------------------------------------------------------------
CSRA Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2015, that the
plaintiffs in the Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act class
action were slated to submit a motion for class certification in
January 2016.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer
Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that
CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any
time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC
improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the
FLSA and that CSC therefore owes them overtime wages and
associated relief available under the FLSA and various statutes,
including the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No.
4-2001, and the California Private Attorneys General Act. The
relief sought by plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in
the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and civil
penalties.

CSC's position is that its system administrators have the job
duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and are
properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation
requirements. CSC's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in
February 2015.

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more
than 6,400 system administrators, of whom 2,921 are employed by us
and the remainder of whom are employed by CSC.

Courts typically undertake a two-stage review in determining
whether a suit may proceed as a class action under the FLSA. In
its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the Court
examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that proposed
class members are similarly situated, the class is conditionally
certified. Potential class members are then notified and given an
opportunity to opt in to the action. The second step of the class
certification analysis occurs upon completion of discovery. At
that point, the Court will examine all evidence then in the record
to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to conclude that
the proposed class members are similarly situated. If it is
determined that they are, the case will proceed to trial; if it is
determined they are not, the class is decertified and only the
individual claims of the purported class representatives proceed.

The Business's position in this litigation continues to be that
the employees identified as belonging to the conditional class
were paid in accordance with the FLSA.

Plaintiffs are filing an amended complaint to add additional
plaintiffs and allege violations under Missouri and North Carolina
wage and hour laws.

"We do not believe these additional claims differ materially from
those in the original complaint," the Company said. "The next
stage in the litigation will be a motion for class certification,
which is currently due from plaintiffs in January 2016."


DEBT RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristene Kershaw and Sophia Brister, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-07268-CBA-SMG (E.D.N.Y., December 21, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC is a Westbury, N.Y.-based debt
collection company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      EDWARD B. GELLER, ESQ., P.C.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      Facsimile: (111) 111-1111
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Illegally Reneges Limit Order Offers, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Axiom Investment Advisors, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Deutsche Bank AG, Case No. 1:15-cv-09945-LGS
(S.D.N.Y., December 21, 2015) is an action for damages as a result
of the Defendant's practice of reneging on its limit orders
offered through its own and third-party electronic trading
platforms.

Deutsche Bank AG is a German global banking and financial services
company with its headquarters in the Deutsche Bank Twin Towers in
Frankfurt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
      Walter W. Noss, Esq.
      Kristen M. Anderson, Esq.
      Kate Lv, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
              wnoss@scott-scott.com
              kanderson@scott-scott.com
              klv@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      David R. Scott, Esq.
      Sylvia Sokol, Esq.
      Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10174-4099
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
              ssokol@scott-scott.com
              tboardman@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      George A. Zelcs, Esq.
      Robert E. Litan, Esq
      Randall P. Ewing Jr., Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY LLC
      205 North Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 641-9750
      Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
      E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
              rlitan@koreintillery.com
              rewing@koreintillery.com

         - and -

      Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
      Robert L. King, Esq.
      Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
      Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY LLC
      505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-4844
      Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
      E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
              rking@koreintillery.com
              azigler@koreintillery.com
              mklenov@koreintillery.com

         - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
      Jeannine M. Keeney, Esq.
      HAUSFELD, LLP
      1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
              rgambhir@hausfeld.com
              jkenney@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      HAUSFELD, LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 633-1908
      Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com
              mlehmann@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
      Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 702-7053
      Facsimile: (212) 681-0300
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
              bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
              bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued Over Failure to Monitor Plan Investments
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Moreno and Donald O'Halloran, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Deutsche Bank Matched Savings Plan v. Deutsche Bank
Americas Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09936-LGS
(S.D.N.Y., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to monitor the Plan's investments to ensure that each
of the Plan's investments remained prudent.

Headquartered in New York City, Deutsche Bank Americas Holding
Corp. provides the funding for the Plan while allocating the cost
to other American Deutsche Bank entities based upon their
headcount.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      Kai H. Richter, Esq.
      Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
      John G. Albanese, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 S 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: fisher@nka.com
              krichter@nka.com
              cengstrom@nka.com
              jalbanese@nka.com


DJM ADVISORY: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
JWD Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Napa Auto Care of Cape Coral,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. DJM Advisory Group LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00793-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., December 21, 2015) seeks to put an end
to the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

DJM Advisory Group LLC operates an insurance company with its
principal place of business in Mahopac, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


EAGLE EYE: Faces "Tiefenbrun" Suit Over Hydro Mousse Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Yossi Tiefenbrun, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v.  Eagle Eye Marketing Group, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-02842-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., December 17, 2015) is an action
for damages as a result of the inherent defect in the Hydro Mousse
product and the Defendant's failure to disclose the defect to
consumers.

Eagle Eye Marketing Group, Inc. is a Canadian home furnishing
company that operates from one or more locations in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Elliot Adler, Esq.
      Brittany S. Zummer, Esq.
      ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC
      402 W. Broadway, Suite 860
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 531-8700
      E-mail: EAdler@theadlerfirm.com
              BZummer@theadlerfirm.com


FAST AUTO: "Saunders" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keyeanna Saunders, suing individually and by and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. Fast Auto
Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02624-WBS-CKD (E.D. Cal.,
December 18, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Fast Auto Loans, Inc. provides consumer loan services to its
customers in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David P. Mastagni, Esq.
      Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
      Jeffrey R. A. Edwards, Esq.
      David L. Kruckenberg, Esq.
      MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
      A Professional Corporation
      1912 "I" Street
      Sacramento, CA 95811-3151
      Telephone: (916) 446-4692
      Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
      E-mail: dmastagni@mastagni.com


FIFTH STREET FINANCE: Facing 3 Securities Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the Corporation has
been named as a defendant in three putative securities class-
action lawsuits.

The first lawsuit was filed on October 1, 2015, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Howard Randall, Trustee, Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO
Kimberly Randall Irrevocable Trust UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street
Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07759. The second lawsuit
was filed on October 14, 2015, in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut and is captioned Lynn Waters-
Cottrell v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01488. The third lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2015, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and is captioned Robert J. Hurwitz v. Fifth Street Finance Corp.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08908.

The defendants in all three cases are Leonard M. Tannenbaum,
Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M.
Dimitrov, and Richard Petrocelli (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"), Fifth Street Finance Corp. and Fifth Street Asset
Management Inc. ("FSAM").

Fifth Street Finance said, "The lawsuits allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased our common
stock between July 7, 2014, and February 6, 2015, inclusive.  The
lawsuits allege in general terms that defendants engaged in a
purportedly fraudulent scheme designed to artificially inflate the
true value of our investment portfolio and investment income in
order to increase FSAM's revenue, which FSAM received as our asset
manager and investment adviser.  For example, the lawsuits allege
that we improperly delayed the write-down of five of our
investments until the fiscal quarter ending in December 31, 2014,
after FSAM conducted its Initial Public Offering ("IPO") in
October 2014, when we should have taken the write-down before
FSAM's IPO.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not
specified the amount of damages being sought in any of the
actions."

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the plaintiff's
allegations.  Neither the outcome of the lawsuits nor an estimate
of 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 statements as
of September 30, 2015. An adverse judgment for monetary damages
could have a material adverse effect on our operations and
liquidity."


FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Illegally Collects Debt, "King" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine King, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions Incorporated
d/b/a FBCS Incorporated, Midland Credit Management Incorporated,
and Midland Funding LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00582-JAS (D. Ariz.,
December 15, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants own and operate a debt collection firm in Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Michael Panvini, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
      5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8898
      Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
      E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com

         - and -

      Russell Snow Thompson , IV
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
      5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8898
      Facsimile: (866) 565-1327
      E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


FRESNO PLUMBING: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Reyes, William Eric Nunemaker, and Jose Luis Gonzalez Jr.,
on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated workers v.
Fresno Plumbing & Heating, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-05935 (N.D.
Cal., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Fresno Plumbing & Heating, Inc. owns and operates a plumbing
company located at 2585 N Larkin Ave, Fresno, CA 93727.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
      JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP
      84 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 790
      San Jose, CA 95113
      Telephone: (408) 317-1100
      Facsimile: (408) 351-0105
      E-mail: Tomas@JAWLawGroup.Com


GALENA BIOPHARMA: $20-Mil. Settlement Reached in Securities Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, that the
Company on December 3, 2015, agreed in principal to resolve and
settle the securities putative class action lawsuit, In re Galena
Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
00367-SI, pending against the Company, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and other defendants in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon. The agreement,
which is subject to shareholder notice and Court approval,
provides for a settlement payment of $20 million to the class and
the dismissal of all claims against the Company and the current
and former officers and directors in connection with the
consolidated federal securities class actions.

Of the $20 million settlement payment to the class:

     -- $16.7 million will be paid by the Company's insurance
        carriers under the insurance policies, and

     -- $3.3 million will be paid by the Company through a
        combination of:

        * $2.3 million in cash, and
        * $1 million in shares of the Company's common stock.

The Company will be responsible for defense costs and any
settlements or judgments incurred for any related opt out
lawsuits.


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Duluth Suit Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate
----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Duluth, Minnesota, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-04435-RHK-LIB (D. Minn., December 21, 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 and to submit artificially inflated bids.

General Chemical Corporation maintained Alum manufacturing and
distribution facilities throughout the United States and was a
leading manufacturer and supplier of water treatment chemicals,
including Alum.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
      Brian D. Clark, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
              cnnauen@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com
              erodette@locklaw.com
              bdclark@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      120 South 6th Street #2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Minneapolis Suit Over Aluminum Sulfate
--------------------------------------------------------------
City of Minneapolis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case
No. 0:15-cv-04434-MJD-TNL (D. Minn., December 21, 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 and to
submit artificially inflated bids.

General Chemical Corporation maintained Alum manufacturing and
distribution facilities throughout the United States and was a
leading manufacturer and supplier of water treatment chemicals,
including Alum.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
      Brian D. Clark, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
              cnnauen@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com
              erodette@locklaw.com
              bdclark@locklaw.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces TeeMark Suit Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TeeMark Corporation individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case
No. 0:15-cv-04438-DWF-LIB (D. Minn., December 21, 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 and to
submit artificially inflated bids.

General Chemical Corporation maintained Alum manufacturing and
distribution facilities throughout the United States and was a
leading manufacturer and supplier of water treatment chemicals,
including Alum.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
      Brian D. Clark, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
              cnnauen@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com
              erodette@locklaw.com
              bdclark@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      120 South 6th Street #2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Settlement Reached in N.J. Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Property Trust Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015,
that the parties to a merger class action lawsuit in New Jersey
have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement providing for the
settlement of the New Jersey Action.

On July 1, 2015, Gramercy Property Trust, Inc., a Maryland
corporation ("Gramercy"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Chambers Street Properties, a
Maryland real estate investment trust ("Chambers"), and Columbus
Merger Sub, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Chambers ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to
which Gramercy is expected to be merged with and into Merger Sub
(the "Merger"), with Merger Sub continuing as the surviving entity
of the Merger.

On December 7, 2015, Chambers, Merger Sub and Gramercy entered
into the Second Amendment ("Amendment No. 2") to the Merger
Agreement.  Amendment No. 2 reduces from five (5) business days to
three (3) business days, the time period available to Chambers or
Gramercy, as applicable, to submit an adjusted proposal in the
event a qualifying superior offer is received by Chambers or
Gramercy, as applicable, prior to receipt of the Chambers or
Gramercy shareholder approval, as applicable.

On October 1, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County by a
purported shareholder of Chambers.  The action, captioned Elstein
v. Chambers Street Properties et al., Docket No. L-002254-15,
names as defendants Chambers, the Chambers Board and Gramercy (the
"New Jersey Action").

On December 3, 2015, the parties to the New Jersey Action entered
into a Stipulation of Settlement providing for the settlement of
the New Jersey Action.  While the defendants in the New Jersey
Action continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing,
fault, liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class
of shareholders of Chambers, and believe that no supplemental
disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i)
avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of
further litigation in connection with the New Jersey Action, (ii)
finally put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or
could have been asserted against the defendants in the New Jersey
Action and (iii) permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the
Superior Court of New Jersey ordering an injunction or damages in
connection with the New Jersey Action, Chambers and Gramercy have
agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to
the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger.  The
Stipulation of Settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to the Chambers
shareholders.  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 finally approved
by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by
shareholders of Chambers challenging any aspect of the proposed
Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection
therewith, including in the Definitive Proxy Statement, pursuant
to terms that will be set forth in the notice sent to Chambers'
shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement.


GREGORY A SANOBA: Illegally Collects Debt, "McGriff" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhondalyn McGriff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Gregory A. Sanoba, P.A. d/b/a The Sanoba Law Firm, and
Gregory A Sanoba, Case No. 2:15-cv-14434-RLR (S.D. Fla., December
18, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Gregory A. Sanoba, P.A. operates a law firm in Lakeland, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      S. Keley Jacobson, Esq.
      Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 A1A Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 34963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      E-mail: jacobson@verobeachlegal.com
              lwd@verobeachlegal.com


INFORMATION ON: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Crosby, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Information On Demand Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00089
(N.D. Ga., January 12, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Information On Demand Inc. owns and operates a background
screening company in Blairsville, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Scott Fortas, Esq.
      FORTAS LAW GROUP, LLC
      Suite 100B, 1934-B N. Druid Hills Road
      Atlanta, GA 30319
      Telephone: (404) 315-9936
      Facsimile: (404) 636-5418
      E-mail: sfortas@fortaslaw.com


INTEL CORP: Faces Workers' Suit in Calif. over ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Intel cost its workers tens
of millions of dollars by investing their retirement funds in ill-
chosen, risky and poorly performing hedge funds and other
vehicles, a worker claims in an ERISA class action in federal
court in San Jose, California.


ISG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Yu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Xue Xiang Yu, Qi Zhong Chen, and He Lin, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. ISG Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Sushi
Sushi, ABC Corporation d/b/a Sushi Sushi, Igor Grinberg, John Doe,
and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-09888-JPO (S.D.N.Y., December 21,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant located at 54
Tiemann Place, New York, New York 10027.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Isabella, Esq.
      Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
      XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1001 Avenue of the Americas, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 219-2275
      E-mail: robertisabella@xuelaw.com
              benjaminxue@xuelaw.com


IXIA: $3.5MM Class Action Settlement Hearing Set for Feb. 22
------------------------------------------------------------
IXIA said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 1, 2015, that the Company entered
into:

     (A) a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
         November 17, 2015, relating to the proposed settlement
         of the consolidated shareholder derivative action,
         captioned In re Ixia Shareholder Derivative Litigation,
         that is pending against the Company, as a nominal
         defendant, and certain of its current and former
         officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for
         the Central District of California.  The Derivative
         Action Settlement Agreement would resolve all of the
         claims asserted against the defendants in the Derivative
         Action and is subject to the Court's preliminary and
         final approval.

     (B) entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement,
         dated November 11, 2015, relating to the proposed
         settlement of the purported securities class action,
         captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement
         System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v.
         Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller,
         and Errol Ginsberg, that is pending in the Court against
         the Company and certain of its current and former
         officers and directors. The Class Action Settlement
         Agreement would resolve all of the claims asserted
         against the defendants in the Class Action and is
         subject to the Court's preliminary and final approval.

The Derivative Action Settlement Agreement implements the
agreement in principle to settle the Derivative Action that was
entered into in July 2015 and disclosed by the Company in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") on August 3, 2015. The Derivative Action
Settlement Agreement provides, among other terms, for the Company
to implement certain corporate governance measures and for the
plaintiffs' counsel to apply to the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $575,000.
The Company expects that any fees and expenses awarded by the
Court to the plaintiffs' counsel would be paid by one of the
Company's insurance carriers. The Derivative Action Settlement
Agreement does not include any admission of wrongdoing or
liability on the part of the Company or the individual defendants
and provides for a dismissal of, and a release of all claims
asserted against the defendants in, the Derivative Action.

The Class Action Settlement Agreement implements the agreement in
principle to settle the Class Action that was entered into in
August 2015 and disclosed by the Company in a Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 28, 2015. The Class Action
Settlement Agreement provides, among other terms, for a settlement
payment of $3.5 million, which the Company expects would be paid
in full by one of the Company's insurance carriers. The Class
Action Settlement Agreement does not include any admission of
wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Company or the
individual defendants and provides for a dismissal of, and a
release of all claims asserted against the defendants in, the
Class Action.

Hearings for the Court to consider the preliminary approval of the
Derivative Action Settlement Agreement and the Class Action
Settlement Agreement have been noticed to be held on February 22,
2016.

A copy of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
November 17, 2015, by and among Erie County Employees' Retirement
Fund, Colleen Witmer, the Company, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar,
Thomas B. Miller, Errol Ginsberg, Jonathan Fram, Laurent Asscher,
Gail Hamilton, Jon F. Rager, Alan Grahame, Raymond de Graaf,
Walker H. Colston II, and Ronald W. Buckly, is available at:

     http://is.gd/flhtya

A copy of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
November 11, 2015, by and among Oklahoma Firefighters Pension &
Retirement System, Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System,
Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, Errol Ginsberg,
and the Company, is available at:

     http://is.gd/0F6AFx

The class action is captioned as, OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION &
RETIREMENT SYSTEM and OKLAHOMA LAW ENFORCEMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. IXIA, VICTOR ALSTON, ATUL
BHATNAGAR, THOMAS B. MILLER, and ERROL GINSBERG, Defendants, Case
No. CV13-08440-MMM (SH)(C.D. Cal.).  Judge Margaret M. Morrow
oversees the case.

Lead Counsel Designee is:

     James J. Sabella, Esq.
     Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
     485 Lexington Avenue
     New York, NY 10017

Defendants' Counsel Designees are:

     Eric Rieder, Esq.
     Bryan Cave LLP
     1290 Avenue of the Americas, 35th Floor
     New York, NY 10104

          - and -

     Christopher Caldwell, Esq.
     Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, PC
     725 Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90017

          - and -

     Sheldon Eisenberg, Esq.
     Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
     1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067

The Ixia Securities Litigation Settlement administrator is:

     Angeion Group
     1801 Market Street, Suite 660
     Philadelphia, PA 19103


J.B. HUNT: Truck Drivers Sue in Los Angeles Court
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that truck drivers accuse J.B.
Hunt of minimum wage and other Labor Code violations, in a class
action in Los Angeles Superior Court.


KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kang Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kalobios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Martin Shkreli, and
Herb C. Cross, Case No. 5:15-cv-05841-EJD (N.D. Cal., December 18,
2015) alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Kalobios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that
develops monoclonal antibody therapeutics to combat diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
       Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
       Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
       GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
       1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
       Los Angeles, CA 90067
       Telephone: (310) 201-9150
       Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
       E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
               lportnoy@glancylaw.com
               lportnoy@glancylaw.com


KKR FINANCIAL: Del. Supreme Court Affirmed Merger Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR Financial Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Supreme
Court of the State of Delaware has affirmed the Delaware Court of
Chancery's dismissal of a class action lawsuit related to a merger
transaction.

From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, the United States District
Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN,
the then individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR &
Co., and certain of KKR & Co.'s affiliates in connection with
KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would
become a subsidiary of KKR & Co. The Merger Transaction was
completed on April 30, 2014.

The actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and
prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for
the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint
filed in the California federal court action, which was never
served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice on May 6, 2014.

Of the Delaware actions, two were voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated.
On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the
consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss
on March 7, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of
Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On
November 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the oral argument for
which was held on September 16, 2015.

On October 2, 2015, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal.

The consolidated complaint in the Delaware action alleged that the
members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties
owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for
inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in
order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN
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 KFN shareholders. The
Delaware action also alleged variously that KKR & Co., and certain
of KKR & Co.'s affiliates aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties and that KKR & Co. was a controlling
shareholder of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN
and KKR Financial Advisors LLC, and KKR & Co. breached a fiduciary
duty it allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter
into the merger agreement. The relief sought in the Delaware
action included, among other things, declaratory relief concerning
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and other relief.


LAKELAND BANCORP: MOU Reached in Pascack Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2015, that the
defendants in a merger class action lawsuit have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the lead plaintiffs regarding
settlement of the action.

Pascack Bancorp, Inc. is merging with and into Lakeland Bancorp
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 3, 2015.

In August, 2015, Lakeland was served with a Civil Action Summons
and Class Action Complaint that was filed in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County. A second action,
nearly identical to that described in the preceding sentence, was
served on Lakeland in September, 2015 and consolidated with the
first action. The complaints state that the plaintiffs are
bringing the class action claims on behalf of the public
stockholders of Pascack against the Board of Directors of Pascack
for their alleged breach of fiduciary duties arising out of the
Merger Agreement. The complaint alleges that Lakeland has aided
and abetted the individual defendants in their alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.

On November 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which reiterates and expands their prior
claims based upon the information contained in Lakeland's Form S-4
Registration Statement.

All defendants vigorously deny all liabilities with respect to the
facts and claims alleged in the lawsuit, and specifically deny
that any supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law in connection with the Pascack
Special Meeting. However, solely to avoid the risk of delaying or
adversely affecting consummation of the merger and to minimize the
expense of defending the lawsuit, the defendants have agreed to a
settlement.

On December 2, 2015, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the lead plaintiffs regarding settlement of the
action. As part of the settlement, Lakeland agreed to make certain
additional disclosures, which are contained in this Current Report
on Form 8-K. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be
subject to customary conditions, including the consummation of the
merger and court approval following notice. In the event that the
parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement which, if finally
approved by the Court, will resolve all of the claims that were or
could have been brought in the action being settled, including all
claims relating to the merger, the merger agreement and any
disclosures made in connection therewith. The Court will also need
to approve the conditional certification of the class of
plaintiffs at such hearing. In addition, in connection with the
settlement, the parties contemplate that the lead plaintiffs'
counsel will petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid by Pascack and/or Lakeland. If the parties
agree on the amount of such award, then the defendants will not
oppose the plaintiffs' fee application. If, and only if, the
parties cannot agree on the amount of such award, then the
defendants reserve the right to oppose the amount of such fee
application. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such a stipulation. In the event that neither of these
occurs, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Memorandum
of Understanding may be terminated. The settlement will not affect
the timing of consummation of the merger or the amount or nature
of the merger consideration to be paid to the shareholders of the
Company in the merger.


LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Villanueva, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02354-ST (D. Or., December 17, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC operates a financial service
company that specializes in debt purchasing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua L. Ross, Esq.
      Keil M. Mueller, Esq.
      STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER, PC
      209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 227-1600
      Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
      E-mail: jross@stollberne.com
              kmueller@stollberne.com

         - and -

      Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
      KELLY D. JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      819 SE Morrison St., Suite 255
      Portland, OR 97214
      Telephone: (503) 847-4329
      Facsimile: (503) 715-0524
      E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com


LIFE CARE: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Robinson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Life Care Centers of America, Case No. 4:15-cv-03675 (S.D.
Tex., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Life Care Centers of America owns and manages nursing, post-acute,
and Alzheimer's facilities across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrick A. Reed, Esq.
      REED, PLLC
      1920 Country Place Pkwy, Suite 320
      Pearland, TX 77584
      Telephone: (713) 595-9675
      Facsimile: (713) 595-9670
      E-mail: derrick.reed@reedthelaw.com

         - and -

      Marrick Armstrong, Esq.
      ARMSTRONG LEGAL PLLC
      2016 Main Street, Suite 111
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (832) 622-6562
      Facsimile: (281) 809-8735
      E-mail: marrick@armstronglegalpllc.com


LIQUID HOLDINGS: "De Vito" Class Action Filed in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------
Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 1, 2015, that a securities class action complaint was
filed on September 21, 2015, against Liquid, certain of our former
and current officers and directors and the underwriter of our
initial public offering (collectively, the "Defendants") in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Robert De Vito v. Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. et al. (No. 2:15-
cv-06969-KM-JBC))."

"The named plaintiff's complaint brings claims on behalf of a
putative class consisting of all persons, other than the
Defendants and other officers and directors of Liquid, who
purchased or acquired our securities: (i) pursuant and/or
traceable to the our registration statement and prospectus filed
with the SEC in connection with our initial public offering;
and/or (ii) between July 26, 2013 and December 23, 2014. The
complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of: (i) Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act");
(ii) Section 15 of the Securities Act; (iii) Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act; and (iv)
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As relief, the complaint
requests compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, reasonable
costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, and such
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

"The Company has not yet been served in this action. We intend to
vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the inherent uncertainties
in litigation and because the ultimate resolution of this
proceeding is influenced by factors outside of our control, we are
currently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this
litigation or its impact on our financial position or results of
operations."


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Butter Chicken Lasagna Due to Bone
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Extraneous Material, Other
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10213

Loblaw Companies Limited is recalling President's Choice brand
Butter Chicken Lasagna from the marketplace due to possible
presence of bone fragments. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product.

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

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

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

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

  Brand        Common    Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  name         name      ----    product        ---
  -----        ------            ----------
  President's  Butter    1 kg    Best before    0 60383 04640 8
  Choice       Chicken           dates
               Lasagna           2015 OC 26
                                 2015 DE 25
                                 2016 MR 11
                                 2016 MA 20

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/2IP8b5


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Chickpea Products
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10209

  Brand      Common     Size      Code(s) on    UPC
  name       name       ----      product       ---
  -----      ------               ----------
  PC         Chickpeas  540 ml    2018 AL 23    0 60383 70869 6
  Organics


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Multigrain Buns Due to Spoilage
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10239

  Brand        Common       Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name         name         ----    product       ---
  -----        ------               ----------
  President's  Ciabatta     336 g   NY069Q        0 60383 04451 0
  Choice       Multigrain
               Buns

LODE KING: Recalls 2014, 2015 Trailer Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Heavy Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 53
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015584TC
ID number: 2015584

On certain hopper-bottom style trailers outfitted with a Michel
tarp system, the battery enclosure may not be adequately vented.
If the battery in the unit is overcharged, freezes or
malfunctions, it may expel a highly flammable gas, which could
buildup in the battery enclosure. When the system is next
energized it is possible that a spark would occur, which could act
as an ignition source, potentially resulting in a fire and/or an
explosion causing injury and/or property damage. Correction:
Dealers will replace the defective control box with an updated
version that corrects the problem.

  Make         Model            Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----            ----------------------
  LODE KING    SEMI TRAILER     2014, 2015


LTD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maslaton" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Maslaton, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. LTD Financial Services, LP, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00137 (E.D.N.Y., January 11, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

LTD Financial Services, LP operates a debt collection agency with
its principal place of business located at 7322 Southwest Fwy
#1600, Houston, TX 77074.

Moshe Maslaton is a pro se plaintiff.


LTP MANAGEMENT: Faces "Camacho" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeaneth Camacho and Elerie Camacho v. LTP Management, Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:15-cv-05743 (N.D. Cal., December 15, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

LTP Management, Inc. owns and operates various assisted living
facilities in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devin Coyle, Esq.
      David Browne, Esq.
      DEVIN COYLE LAW
      1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 584-9020
      Facsimile: (510) 584-9039
      E-mail: dcoyle@workerscounsel.com
              david@brownelaborlaw.com


LUTRON ELECTRONICS: Recalls Custom-Made Roman Shades
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 4, 2015
Posting date: December 4, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56126

This recall involves motorized or manual, custom-made Roman
shades.  The shades are made out of fabric mounted on a metal
frame.  Each shade has two to six vertical mesh lift bands on the
back of the shade that are 8 inches wide, secured by lift band
clamps at the bottom of the shade. The manufacturer name "Lutron
Electronics Inc." and the manufacture date appear on a white label
on the shade tube at the top of the shade, which can be located
when the shade is fully extended. Consumers should contact Lutron
Electronics Co., Inc. if the label cannot be located. The shades
were sold through residential window shading dealers.

Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between
the exposed mesh lift bands and the fabric on the backside of the
shade or when a child pulls the band out and wraps it around
his/her neck.

Neither Health Canada nor Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. has
received reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the
use of these Roman shades.

For more information on the hazard, see Blind Cord Safety.

216 recalled shades were sold in Canada through residential window
shading dealers since October 2009.

The recalled shades were sold from October 2009 to July 2015.

Manufactured in USA.

Manufacturer: Lutron Electronics Co., Inc.
              Coopersburg
              Pennsylvania
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Roman shades
and contact Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. for a retrofit solution.

For more information, consumers may contact Lutron Electronics
Co., Inc. toll free at 844-478-2033 from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST
Monday through Friday.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5nQNIs


LVNV FUNDING: Faces "Coleman" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Coleman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LVNV Funding, LLC and Blitt and Gaines,
P.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-11338 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2015) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

LVNV Funding, LLC is a collection agency that works for creditors
to collect on charged-off debt accounts.

Blitt and Gaines, P.C. operates a full service collections law
firm located at 661 Glenn Ave, Wheeling, IL 60090.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Celetha Chatman, Esq.
      Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
      COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
      73 W. Monroe
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 757-1880
      Facsimile: (312) 265-3227
      E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
              mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com

         - and -

      Andrew Finko, Esq.
      WOOD FINKO & THOMPSON P.C.
      73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 757-1880
      Facsimile: (312) 265-3227
      E-mail: afinko@woodfinkothompson.com

The Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC is represented by:

      Angelo John Kappas, Esq.
      GORDON & REES LLP
      One North Franklin
      Suite 800
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 565-1400
      E-mail: akappas@gordonrees.com

The Defendant Blitt and Gaines, P.C. is represented by:

      Michael L. Starzec, Esq.
      BLITT AND GAINES, P.C.
      661 Glenn Avenue
      Wheeling, IL 60090
      Telephone: (847) 403-4900
      E-mail: mike@blittandgaines.com


LYFT INC: Sent Spam Text Messages, "O'Connor" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Douglas O'Connor, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Lyft, Inc. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. cv-536658 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 18, 2015) seeks to
put an end to the Defendants' practice of sending spam text
messages to class members' cellular telephones without prior
express consent.

Lyft, Inc. acts as a passenger transportation service that
connects riders and drivers through a cellular telephone
application.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
      KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
      5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 240
      Carlsbad, CA 92008
      Telephone: (760) 929-9303
      Facsimile: (760) 929-9260
      E-mail: pkeegaf@keeganbaker.com


MACOPHARMA: Recalls LCRD2 and MTL1 Filters
------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 8, 2015
Posting date: January 7, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56542

Misassembled LCRD2 and MTL1 filters were reported to macopharma
where the inlet and the outlet tubing were on the same side of the
filter. This misassembly creates direct passage of blood from the
collection bag to the transfer bag without passing through the
filter

Affected products:
A. POCHE A SANG QUADRUPLE
Lot or serial number: Not applicable
Model or catalog number: LQT7292LX

Manufacturer: Macopharma
              Rue Lorthiois
              Mouvaux
              59420
              FRANCE


MAID RITE: Recalls Meat Variety Pack Due to Gluten, Milk & Wheat
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Maid Rite Company Ltd.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10208

  Brand     Common     Size      Code(s) on     UPC
  name      name       ----      product        ---
  -----     ------               ----------
  Sysco     Meat       2.04 kg   12/18/14 to    007 34730 49074 8
  Imperial  Variety              11/20/15
            Pack


MAJOR LEAGUE: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Minor League Discovery Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that major League Baseball clubs can't hide their Minor League
game reports and schedules from players suing the teams for wages,
a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Jan. 29.

The discovery dispute is the latest wrangle in two consolidated
class actions Minor League players filed against Commissioner of
Baseball Bud Selig and 22 Major League clubs.

Lead plaintiffs Aaron Senne and Yadel Marti say Minor Leaguers
earn only $3,000 to $7,500 a year, working up to 70 hours a week,
while Major League Baseball rakes in billions each year.

Under the Minor League Uniform Player Contract, players receive
salary only during the season, though most players perform
substantial work throughout the calendar year, the players say.

After dismissing eight teams for lack of jurisdiction in June
2015, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero granted conditional class
certification in October, for players to pursue claims against 22
Major League clubs.

On January 29, Spero rejected Major League Baseball's argument
that game reports, showing work players did to prepare for games
but weren't always paid for, contain confidential information with
little evidentiary value.

MLB attorney Adam Lupion insisted that because game reports do not
specify the time players spent performing certain game-related
tasks, their value as evidence is insignificant.

Judge Spero rejected that. "It makes no sense to say these game
reports have no probative value," he said during the Jan. 29
hearing.

"They certainly are a link in the chain. The activities that class
members participated in are a piece of this case."

Spero granted the MLB clubs' request to interview two class
members from each Minor League team, despite opposition from the
players' attorneys.

Class attorney Bruce Simon said if MLB "hand-selects" class
members to interview, it will use the opportunity "to send a
message" to the rest of the potential class that "we'll drag you
through a very gory process to make you rethink participating."

Of 14,850 potential class members who were mailed notifications of
the lawsuit, 726 have opted into the class thus far, Simon said.
The deadline to opt in ends Feb. 11.

MLB attorney Elise Bloom told the judge that MLB attorneys do not
plan to interview class members until after the opt-in period
ends, allaying fears that MLB will use the depositions to
intimidate players into opting out.

Bloom said MLB attorneys do intend to conduct the interviews by
March 4 -- the deadline to file a motion for class decertification
-- because she thinks evidence obtained in interviews will support
MLB's motion to decertify the class.

As for the players' request for game schedules from six clubs
dismissed from the lawsuit, Bloom said retrieving those documents
would be "a very onerous task."

Minor leaguers who played for the dismissed clubs stayed on as
plaintiffs because they are still suing MLB as their primary
employer.

"The game schedules are kept by multiple individuals - six to
eight managers," Bloom said. "To collect that information going
back to 2008 will require a substantial amount of manpower hours."

After Spero pressured class attorneys to strike a compromise on
discovery, the players' attorneys agreed to limit their request to
game schedules going back only two years.  Spero also ironed out a
dispute over class attorneys' request to randomly observe player
activities at ballparks and spring training to estimate the actual
tasks and amount of time players spend working throughout the
calendar year.  Spero said the observers should be given free rein
to take notes, photos and video in public areas without being
harassed by security guards.

Bloom asked that the players give teams a more specific timeframe,
such as a specific week, when the observers will show up.
Otherwise, she said, it may be difficult to coordinate with
security because the guards could forget the arrangement to
accommodate observers, months after the fact.

Spero denied Bloom's request, saying the need to coordinate
effectively with security must be balanced against the interest of
making sure the teams don't expect observers and change their
routine because of it.

Spero ordered attorneys to meet, confer and negotiate on a host of
other discovery issues and to work quickly on meeting deadlines
before the June 13 discovery cutoff date.


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Palmer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Vicky Palmer v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03852-RDB (D. Md., December 17, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      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
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Sponhaltz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret A. Sponhaltz v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-03856-GLR (D. Md., December 17, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of 40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      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
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: Defrauds Customers over Cheese Sticks, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that McDonald's defrauds
customers by claiming its Mozzarella sticks are "100 percent real
cheese," because it uses starch as a cheap filler to add weight, a
class action claims in Riverside, Calif. federal court.

Lead plaintiff Chris Howe sued McDonald's Corp. on behalf of
customers in 42 states and the District of Columbia. He accuses
the company of unfair and fraudulent competition, false
advertising, and breach of warranty - the last under the laws of
all 42 states and the District of Columbia.

McDonald's began selling "Mozzarella Sticks" in mid-2015, at first
in Wisconsin, then nationwide, including California, where Howe
lives. In advertising and packaging, it claims they are "made with
'pure mozzarella,' 'real mozzarella,' and '100% mozzarella,'"
according to the Jan. 29 lawsuit, which includes photos of the
packaging.

In fact, Howe claims, the cheese sticks are adulterated and
misbranded: "The sticks are filled with a substance that is
composed (in part) of starch, in violation of the federal
standards of identity for 'mozzarella' cheese, and contrary to
reasonable consumers' expectations regarding the meaning of the
term 'mozzarella.'"

He claims that "McDonald's has used starch as a cheap substitute
and filler. Due to starch's ability to hold moisture, a small
amount can be introduced into a mixture to add bulk and weight at
a fraction of the cost of real cheese. Upon information and
belief, McDonald's has been able to cut costs of production by
limiting its reliance on actual dairy products necessary to make
mozzarella, contrary to what the law requires for products labeled
as 'mozzarella.'"

The reason for this is "self-evident," Howe says: to save money
and increase profits by fooling consumers.

The 32-page lawsuit includes federal standards for cheese, and the
methods by which McDonald's allegedly violated them. It claims
that testing of the sticks' cores -- without the breaded coating
-- showed they were 3.76 percent starch by weight.

Howe seeks certification as a class of California consumers and a
class of nationwide consumers, disgorgement, restitution, a cease-
and-desist order, at least $5 million in damages, and costs.

His lead counsel is:

     John Donboli, Esq.
     DEL MAR LAW GROUP
     12250 El Camino Real #120
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Tel: 858-793-6005

with attorneys from Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca in Bethesda, Md. and
Brooklyn, NY, and Halunen Law in Minneapolis.


MDL 1917: Best Buy Received $75-Mil. from Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company has
received $75 million in settlement proceeds from the Cathode Ray
Tube Antitrust Litigation.

"On November 14, 2011, we filed a lawsuit captioned In re Cathode
Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California," the Company said. "We
allege that the defendants engaged in price fixing in violation of
antitrust regulations relating to cathode ray tubes for the time
period between March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007. No trial
date has been set."

"In connection with this action, we received settlement proceeds
net of legal expenses and costs in the amount of $75 million in
the first nine months of fiscal 2016. We will continue to litigate
against the remaining defendants and engage in further settlement
discussions as this matter proceeds; however, it is uncertain
whether we will recover additional settlement sums or a favorable
verdict at trial."


MDL 1950: Settlements Reached by Remaining Class Suit Parties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-
K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 4, 2015, that the remaining parties to the putative class
action have reported to the MDL 1950 court that settlements in
principle had been reached.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts ("GICs"). These cases have been coordinated
and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516
("MDL 1950").

Five of these cases named both Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings
Inc. ("AGMH") and AGM: (a) Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia
Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.;
(c) Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank,
N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington County, Tennessee v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A.

In April 2009, the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss on the federal claims for these five cases, but granted
leave for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The
Corrected Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed
on October 9, 2013, lists neither AGM nor AGMH as a named
defendant or a co-conspirator. The complaint generally seeks
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
costs.

The other four cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged
that the defendants violated California state antitrust law and
common law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market
allocation, thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of
competition in the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in
the cities paying higher fees for these products: (f) City of
Oakland, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of
Alameda, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of
Fresno, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno
County Financing Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp.

When the four plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
September 2009, the plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.
However, the complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's
activities. The consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. In
April 2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in part
the named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated
complaint. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits.

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


MEDBOX INC: "Crystal" Case Stayed Pending Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medbox, Inc. on October 22, 2015, entered into settlements in
principle, conditioned upon court approval, of certain class and
derivative claims.

On December 1, 2015, Medbox and the class plaintiffs in Josh
Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-00426-BRO
(JEMx), pending before the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (the "Court") notified the Court of
the settlement. The Court has stayed the action pending the
Court's review of the settlement and directed the parties to file
a stipulation of settlement on or before December 18, 2015, Medbox
said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 7, 2015.

If preliminarily approved, the settlement provides for notice to
be given to the class, a period for opt outs and a final approval
hearing.

The principal terms of the settlement are:

     * A cash payment to a settlement escrow account in the
       amount of $1,850,000 of which $150,000 will be paid by
       the Company and $1,700,000 will be paid by the Company's
       insurers;

     * A transfer of 2,300,000 shares of Medbox common stock to
       the settlement escrow account, of which 2,000,000 shares
       would be contributed by Medbox and 300,000 shares by
       Bruce Bedrick;

     * The net proceeds of the settlement escrow, after deduction
       of Court-approved administrative costs and any Court-
       approved attorneys' fees and costs would be distributed to
       the Class;

     * Releases of claims and dismissal of the action.

The class action settlement covers the period April 2, 2013 to
December 29, 2014.

By entering into the settlement, the settling parties have
resolved the class claims to their mutual satisfaction. Defendants
have not admitted the validity of any claims or allegations and
the settling plaintiffs have not admitted that any claims or
allegations lack merit or foundation.

"With the beginning of the court approval process, we take
important steps to resolve and put behind us these significant
legal problems that current management inherited from its
predecessors," said Jeff Goh, Medbox President and interim Chief
Executive Officer, in a Dec. 7 press statement.  "We look forward
to applying 100% focus on growing and strengthening the company,
which is what our shareholders want us to do."


MERIDIAN-HENDERSON: Sued in Ohio Over Employment Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Zego, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Meridian-Henderson, LLC d/b/a Red Door Tavern, and Xhevair
Brakaj, Case No. 2:15-cv-03098-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, December 21,
2015) is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants'
unlawful employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

The Defendants own and operate Arch City, a bar and restaurant in
Columbus's Short North neighborhood.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Beggs, Esq.
      BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA
      1675 Old Henderson Road
      Columbus, OH 43220
      Telephone: (614) 678-5640
      Facsimile: (614) 448-9408
      E-mail: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com

         - and -

      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      KIMBLE LAW, LLC
      1675 Old Henderson Road
      Columbus, Ohio 43220
      Telephone: (937) 286-6428
      Facsimile: (614) 448-9408
      E-mail: Andrew@kimblelawoffice.com


MICHAELS COS: Defending Against 38 Claims by Ex-Store Managers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that as a result
of the decertification of a lawsuit by former store managers
against Michaels Stores, Inc. ("MSI"), the Company is facing 38
individual claims pending as well as a separate representative
action pending in the California Superior Court in and for the
County of San Diego.

On September 15, 2011, MSI was served with a lawsuit filed in the
California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange
("Superior Court") by four former store managers as a class action
proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and current
store managers employed by MSI in California. The lawsuit alleges
that MSI improperly classified its store managers as exempt
employees and as such failed to pay all wages, overtime, waiting
time penalties and failed to provide accurate wage statements. The
lawsuit also alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of
various laws, including California's unfair competition law.

On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an order
certifying a class of approximately 200 members.  MSI successfully
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class was
decertified.

"As a result of the decertification, we have 38 individual claims
pending as well as a separate representative action pending in the
California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego
brought on behalf of store managers throughout the state," the
Company said. "We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend
to defend the lawsuits vigorously. We do not believe the
resolution of the lawsuits will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial statements."


MICHAELS COS: Still Defending Suits by Graham et al.
----------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company
intends to defend the remaining lawsuits -- by Christina Graham,
Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut -- against Michaels Stores, Inc.

On December 11, 2014, MSI was served with a lawsuit, Christina
Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey by a former associate.  The lawsuit
is a purported class action, bringing plaintiff's individual
claims, as well as claims on behalf of a putative class of
applicants who applied for employment with Michaels through an
online application, and on whom a background check for employment
was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey Fair Credit
Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper disclosure and
obtain the proper authorization to conduct background checks.
Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the
lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and
Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially similar
allegations.  The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages
as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five
additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs
were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the  Northern District of
Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior
Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
Barbara Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. All of the
plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA.

In addition, the Castro, Horton and Janice Bercut lawsuits also
alleged violations of California's unfair competition law.  The
Burnside, Horton and Gettings lawsuits have been dismissed and an
offer of judgment has been accepted in the Castro lawsuit and will
be dismissed. The Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut
lawsuits were transferred for centralized pretrial proceedings to
the District of New Jersey.

The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously.

"We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of
loss, related to the lawsuits, if any," the Company said.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Odar" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Odar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MCM a/k/a Midland Credit Management, Inc. and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-08783-AET-TJB (D.N.J., December 21,
2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a national financial services
company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial
obligations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Frankel" Suit Over Collection Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Frankel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland
Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
07167 (E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management (MCM) is a national financial services
company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial
obligations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Reich" Suit Over Collection Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lea Reich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-07195 (E.D.N.Y., December 17, 2015) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

Midland Credit Management (MCM) is a national financial services
company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial
obligations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


MITSUBISHI: Recalls 2014 & 2015 Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 8875
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015579TC
ID number: 2015579
Manufacturer recall number: SR16-001

On certain vehicles, the wiring harness connector located in the
area of the drivers footrest could corrode over time due to
repeated exposure to melted snow/water containing road salt. This
could eventually result in illumination of several warning lamps
including the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) warning lamp. If
the SRS warning lamp is illuminated and the vehicle is
subsequently involved in a collision that warrants frontal air bag
deployment, the timing of the frontal airbag deployment(s) may be
delayed, which would increase the risk of injury to the seat
occupant(s). Correction: Dealers will install a waterproof sheet
to prevent potential contamination and corrosion of the connector.
The connector will also be inspected and, if any corrosion is
found, the connector will be replaced with a new one.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  MITSUBISHI             2014, 2015


MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Falsely Marketed Products, "Dabish" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mason Dabish and Bill Bohr, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Musclepharm Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv-
02848-W-JMA (S.D. Cal., December 17, 2015) is brought on behalf of
all the persons who purchased MusclePharm Arnold Schwarzenegger
Series Iron Pump Pre-Workout Powder, MusclePharm
Arnold Schwarzenegger Series Iron Cre3 Creatine Powder,
MusclePharm Creatine Supplement, MusclePharm Arnold Schwarzenegger
Series Iron Dream Nighttime Support Powder, and MusclePharm
Assault Pre-Workout Powder, which were falsely advertised and
labeled by the Defendants that the newly formulated, novel,
ingredients that chemically fuse an amino or organic acid with a
nitrate in the Products are safe and provide vast benefits over
products that contain their more traditional cousin compounds.

Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, Musclepharm Corp. is a major
player in the sports nutrition industry with over $177 million in
revenue in 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
      Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
      William R. Restis, Esq.
      Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
      550 West C St., Suite 1760
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1333
      Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
      E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
              mlk@classactionlaw.com
              wrr@classactionlaw.com
              trk@classactionlaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

         - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      434 West Alexandrine, Suite 101
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 303-3472
      E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Faces "Gates" Suit for Misleading Packaging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Gates and John Martinez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MusclePharm Corporation, Case No.
3:15-cv-02870-BAS-DHB (S.D. Cal., December 19, 2015) arises out of
the Defendant's misleading packaging of its Protein Products,
including its Arnold Schwarzenegger Series Iron Whey, MusclePharm
Combat Protein Powder, MusclePharm Combat Powder, MusclePharm
Combat Black Weight Gainer, and MusclePharm FitMiss Delight, in
large, opaque containers that contain approximately 46% of empty
space, or non-functional slack fill.

MusclePharm Corporation sells nutritional supplements on a
nationwide basis, including in more than 110 countries and 35,000
retail outlets across the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


MYHEALTH MEDICAL: "Siegel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Siegel, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Myhealth Medical Group, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00277-
MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., December 21, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Myhealth Medical Group, LLC is a Georgia corporation that operates
a medical facility in Keystone Heights, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
      309 NE 1st Street
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 244-2069
      Facsimile: (352) 372-3464


NATIONAL AUTO: Faces "Evans" Suit in N.J. Over Automated Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Evans, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Auto Division, L.L.C., Ariel Freud,
and Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-08714-AET-DEA (D.N.J., December
17, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
autodialed and prerecorded calls to cellular telephones without
prior express consent.

The Defendants own and operate an auto insurance agency located at
2323 U.S. 9, Howell, NJ 07731.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
      THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
      1704 Maxwell Drive
      Wall, NJ 07719
      Telephone: (732) 455-9737
      Facsimile: (732) 709-5150
      E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


NATIONAL PATIENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Moskowitz" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Moskowitz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. National Patient Account Services, Inc. d/b/a NPAS,
Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-09812-KMK (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2015)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

National Patient Account Services, Inc. is a provider of early-out
collection services for hospital and health care companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      EDWARD B. GELLER, ESQ., P.C.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


NEWMAR: Recalls Dutch Star Class A Motorhome 1998 Models
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Steering
Units affected: 85
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015587TC
ID number: 2015587

On certain motorhomes, the steering gear mounting bracket could
crack and break resulting in a loss of steering control, which
would increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and replace the
steering gear mounting bracket as necessary.

  Make      Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----                ----------------------
  NEWMAR    DUTCH STAR           1998
            CLASS A MOTORHOME


NINE ENERGY: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
William M. Turner III, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nine Energy Service, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-
03670 (S.D. Tex., December 18, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Nine Energy Service, LLC is a nationwide oilfield services with
significant completion and land drilling operations throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              jbresler@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


NOVA NATURE: Recalls PlantBaby(R) Rattle Trumpets
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 8, 2015
Posting date: December 8, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56166

This recall involves the PlantBaby(R) Rattle Trumpet. The toy
rattle is green and white.  It is shaped like a trumpet and has 3
colored rings attached to it. The rattle can also act as a
whistle.

The rattle can be identified by UPC 8809198340033.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
the rattle can break and release small parts, posing a choking
hazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor Nova Nature has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to this product.

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

Approximately 365 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled product was sold from November 2011 to November 2015.

Manufactured in Korea.

Importer: Nova Nature
          Vancouver
          British Columbia
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Home Care Co. Ltd
              SOUTH KOREA

Consumers should immediately take the rattle away from young
children and return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

For more information, contact Nova Nature at 1-888-887-8228, from
9:00 am to 5:00 pm PST, Monday to Friday or email.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/u3MhOM


NYCO CHEMISTS: Faces "Lymberatos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitrios Lymberatos, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Nyco Chemists Inc., et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00131 (E.D.N.Y., January 11, 2016) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Nyco Chemists Inc. owns and operates a pharmaceutical company in
Brooklyn, New York.

Dimitrios Lymberatos is a pro se plaintiff.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Held on Demurrers in Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Omnivision Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a California
court was scheduled to hear on January 22, 2016, the demurrers
filed in a consolidated class action lawsuit related to the
Company's merger transaction.

On April 30, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive agreement
to be acquired by a consortium composed of Hua Capital Management
Co., Ltd., CITIC Capital Holdings Limited, and GoldStone
Investment Co., Ltd. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
OmniVision stockholders will receive $29.75 per share in cash, or
a total of approximately $1.9 billion. The agreement was
unanimously approved by the Company's Board of Directors in April
2015. OmniVision's stockholders also approved the transaction at a
special meeting in July 2015. Subsequently, the Company received
the anti-trust clearances from the U.S. and China. In October
2015, the Company received notice from the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the U.S., indicating the conclusion of its review
and its determination that there are no unresolved national
security concerns with respect to the transaction. By November
2015, the Company also received all the necessary clearance in
Taiwan. The transaction, which is expected to close in the third
or fourth quarter of fiscal 2016, is still subject to regulatory
approvals in the People's Republic of China, and other customary
closing conditions.

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, a number of putative class action lawsuits
have been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara. The actions filed Pope v. OmniVision
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 15-CV-280161 (filed May 4, 2015);
Francisco v. Xiaoying, et al., No. 15-CV-280270 (filed May 6,
2015); Agee v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. 15-CV-280311
(filed May 7, 2015); Levine v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No.
15-CV-280344 (filed May 7, 2015); O'Donnell v. OmniVision
Technologies, Inc., No. 15-CV-280411 (filed May 8, 2015); Smith v.
Hong, et al., No. 15-CV-280863 (filed May 19, 2015); and Nido v.
OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. 15-CV-281031 (filed May 22,
2015).

In general, the various complaints assert that, among other
things, the members of the Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties to OmniVision's stockholders by engaging in a
process that was not designed to, and did not, maximize the
stockholders' value, and that OmniVision and the proposed
acquiring entities aided and abetted the Board of Directors'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints generally
seek to enjoin the merger, rescission of the merger to the extent
it is implemented, or alternatively, rescissionary damages.

On June 2, 2015, the actions were consolidated under the caption
In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No.
15-CV-280161. On June 8, 2015, a consolidated amended complaint
was filed. The amended complaint adds allegations that the Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a false
and misleading preliminary proxy statement. The amended complaint
also adds allegations that J.P. Morgan aided and abetted the
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On July 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote on the merger.
The Court held a hearing on this motion on July 16, 2015. At that
hearing the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for an injunction.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on September 25, 2015.
The second amended complaint includes the same claims as the
consolidated amended complaint although the Company is no longer
named as a defendant. Defendants filed demurrers seeking dismissal
of the second amended complaint on October 30, 2015. Those
demurrers were scheduled for hearing on January 22, 2016. The
Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this action
and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate
the loss or a range of possible loss.


ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls Ortho Vision Analyzers
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 10, 2015
Posting date: January 18, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56674

Ortho Clinical Diagnostics (Ortho) has identified that under
specific circumstances, the saline supply on the Ortho vision
analyzer may be insufficient to process tests, without operator
knowledge.

If an operator opens the liquid access door for any reason, the
system software automatically resets, assuming the saline
container was refilled to the maximum volume of 4700 ml,
regardless of whether the operator refills the saline container or
not. If an operator opens the liquid access door and does not
refill the saline container to 4700 ml, the system loses track of
the actual onboard saline volume. Therefore, the system can no
longer accurately determine low saline volume levels and alert the
operator.

Affected products
A. ORTHO VISION Analyzer
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 6904577

Manufacturer: ORTHO-CLINICAL DIAGNOSTICS INC.
              1001 US HWY 202
              Raritan
              08869
              New Jersey
              UNITED STATES


PANTHER WELL: "Stallworth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Stallworth, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Panther Well Service, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-
03673 (S.D. Tex., December 21, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Panther Well Service, LLC is an oilfield services company located
at 49 Lightwood Trace, The Woodlands, Texas 77382.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Christine Smith, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Performant Recovery, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00179-WHO
(N.D. Cal., January 12, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Performant Recovery, Inc. owns and operates a debt collection
agency at 17080 S Harlan Rd, Lathrop, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keren E. Gesund, Esq.
      GESUND & PAILET, LLC
      3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 805
      Metairie, LA 70002
      Telephone: (702) 300-1180
      E-mail: gesundk@gesundlawoffices.com


PINTY'S DELICIOUS: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Milk & Mustard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 9, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Pinty's Delicious Foods Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10198


  Brand    Common           Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  name     name             ----    product      ---
  -----    ------                   ----------
  Pinty's  Honey & Roasted  810 g   2016 SE 16   0 69094 62459 2
  Pub &    Garlic - Our
  Grill    Premium Chicken
           Breast Chunks
  Pinty's  Honey & Roasted  890 g   2016 MA 25   0 69094 62399 1
  Pub &    Garlic - Our
  Grill    Premium Chicken
           Wings


PIONEER CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Goodwin" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-09782-JFW-E (C.D. Cal., December 21, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of initiating a telephonic communication
to the Class members' cellular telephone number via an automatic
telephone dialing system and artificial or prerecorded voice.

Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. is engaged in credit recovery on
defaulted debt specializing in government collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
      Matthew A. Young, Esq.
      KIESEL LAW LLP
      8648 Wilshire Blvd.
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 854-4444
      Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
      E-mail: koncius@kiesel-law.com
              young@kiesel-law.com

         - and -

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


PIONEER CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Goodwin" Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-09783 (C.D. Cal., December 21, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to consumers'
wireless telephone without prior express consent.

Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. is engaged in credit recovery on
defaulted debt specializing in government collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
      Matthew A. Young, Esq.
      KIESEL LAW LLP
      8648 Wilshire Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
      Telephone: (310) 854-4444
      Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
      E-mail: koncius@kiesel-law.com
              young@kiesel-law.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


POLARIS: Recalls 2016 ATVs Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: A.T.V.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 136
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015585TC
ID number: 2015585
Manufacturer recall number: Z-15-04

On certain side-by-side UTV's, the turbo oil drain tube bolts may
have been improperly tightened during assembly. This could result
in oil leaking onto nearby hot exhaust or turbo components, which
could increase the risk of fire resulting in injury and/or damage
to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and properly torque
the drain tube bolts.

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


POLARIS: Recalls 600, 800 Model 2015 Switchback Snowmobiles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Snowmobile
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Steering
Units affected: 2316
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015586TC
ID number: 2015586
Manufacturer recall number: S-15-02A

On certain snowmobiles, steering components could become damaged
in a high-impact event. This could potentially result in damage to
the pitman or idler arm, which could affect steering control, and
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will add steel plates to the pitman
and idler arm assemblies to reduce the chance of component
breakage.

  Make      Model            Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----            ----------------------
  POLARIS   800 SWITCHBACK   2015, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2015
  POLARIS   600 SWITCHBACK   2015


POST HOLDINGS: E.D. Pa. Court Ruled on Bid to Certify Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania has granted the motion of the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs to certify a shell-egg subclass, but
denied their motion to certify an egg-products subclass.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs,
manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry
organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
egg products, and seeking unspecified damages.

In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. Between late 2010 and early 2012, a number of
companies, each of which would be part of the purported class in
the antitrust action, brought separate actions against defendants.
These "opt-out" cases, brought primarily by various grocery chains
and food companies, assert essentially the same allegations as in
the main action. The opt-out cases are also pending in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, where they are being treated as related
to the main action.

On September 18, 2015, the court denied the motion of the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs for class certification. On September 21,
2015, the court granted the motion of the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs to certify a shell-egg subclass, but denied their
motion to certify an egg-products subclass.


PRATT INSTITUTE: Sued Over Employment Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen A. Dunne, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pratt Institute, Case No. 1:15-cv-07246-ARR-
RER (E.D.N.Y., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Equal Pay Act and N.Y. Labor Law,
specifically by paying female employees less than it paid male
employees who performed equal work.

Pratt Institute operates a specialized university with 4500
students in undergraduate and graduate programs in the fine arts,
design, fashion, architecture, and information and library
science.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan A. Bernstein, Esq.
      LEVY DAVIS & MAHER, LLP
      39 Broadway, Suite 1620
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 371-0033


PREMIERE GLOBAL: Plaintiff Withdraws Injunction Bid
---------------------------------------------------
Premiere Global Services, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015,
that the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit withdrew his motion
for preliminary injunction of the Company's merger transaction
with Pangea Private Holdings II, LLC.  However, the class action
lawsuit continues.

On September 10, 2015, Premiere Global Services, Inc., a Georgia
corporation (the "Company" or "PGi"), entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Pangea Private
Holdings II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"),
and Pangea Merger Sub Inc., a Georgia corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among
other things, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company,
with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
(the "Merger").

On November 10, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Merger was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

A hearing on the plaintiff's emergency motion for preliminary
injunction was held on November 19, 2015. On November 20, 2015,
the plaintiff withdrew his motion for preliminary injunction.

The withdrawal of the motion for a preliminary injunction does not
constitute a dismissal, settlement or withdrawal of the
plaintiff's claims. Each of the defendants believes the claims
asserted in the lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit. However, at this time, it is not
possible to predict the outcome of the proceeding or its impact on
PGi or the Merger.


PROFLOW LLC: Faces "Munger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Munger and Stuart Lester, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Proflow LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03094-
ALM-TPK (S.D. Ohio, December 21, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Proflow LLC provides oil and gas well monitoring services to
energy companies nationwide, including in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma,
and Wyoming.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com

         - and -

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Faces "Rosen" Suit Over Kickback Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A. Rosen, on Behalf of the Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and On Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated Employee Benefit Plans v. Prudential Retirement
Insurance  And Annuity Company, Prudential
Bank & Trust, FSB, and Prudential Investment Management Services,
LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01839 (D. Conn., December 18, 2015) arises
out of the Defendants' alleged pay-to-play scheme in which
Prudential receives payments from mutual funds in the form of 12b-
1 fees, administration fees, service fees, sub-transfer agent fees
and similar fees in return for providing the mutual funds with
access to its retirement plan customers, including its 401(k) plan
customers.

The Defendants operate an insurance company with its principal
place of business in Hartford, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
      James E. Miller, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      65 Main Street
      Chester, CT 06412
      Telephone: (860) 526-1100
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
              jmiller@sfmslaw.com
`
         - and -

      Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
      Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 429-5272
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
              ktang@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 515-0123
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN
      18250 Ventura Blvd.
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


QUIKSILVER INC: Bankruptcy Stays Securities Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Quiksilver, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015,
that securities class action complaints have been stayed pending
the Company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

In April 2015, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company and two of its former officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California under the following captions: Leiland Stevens,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Quiksilver, Inc., et al. and Shiva Stein, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Quiksilver, Inc., et
al.

On June 26, 2015, the court consolidated these lawsuits and named
Babulal Parmar as the lead plaintiff. On August 25, 2015, lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the consolidated action.
The amended complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The putative class period in this action
is from June 6, 2014 through March 26, 2015. The complaint seeks
designation of this action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and such other relief
as the court deems appropriate.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter or estimate
the potential impact on its results of operations, financial
position or cash flows. The Company has not recorded a liability
for this matter. On September 21, 2015, the court entered an order
staying the action pending bankruptcy proceedings.


READY BAKE: Recalls Baguette and Ciabatta Due to Spoilage
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Ready Bake Foods Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Warehouse
CFIA reference number: 10210

  Brand     Common        Size     Code(s) on     UPC
  name      name          ----     product        ---
  -----     ------                 ----------
  Sienna    Par Baked     8.00 kg  CASE: BEST     6 20868 16880 5
            Demi Baguette          BEFORE: 2016-
                                   03-08, LOT 253
                                   and 2016-03-09,
                                   LOT 254
  Sienna    Artisan       8.40 kg  CASE: BEST     6 20868 16877 5
            Baguette               BEFORE: 2016-
                                   03-09, LOT 254
  Sienna    Ciabatta      6.30 kg  CASE: BEST     6 20868 16878 2
            Baguette               BEFORE: 2016
                                   -03-09, LOT 254
  Sienna    2.5"          5.40 kg  CASE: BEST     6 20868 16882 9
            Ciabatta               BEFORE: 2016
            Roll                   -03-09, LOT 254
President's Ciabatta      6.048 kg CASE: BEST     10060383044517
Choice      Multigrain             BEFORE: 2016
            Buns                   -03-09, LOT 254


RED SKYE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cline" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Cline, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated
v. Red Skye Wireless, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-62671-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
December 21, 2015)is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Red Skye Wireless, LLC owns and operates wireless retail stores
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina J. Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3487
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
              cthomas@forthepeople.com


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Breen" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Breen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a
American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 2:15-cv-07223-JFB-SIL
(E.D.N.Y., December 18, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. operates a recovery
agency for consumer collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      David M. Barshay, 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
              dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com


REY PIZZA: Faces "Amat" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Amat, and all others similarly situated v. Rey Pizza Corp.,
d/b/a Rey's Pizza and Arch Resources Group, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
24687-JEM (S.D. Fla., December 21, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carmen Rodriguez, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, P.A.
      Palmetto Bay Centre
      15715 South Dixie Highway, Suite 411
      Miami, FL 33157-1884
      Telephone: (305)254-6101
      Facsimile: (305) 254-6048
      E-mail: crpa@crlaborlawfirm.com


RGS FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Badri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RGS Financial, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07217-JMA-SIL
(E.D.N.Y., December 18, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

RGS Financial, Inc. operates a BPO and accounts receivable
management company with its principal place of business located at
1700 Jay Ell Dr. #200, Richardson, TX 75081.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      David M. Barshay, 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
              dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com


RIDGE WOOD: Recalls Honey Products
----------------------------------
Starting date: December 9, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Ridge Wood Honey
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10194

  Brand       Common      Size    Code(s) on        UPC
  name        name        ----    product           ---
  -----       ------              ----------
  None        No Label-   1 kg    All unlabelled    None
              Liquid              1 kg jars of
              Honey               liquid honey
                                  sold to Pingle's
                                  Farm on October
                                  23, 2015.
  None        No Label-   500 g   All unlabelled    None
              Liquid              500 g jars of
              Honey               liquid honey
                                  sold to Pingle's
                                  Farm on October
                                  23, 2015.
  Ridgewood   Honey       1 kg    Sold between      None
                                  June 23, 2015
                                  and November 27,
                                  2015 inclusive.
  Ridgewood   Honey       500 g   Sold between      None
                                  June 23, 2015
                                  and November 27,
                                  2015 inclusive.


RITE AID: Faces "Herring" Suit Over Misleading Proxy Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Herring, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02440-
YK (M.D. Penn., December 18, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
dissemination of a materially false and misleading proxy statement
in connection with the proposed sale of Rite Aid to Walgreens
Boots Alliance, Inc.

Rite Aid Corporation, a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania, is a retail drugstore chain that sells
prescription drugs and a range of other merchandise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin M. Mather, Esq.
      KAUFMAN, COREN & RESS, P.C.
      Two Commerce Square, Suite 3900
      2001 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 735-8700
      E-mail: bmather@kcr-law.com

         - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
      Christopher Martins, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
              cmartins@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Randall J. Baron, Esq.
      David T. Wissbroecker
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-3301
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
              DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com


ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Parties in N.J. Suit Agree to Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------
Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in a
securities class action lawsuit in New Jersey have agreed to
attempt to resolve the case through mediation in December 2015.

A putative securities class action originally captioned Ding v.
Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
December 24, 2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and
entities who had purchased or otherwise acquired securities
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement for the
Company's IPO. The original putative class period ran from July 17
through November 6, 2014.  The original complaint asserted claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 and contended that the IPO
Registration Statement was false and misleading, or omitted
allegedly material information, in connection with the Company's
statements about its placement of Atlas instruments and its
expectations of future growth and increased market share, and the
Company's alleged failure to disclose "known trends and
uncertainties about the Company's sales."  The alleged
misrepresentations and omissions purportedly came to light when
the Company issued its third-quarter 2014 earnings release on
November 6, 2014.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
two applicants filed motions on February 23, 2015 for appointment
as lead plaintiff.  On March 23, 2015, the applicant with the
smaller loss agreed not to oppose the application for lead
plaintiff filed by the applicant with the larger loss. The court
appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law
Firm as lead counsel on April 21, 2015. The lead plaintiff then
filed an amended complaint, captioned Stanley Yedlowski v. Roka
Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8020, on June 23, 2015. The
amended complaint pleads Securities Act claims on behalf of
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Roka
securities pursuant or traceable to the IPO Registration Statement
during an extended putative class period, running from July 17,
2014 through March 26, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that
the Registration Statement was false or misleading in that it
failed to disclose that the Company's customers purportedly were
experiencing false positives and other usage issues with the
Company's Listeria assays apparently arising from the customers'
employees' inability to follow the Company's Listeria assay
workflow. The amended complaint alleges that the full extent of
the purported misstatements and omissions was not revealed until
March 26, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion on August 25, 2015 to dismiss the
amended complaint, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to that
motion on October 9, 2015. The parties have agreed to attempt to
resolve the case through mediation in December 2015.

The Company believes that the claims in the securities class
action are without merit and, if the mediation is unsuccessful,
the Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously, and
expects to incur costs associated with defending the securities
class action. The Company has various insurance policies related
to the risks associated with its business, including directors'
and officers' liability insurance policies. However, there is no
assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense of
the securities class action, and there is no assurance that the
insurance coverage will be sufficient or that the insurance
carriers will cover all claims or litigation costs. At this early
stage of the litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the
ultimate outcome of this matter. Due to the inherent uncertainties
of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably predict the timing or
outcomes, or estimate the amount of loss, if any, or their effect,
if any, on its financial statements.


RONA INC: Recalls Six-Light and Nine-Light Chandeliers
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 8, 2015
Posting date: December 8, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56124

This recall involves Globe Chelsea Collection six-light and nine-
light chandeliers that have a bronze finish with frosted-glass
shades. The lights included in this recall are model numbers 63335
and 63336 and the UPC numbers are 058219633359 and 058219633366,
respectively. The lights use 60-W type A19 bulbs (sold
separately).

The ring that connects the chandelier to its chain may break and
the chandelier may fall, which could cause injury.

In addition to the two incidents that were previously reported to
Rona in Canada, 6 additional incidents were reported to Globe
Electric Company Inc. No injuries have been reported.

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

Approximately 5,300 recalled chandeliers were sold at Rona and
Reno-Depot stores in Canada.

The recalled chandeliers were sold between January 2010 and
October 2014.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Rona Inc.
             Boucherville
             Quebec
             CANADA

Manufacturer: Globe Electric Company Inc.
              Montreal
              CANADA

Consumers should contact Globe Electric Company Inc. customer
service at 1-800-361-6761 or by email for a replacement ring.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/hU1pDC


SAKSCO GOURMET: Recalls Baby King(R) Rattle Keys
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 8, 2015
Posting date: December 8, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56172

This recall involves the Baby King(R) Rattle Keys. These rattles
are made of 4 coloured hard plastic keys on a white hard plastic
ring. This recall includes both the bright and pastel colour
versions of this product.

Both versions of the recalled rattles can be identified by the
model number: BK512 and by the UPC: 0 94606 00512 5, which can be
found on their packaging.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that these rattles do not meet the Canadian safety requirements
for the size and shape of rattles. The plastic keys can enter and
become lodged in a child's throat, posing a choking or suffocation
hazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor SAKSCO Gourmet Basket Supplies has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of these rattles in Canada.

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

Approximately 1,300 of the recalled rattles were sold at various
stores across Canada.

The recalled rattles were sold from November 2011 to November
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: SAKSCO Gourmet Basket Supplies
          Mississauga
          Ontario
          CANADA

Distributor: Regent Baby Products Corp.
             Jamaica
             New York
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take the recalled rattles away from
children and contact SAKSCO Gourmet Basket Supplies for further
instructions.

Consumers can contact SAKSCO Gourmet Basket Supplies by telephone
toll-free at 1-800-668-4390, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm ET, Monday to
Friday or by email.

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

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

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

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


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces False Advertising Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Seagate Technology sells
defective hard drives and falsely advertises them, a class action
claims in federal court in San Jose, California.


SIGNET JEWELERS: N.Y. Court Vacates Portion of Arbitrator Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted
Signet Jewelers Inc.'s Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class
Certification Award in part and denied it in part.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against
SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level
employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and
promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the
District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where
the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis.

The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI
opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion
was held in late February 2014.

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The
arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For
Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants'
emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on
February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and
denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015.

Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII
Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11,
2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for
Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on
March 16, 2015. Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued
April 27, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization
of Notice on March 6, 2015.

SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015. Claimants filed their
reply on June 5, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the
Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015.
Claimants' opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI's reply
was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion was heard on May 4, 2015.

On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the
Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in
part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA
Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In the AAA proceeding, on April 6, 2015, Claimants filed
Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion
for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the
Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its
opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on May 22,
2015. Claimants' motion was granted on June 15, 2015.


SIGNET JEWELERS: 2nd Cir. Denies Petition for En Banc Review
------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied Signet Jewelers Inc.'
Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review of the appellate
court's decision reviving the Company's dispute with the US Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

On September 23, 2008, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against SJI in the
US District Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's
lawsuit alleges that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate
impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of
female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present.
The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-
monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices.

Non-expert fact discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September
2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural
grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate
Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in
December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his
Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court
grant SJI's motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the
EEOC's claims in their entirety.

The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling and
SJI filed its response thereto. The District Court Judge heard
oral arguments on the EEOC's objections to the Magistrate Judge's
ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order
dismissing the action with prejudice.

On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the
District Court Judge's dismissal of the action to United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties fully briefed
the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015.

On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court's
order and remanding the case back to the District Court for
further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and
En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and EEOC and has been
defending these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or
possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation is able to be estimated.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Class Cert. Bid in "Tapia" Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the parties in
the case, Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation litigation, are waiting
for a court ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation, Zale was a
defendant in three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v.
Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on
April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which
was filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern
District of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc.
which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated
various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of
current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's
employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and
attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged violations.

Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company reached
an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an
immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on
March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented.

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and
Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale
Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action
Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec.216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification on June 3, 2015. The parties await a ruling on the
Motion for Class Certification.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this
litigation. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be
estimated.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Dismissal of Zale Acquisition Claims on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in
the litigation challenging the Company's acquisition of Zale
Corporation have taken an appeal from of the decisions of the
Delaware Court of Chancery dismissing their claims against the
Zale Corporation directors and the Company; and against Bank of
America Merrill Lynch.

Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the
Company's acquisition of Zale were filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No.
9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et al.,
C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp. et
al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale Corp.
et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v. Zale
Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014
(collectively, the "Actions"). Each of these Actions was brought
by a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale
Corporation stockholders.

The Court of Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014
(the "Consolidated Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on April 23, 2014, which named as
defendants Zale Corporation, the members of the board of directors
of Zale Corporation, the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary
of the Company, and alleged that the Zale Corporation directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders
in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger
agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to
an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher
bids. That complaint also alleged that the Zale Corporation
directors issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy
statement regarding the merger and that Zale Corporation and the
Company aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors' breaches
of fiduciary duty.

On May 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction to prevent the consummation of the
merger.

On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as the
prior complaint. The amended complaint added Zale Corporation's
former financial advisor, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as a
defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the Zale Corporation
directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint no
longer named as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company's
merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint sought, among
other things, rescission of the merger or damages, as well as
attorneys' and experts' fees. The defendant's motion to dismiss
was heard by the Court of Chancery on May 20, 2015.

On October 1, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against the
Zale Corporation directors and the Company. On October 29, 2015,
the Court dismissed the claims against Bank of America Merrill
Lynch. On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the
October 1, 2015 and October 29, 2015 decisions of the Court of
Chancery with the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.

At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated.


SIMBA TOYS: Recalls Cotoons(R) Keys Rattle Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 14, 2015
Posting date: December 14, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56276

This recall involves the Cotoons(R) Keys Rattle. The toy is shaped
like a key ring and has three keys and a frame for a photograph.

The rattle can be identified by the reference number 211300 and
UPC 3032162113004, which can be found on the packaging.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that this rattle does not meet the Canadian safety requirements
for the size and shape of rattles. The blue picture frame on the
key ring contains a hard cardboard template picture. The cardboard
template can be removed from the frame and enter into and become
lodged in a child's throat.  This poses a choking or suffocation
hazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor Simba Toys North America has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of this product.

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

Approximately 1,020 units of the recalled rattles were sold at
various stores across Canada.

The recalled rattles were sold from October 2011 to November 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Smoby Toys Hong Kong Limited
              Kowloon
              Hong Kong
              CHINA

Importer: Simba Toys North America
          Quebec
          Quebec
          CANADA

Distributor: K.I.D Toy Inc.
             Quebec
             Quebec
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately take the recalled rattles away from
children and return them to the place of purchase for a refund.

Consumers can contact Simba Toys North America by telephone toll
free at 1-800-897-5107, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm EST, Monday to
Friday, or by email.

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

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

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

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


SOLUTIONS 2: Recalls Gaming Headsets Due to Infection Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 4, 2015
Posting date: December 4, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Miscellaneous
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56122

This recall involves the Turtle Beach Ear Force XO FOUR Stealth
gaming headset used with the Xbox One gaming console.  The
headsets are black with green trim and have soft ear-cups, an
audio controller and a removable microphone.  The product can be
identified by model number TBS-2320-03 and UPC 7 31855 02320 2.  A
13-character alphanumeric serial number is printed on the inside
of the headband of the headset and on the bottom flap of the box.
Only those headsets containing code "C16" within the serial number
and that do not have a green dot under the windscreen of the
microphone are affected.

Mold spores were found on certain units, posing a risk of
respiratory or other infections in individuals with chronic health
problems.

Neither Health Canada nor Solutions 2 Go, Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of these headsets.

Solutions 2 Go Inc. has received six reports of mold on the
headsets in the USA.  No injuries have been reported.

Approximately 1,668 units were sold in Canada.

The headsets were sold from June 2015 to November 2015 at Walmart,
Superclub Videotron, Amazon.ca, Best Buy, The Source, EB Games,
Microplay, Play N Trade, Home Hardware, and other independent
retailers.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Solutions 2 Go Inc.
          Mississauga
          Ontario
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Turtle Beach Corporation
              San Diego
              California
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected product and
visit www.tbrecall.com for information on how to obtain a free
replacement.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/0o4or4


SPARK ENERGY: Sued in N.J. Over Excessive Natural Gas Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Melville, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LP, Case No.
1:15-cv-08706-RBK-JS (D.N.J., December 17, 2015) arises from a
fraudulent and deceptive scheme perpetrated by the Defendants'
relating to the excessive prices Spark charged consumers for
natural gas.

The Defendants operate a retail energy services company that
serves residential and commercial customers in competitive markets
across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
      Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
      David J. Stanoch, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 985-9177
      Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
      E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
              kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
              dstanoch@golombhonik.com


STRYKER MEDICAL: Recalls Position Pro Mattress
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 14, 2015
Posting date: January 7, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56552

There have been reports of a melting event with the power cord on
the Position Pro surface. The investigation found that when an
abnormal external force is applied to the plug, such as relocating
the mattress surface without unplugging the cord, there is a
potential for a fracture to develop on the prongs inside the
molded section of the plug.

Affected products
A. POSITION PRO MATTRESS
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 2920000000
                         2920100000
                         2920500000

Manufacturer: Stryker Medical
              3800 E Centre Avenue
              Portage
              49002
              Michigan
              UNITED STATES


STRYKER ORTHOPEADICS: Recalls Ball MDM and ADM Ball Impactor Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 7, 2015
Posting date: December 24, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56454

Stryker has received complaints associated with cracks and/or
fracture of the ball impactor tip and rim impactor tip
instruments.

Affected products:
A. MDM & ADM BALL IMPACTOR TIP
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: 1235-0-013
                         1235-0-014

Manufacturer: Stryker Orthopeadics
              325 Corporate Drive
              Mahwah
              07430
              Alabama
              UNITED STATES


SUPERCOM LTD: Sued in New York Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Supercom Ltd., Arie Trabelsi, Tsviya
Trabelsi, Ordan Trabelsi, Barak Trabelsi and Simona Green, Case
No. 1:15-cv-09899 (S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Headquartered in Herzliya, Israel, Supercom Ltd. provides
traditional and digital identity solutions to governments and
private and public organizations worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
      Jennifer E. Traystman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
      16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 490-9550
      Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
      E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com
              jtraystman@gmail.com


TARGA RESOURCES: Houston Judge Won't Halt Vote on Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the crash in oil and gas prices has gutted the compensation
that Targa Resources unitholders expected under a proposed merger,
but that's no cause to delay a vote on the deal, a federal judge
in Houston, Texas, ruled.

Targa Resources Corp. is a publicly traded Fortune 500 midstream
energy company based in Houston. "Midstream" is an industry term
for pipeline operators that move hydrocarbons from "upstream"
drillers to "downstream" refiners.  Targa Resources Corp. does not
operate any assets of its own. Its income is generated by
affiliate Targa Resources Partners LP, in which it holds an 11
percent stake.

Targa Corp.'s fortunes are linked to Targa Partners' natural gas
plants and gas and oil pipelines in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and
North Dakota.  Targa Corp.'s board announced on Nov. 3 that it
plans to merge with Targa Partners in a stock-for-stock deal then
valued at $6.3 billion.  Under the deal, Targa Partners owners
will get 0.62 of Targa Corp. stock for every Targa Partners unit.

When Targa made the announcement, Targa Partners owners were to
get around $36 per unit, based on the $50.88 closing price of
Targa Corp. that day.  But Targa Corp. stock has tumbled along
with the price of crude oil and natural gas. It closed at $22.02
on Jan. 11, the day Targa released a definitive proxy statement
that recommends Targa Resources unitholders approve the merger.

The diminished Targa Corp. share price means Targa Partners
unitholders will get a fraction of what they initially stood to
gain.  The price of a barrel of Brent crude oil, the international
benchmark, dropped from $50 in early November to $28.55 on Jan. 18
before rallying to close at $34.74 on Jan. 29.  The price of
natural gas fell from $2.25 per million British thermal units, the
standard measure, in early November to $1.75 in mid-December and
closed at $2.29 on Jan. 29.  A British thermal unit is the amount
of heat needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by
one degree Fahrenheit.

Targa Partners unitholders Richard Greenthal and John Lindeman
filed federal class actions on Jan. 6 and Jan. 19 in Houston
against Targa Corp.'s board.  The lawsuits were consolidated.
Their attorney Thomas Bilek asked U.S. District Judge Melinda
Harmon for a restraining order and injunction to stop Targa from
holding shareholder votes on the merger as planned on Feb. 12,
until the board provides an update on how the deal has changed
since it was announced.

From appearances, Bilek seemed overmatched at the hearing. He and
his co-counsel, Derrick Farrell, sat at the plaintiffs' table
staring at eight attorneys from Houston-based international law
firm Vinson & Elkins, representing the Targa directors.  Bilek,
tall and goateed, specializes in securities class actions and
appeared unperturbed by the mismatch.

"Originally, back on Nov. 3, the implied consideration was $36.09
and that's what they disclosed in their proxy statement," Bilek
said.

"Since then, though, Targa Resources [Corp.] stock price has gone
to the floor and as of last night the implied consideration was
$13.94, so it's dropped by roughly 60 percent."

Bilek hardly stopped to breathe while reading federal securities
case law that he said shows that Targa Corp.'s board has a "duty
to update" compensation projections for the deal, given the
"radical shift in commodity prices."

Judge Harmon asked him to slow down.

"I'll try to. I have a bad habit of speed reading," he said.

"If you look at Targa LP, the stock price has declined by a median
of 29.9 percent, but if you look at Targa Corp., it has declined
by a median of 36.3 percent. So if Targa Corp. falls a lot more
than Targa LP, then you're getting less per share than you
originally thought you were when the board approved this
transaction," he said.

The board's lead counsel Michael Holmes with Vinson & Elkins in
Dallas accused Bilek of using a novel interpretation of case law.

"All of the cases they've cited, there's not a single one that
says we're going to enjoin the vote for the reasons they're
asking. What plaintiff is asking you to do is unprecedented,"
Holmes said.

Holmes said Bilek's argument fails at the outset because of
disclaimers Targa made in its proxy statement: that financial
projections may not pan out.

"Because the market price of (Corp.) shares will fluctuate prior
to the consummation of the merger, TRP common unitholders cannot
be sure of the market value of the (Corp.) shares they will
receive as merger consideration," the proxy states .

Holmes also criticized Bilek for "waiting until the 11th hour to
seek a temporary restraining order," 19 days after Bilek's client
Greenthal filed suit.

But Bilek said Texas state courts have ruled that shareholders do
not have a claim in such cases until a definitive proxy statement
is filed. Targa filed that 230-page document on Jan. 11.

"So we were waiting for that definitive proxy, and I was actually
really surprised when the definitive proxy came out that there was
no updated information contained in it, because at that point we
knew oil and gas markets had tanked," Bilek said.

Holmes countered that since Targa announced the merger, Targa
Partners' unit price has dropped in tandem with Targa Corp.'s
share price, so the equity that Targa Partners owners would give
up also has been reduced.

"You can say you're getting less, but you're giving up less too."

He asked Harmon not to approve the temporary restraining order
because Bilek's clients have another way to oppose the merger,
outside of the courtroom.

"It sounds like his client just doesn't like the deal because the
price of his equity will go down," Holmes said. "There's a method
for Mr. Greenthal to voice his displeasure, and that's at the
ballot box."

Harmon on Jan. 29 declined to issue a restraining order.

"(T)he authorities cited by plaintiff found a 'duty to update'
only where a defendant is representing that its statements
continue to remain current, not where (as here) defendants
disclosed historical information and repeatedly disclaimed any
inference that this information would remain current after the
date it was created or would be updated," Harmon wrote. He also
denied plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery.

Thomas Bilek may be reached at:

     Thomas Bilek, Esq.
     THE BILEK LAW FIRM, LLP
     808 Travis Street, Suite 802
     Houston, TX 77002
     Tel: (713) 227-7720

The case captioned, RICHARD GREENTHAL, Plaintiff, VS.  RENE R.
JOYCE, et al, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-41 (S.D. Tex.)


TARGET CORPORATION: Actions Remain Pending over 2013 Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that lawsuits related to
a 2013 data breach that remain pending are: (1) a class action
brought on behalf of financial institutions; (2) one action
previously filed in Canada; (3) several putative class action
suits brought on behalf of shareholders; and (4) ongoing
investigations by State Attorneys General and the Federal Trade
Commission.

The Company said, "In the fourth quarter of 2013, we experienced a
data breach in which an intruder stole certain payment card and
other guest information from our network (the Data Breach). Based
on our investigation, we believe that the intruder installed
malware on our point-of-sale system in our U.S. stores and stole
payment card data from up to approximately 40 million credit and
debit card accounts of guests who shopped at our U.S. stores
between November 27 and December 17, 2013. In addition, the
intruder stole certain guest information, including names, mailing
addresses, phone numbers or email addresses, for up to 70 million
individuals."

"Each of the four major payment card networks made a written claim
against us regarding the Data Breach, either directly or through
our acquiring banks.

"During the third quarter we entered into settlement agreements
with two of the four payment card networks. We have resolved a
claim from a third network and expect to resolve the remaining
claim in the fourth quarter, both on terms consistent with our
accrual.

"We entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve and dismiss the
claims asserted on behalf of a class of guests whose information
was compromised in the Data Breach. Pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement, Target has agreed to pay $10 million to class member
guests, certain administrative costs associated with the
settlement, and attorneys' fees and expenses to class counsel as
the Court may award. That settlement received Court approval on
November 17, 2015.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hartman" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Hartman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Transworld Systems Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:15-cv-01662 (W.D. Pa., December 16, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Transworld Systems Inc. operates a financial services company that
specializes in recovery of past due or delinquent accounts for
every industry with an emphasis in the healthcare & financial
services industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Action Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Ladon Bruster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-02653 (N.D. Ohio, December 21, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay drivers' minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide a service where individuals can login to a
software application on their smartphone, request a ride, and be
paired with an available driver.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Climaco, Esq.
      Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
      CLIMACO WILCOX PECA TARANTINO & GAROFOLI CO., LPA
      Telephone: (216) 621-8484
      Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
      E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com
              sdsimp@climacolaw.com

         - and -

      Marie Napoli, Esq.
      NAPOLI LAW PLLC
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
      New York, New York 10019
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000
      E-mail: MNapoli@napolilaw.com

         - and -

      Jeanne Lahiff, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, New York 10123
      Telephone: (212) 736-0007
      E-mail: jlahiff@lawicm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Action Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Ladon Bruster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-02653 (N.D. Ohio, December 21, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay drivers' minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide a service where individuals can login to a
software application on their smartphone, request a ride, and be
paired with an available driver.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Climaco, Esq.
      Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
      CLIMACO WILCOX PECA TARANTINO & GAROFOLI CO., LPA
      Telephone: (216) 621-8484
      Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
      E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com
              sdsimp@climacolaw.com

         - and -

      Marie Napoli, Esq.
      NAPOLI LAW PLLC
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
      New York, New York 10019
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000
      E-mail: MNapoli@napolilaw.com

         - and -

      Jeanne Lahiff, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, New York 10123
      Telephone: (212) 736-0007
      E-mail: jlahiff@lawicm.com


UGI CORPORATION: Direct Customers Appeal Claims Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that direct customers have
filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit over the dismissal of their claims in the class
action lawsuit over portable propane cylinders.

Between May and October 2014, more than 35 purported class action
lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the
Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their
direct and indirect customers.  The class action lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor
colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable
propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to
persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers
and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state
antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative
classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.

In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct
customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief
brought by indirect customers.  The direct customers have filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit. The indirect customers have filed an amended complaint
claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin,
Maine, and Vermont law.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising
from such litigation.  We believe we have strong defenses to the
claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company
said.


ULTA SALON: Class Cert. Ruling in "Moore" under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. has taken an appeal from a
California court's order granting class certification in the
"Moore" lawsuit, Ulta said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015.

On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit
(Moore v. Ulta) was filed against the Company and certain unnamed
defendants in state court in Los Angeles County, California, and
was removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 12, 2012. On August 8, 2013, the
plaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed class; the court
issued an order certifying the class on November 16, 2015.
Ulta filed an appeal of the court's certification order on
November 30, 2015.

The plaintiff and members of the proposed class are alleged to be
(or to have been) non-exempt hourly employees. The suit alleges
that Ulta violated various provisions of California's labor laws
and failed to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class
with full meal periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime
compensation and premium pay, all related to exit inspections of
employees. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a
result of these alleged practices.

The Company denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously
defending the matter.


ULTA SALON: Expects Approval of "Galvez" Accord This Year
---------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. expects that the
$1,750,000 settlement of the "Galvez" class action lawsuit will be
approved by the court this year, Ulta said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015.

On December 4, 2013, a putative employment class action lawsuit
(Galvez v. Ulta) was filed against us in the Superior Court of
California, Santa Clara County and was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
January 8, 2014. It seeks class action certification for claims
involving payment of wages using an ATM card ("pay card" related
claims); as well as claims related to allegedly failing to provide
accurate and complete wage statements; allegedly failing to pay
all minimum and overtime wages; and allegedly failing to pay meal
and rest break premiums due to exit inspections of employees (exit
inspection related claims).

On August 29, 2014, the court stayed the exit inspection portion
of the litigation, thus the case is proceeding only with respect
to the pay card-related claims. The suit alleges that Ulta was
required by law to obtain employee consent to use pay cards for
purposes of supplemental and final pay and that pay statements
issued in conjunction with pay cards did not comply with
California's Labor Code. The suit seeks to recover damages and
penalties as a result of these alleged practices.

The parties have agreed to settle the suit for $1,750,000, a
significant portion of which will be allocated to attorneys' fees
for plaintiff's counsel. Under the terms of the settlement, Ulta
admits no liability and the parties fully and finally release all
claims. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval,
which the Company expects will be granted in 2016.


ULTA SALON: Defending "Paez" Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015,
that a putative employment class action lawsuit (Paez v. Ulta) was
filed on May 19, 2015, against the Company in the Superior Court
of California, San Bernardino County, and was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 24,
2015. As with the Moore class action, it also alleges that Ulta
violated various provisions of California's labor laws and failed
to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full
meal periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime
compensation and premium pay, all related to exit inspections of
employees. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a
result of these alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiff's
allegations and is vigorously defending the matter.


ULTA SALON: Defending Against "Quinby" Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015,
that a putative employment class action lawsuit (Quinby et al. v.
Ulta) was filed on September 9, 2015, against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
plaintiffs and proposed class members are salaried General
Managers who worked for Ulta in California. The suit alleges that
the General Managers should have been treated as hourly-paid
employees, paid overtime and provided with meal and rest breaks
under California's labor laws. The suit seeks to recover damages
and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The Company
denies plaintiffs' allegations and is vigorously defending the
matter.


VIOLIN MEMORY: Class Suit over 2013 IPO in Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------
Violin Memory, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the class action
related to the Company's 2013 initial public offering is in the
discovery phase of the litigation.

Beginning on November 26, 2013, four putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California naming as defendants the Company,
a number of the Company's present or former directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's September 27, 2013
initial public offering (the "IPO"). The four complaints were
consolidated into a single, putative class action, and co-lead
plaintiffs were appointed by the court.

On March 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
purporting to assert claims under the federal securities laws,
based upon seven categories of alleged omissions, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock issued in the IPO. The
complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount and other
relief. On April 18, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaint. On October 31, 2014, the court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. The court's order
dismissed all except one category of alleged omissions, and gave
plaintiffs the opportunity to amend the complaint.

On November 21, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint and, in so doing, chose not to amend their claims
against the Company or the present or former directors and
officers. On April 30, 2015, the court issued an order granting in
part the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint. The court's order dismissed all except two categories
of claims against the Company and the present or former directors
and officers of the Company and certain claims against the
underwriters.

On May 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint. On May 20, 2015, the Company and the present and former
directors and officers filed an answer to the second amended
consolidated complaint denying the material allegations of the
complaint and alleging numerous affirmative defenses to the
remaining claims. The case is now in the discovery phase of the
litigation.


WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court Appeal in "Braun/Hummel" Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a class-action
lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the Company
failed to pay class members for all hours worked and prevented
class members from taking their full meal and rest breaks.

On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages to the
plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-
the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor of
the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims. On November 14,
2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the approximate
amount of $188 million, which included the jury's back-pay award
plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and attorneys'
fees. By operation of law, post-judgment interest accrues on the
judgment amount at the rate of six percent per annum from the date
of entry of the judgment, which was November 14, 2007, until the
judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set aside on appeal.

On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. On
June 10, 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals issued
an opinion upholding the trial court's certification of the class,
the jury's back pay award, and the awards of statutory penalties
and prejudgment interest, but reversing the award of attorneys'
fees.

On September 9, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for Allowance
of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On July 2, 2012,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Company's Petition. On
December 15, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its
opinion affirming the Superior Court of Appeals' decision.

At that time, the Company recorded expenses of $249 million for
the judgment amount and post-judgment interest incurred to date.
The Company will continue to accrue for the post-judgment interest
until final resolution. However, the Company continues to believe
it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at
issue, and, on March 13, 2015, the Company filed a petition for
writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  On April 20,
2015, the plaintiffs filed their response in opposition and on May
4, 2015, the Company filed its reply brief.

The Supreme Court cases Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Petitioners
v. Michelle Braun, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, et al., Nos. 14-1123 and 14-1124 (U.S.).

Attorneys for Petitioners Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.:

     Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq., Counsel of Record
     GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
     333 South Grand Avenue
     Los Angeles, CA  90071
     Tel: (213) 229-7000
     E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com

Attorneys for Respondents Counsel to Michelle Braun, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al.:

     Robert S. Peck, Esq., Counsel of Record
     CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION, P.C.
     777 6th Street, NW, Suite 250
     Washington, DC  20001
     Tel: (202) 944-2803
     E-mail: robert.peck@cclfirm.com

Counsel to The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America, et al.:

     Allyson N. Ho, Esq.
     MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
     1717 Main Street, Suite 3200
     Dallas, TX  75201-7347
     Tel: (214) 466-4000
     E-mail: aho@morganlewis.com

Counsel to The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.:

     Charles H. Moellenberg Jr., Esq.
     JONES DAY
     500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
     Pittsburgh, PA  15219-2514
     Tel: (412) 391-3939
     E-mail: chmoellenberg@jonnesday.com

Counsel to Retail Litigation Center, Inc.:

     Katharine H. Parker, Esq.
     PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP
     Eleven Times Square
     New York, NY  10036-8299
     Tel: (212)-969-3009
     E-mail: kparker@proskauer.com

Counsel to DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar:

     Scott Burnett Smith, Esq.
     BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
     200 Clinton Avenue West, Suite 900
     Huntsville, AL  35801
     Tel: (256) 517-5100
     E-mail: ssmith@babc.com


WAL-MART STORES: ASDA Unit Defending 6,000+ Equal Value Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that ASDA Stores, Ltd.
("ASDA"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, is a defendant
in over 6,000 "equal value" claims that are proceeding before an
Employment Tribunal in Manchester (the "Employment Tribunal") in
the United Kingdom ("UK") on behalf of current and former ASDA
store employees, who allege that the work performed by female
employees in ASDA's retail stores is of equal value in terms of,
among other things, the demands of their jobs to that of male
employees working in ASDA's warehouse and distribution facilities,
and that the disparity in pay between these different job
positions is not objectively justified. Claimants are requesting
differential back pay based on higher wage rates in the warehouse
and distribution facilities and those higher wage rates on a
prospective basis as part of these equal value proceedings. ASDA
believes that further claims may be asserted in the near future.

On March 23, 2015, ASDA asked the Employment Tribunal to stay all
proceedings, contending that the High Court, which is the superior
first instance civil court in the UK that is headquartered in the
Royal Courts of Justice in the City of London, is the more
convenient and appropriate forum to hear these claims.

On March 23, 2015, ASDA also asked the Employment Tribunal to
"strike out" substantially all of the claims for failing to comply
with Employment Tribunal rules. On July 23, 2015, the Employment
Tribunal denied ASDA's requests to stay all proceedings and to
"strike out" substantially all of the claims.

On September 2, 2015, ASDA filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Employment Appeal Tribunal seeking to appeal both rulings. On
October 14, 2015, the Employment Appeal Tribunal denied ASDA's
requests for an appeal.

At present, the Company cannot predict the number of such claims
that may be filed, and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or
range of loss that may arise from these proceedings. The Company
believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to these
claims, and intends to defend the claims vigorously.


WARNER ROBINS: "Lawrence" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Lawrence, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Warner Robins Wrecker & Towing Services, Inc., David
L. Guest, and Irene Guest, Case No. 5:15-cv-00472-MTT (M.D. Ga.,
December 18, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage
compensation, due but unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs of litigation including reasonable attorneys' fees,
and for other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a towing and wrecker service
company located at 640 Elberta Rd., Warner Robins, Georgia 31093.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Regan Keebaugh, Esq.
      RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
      315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Telephone: (678) 271-0300
      E-mail: regan@decaturlegal.com


WC BRADLEY: Faces "Zinn" Suit in Fla. Over Defective Gas Grills
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Zinn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. W.C. Bradley Co. and Char-Broil, L.L.C., Case No.
1:15-cv-24671-JAL (S.D. Fla., December 18, 2015) seeks redress for
the Defendants' deceptive practices in the labeling, advertising,
marketing, and promotion of their Char-Broil gas grills, as well
as the design and manufacture of the Grills, including, the
Igniter Modules.

W.C. Bradley Co. is a Georgia corporation that operates a
manufacturing company in Florida.

Based in Columbus, Georgia, Char-Broil, L.L.C. operates an outdoor
cooking company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
      GILMAN LAW LLP
      8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite 525
      Bonita Springs, FL 34135
      Telephone: (781) 307-2526
      E-mail: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com


WORLD OF CHANTILLY: Faces "Alfaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Alfaro, Bladimir Flores, Jose Alfaro, Erasto Morales, and
Lilian Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. World of Chantilly, Inc., Chambord LLC, faks realty
Corp., Ibrahim Faks a/k/a Alberto Faks, Frederick Faks, and Daniel
Faks, Case No. 1:15-cv-07257-PKC-RLM (E.D.N.Y., December 21, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a kosher bakery, dessert, and
catering company located in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



WYNDHAM INTERNATIONAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Morgan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Wyndham International Operating Partnership, L.P d/b/a The
Mills House Wyndham Grand Hotel, Case No. 2:15-cv-05001-DCN
(D.S.C., December 18, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 7,670 hotels and
667,000 rooms worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 849-1692
      Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
      E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


ZICAM LLC: Falsely Marketed Pre-Cold Medicines, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Gulkis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zicam LLC and Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., Case No.
7:15-cv-09843 (S.D.N.Y., December 17, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' false and misleading advertising claims and marketing
practices of its "Zicam Pre-Cold Medicine", that their Products
shorten and reduce the severity of the common cold.

The Products at issue are nothing more than a placebo according to
the Double-blind placebo-controlled trials.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of manufacturing, mass
marketing, and distributing homeopathic formulas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (646) 837-7150
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-mail: scott@bursor.com
              jmarchese@bursor.com
              pfraietta@bursor.com



                            *********

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  * * *