CAR_Public/160212.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 12, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 31


                            Headlines


29 WEST: "Rudi" Suit Seeks to Recover On-Call Overtime Pay
ABILITY INC: Class Action Plaintiff Withdrew Injunction Request
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Seeks Dismissal of New Jersey Class Action
ALICO INC: Settlement Reached in Merger Class Suit
ANTHEM: "Reid" Suit Seeks Damages for Failure to Provide Benefits

APEX SCHOOL: Doesn't Have Proper Accreditation, Suit Says
ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Defending Consolidated Securities Action
AT&T INC: Suit over California's Regulation 1585 Refiled
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Entered Into Summary Agreement to Settle Action
BEST OVERNITE: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

BIOMED REALTY: Parties in Maryland Action Entered Into MOU
CALAVO GROWERS: Continues to Defend Against El Dabe Class Action
CARMAX INC: Still Defends "Fowler" Class Action
CHC GROUP: Defending S.D.N.Y. Suit over Petrobas Deal
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Parties in Reed and Sikora Cases Executed MOU

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend Against "Masters" Action
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend Against "Garcia" Action
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend Against "Guglielmo" Suit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Tagalogon" Suit in Calif.
CONNECTICUT: Sued over Mandatory Confinement Due to Ebola Scare

CONSTANT CONTACT: Defending Class Suit over Endurance Merger
COOPER COMPANIES: CooperVision Still Defending Contact Lens Suit
DAHLIA GROUP: Faces "Zhao" Suit for FLSA, NY Labor Law Violation
DAHLIA GROUP: 2nd "Zhao" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
DELTA APPAREL: Wage-and-Hour Class Suits Settled for $300,000

DEMARINI SPORTS: Accused of Deceptive Marketing of Softball Bats
DUNKIN DONUTS: Sued in N.Y. over Tax in Pre-Packaged Coffee
ENDOCYTE INC: Indiana Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Says 80% Shareholder Won't Join Class Suit
EROS INT'L: Faces "Sharma" Suit for Securities Act Violation

EUREKA FINANCIAL: Shareholder Filed Class Action in Baltimore
EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending
EZCORP INC: Plaintiff in Texas Case Must File Amended Complaint
FEDEX CORP: Defending Wage-and-Hour Class Suits
FEDEX CORP: Provides Update on Misclassification Suits

FEDEX CORP: Defending Contractor-Model Cases Outside of MDL
FIRST TENNESSEE BANK: Harasses Alleged Debtors' Kin, Suit Says
FUEL SYSTEMS: Faces Stockholder Suits over Westport Merger
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Securities Action in N.D. Ga. Dismissed
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Charlotte City Sues Over Alum-Price Fixing

HAWKINS INC: Water System Asserts Anti-Competitive Practices
HP INC: $100 Million Settlement in Securities Case Wins Final OK
HP INC: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Still Pending
HP INC: "Karlbom" Seeks to Certify Calif.-Based EDS Wokers Class
HP INC: "Benedict" Class Suit Remains Pending in N.D. Cal.

HP INC: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Copeland I" Case
HP INC: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Pension Fund Appeal
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Facing Suit over Headway Merger Deal
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Still Faces Hamilton Wage & Hour Suit
JETRO HOLDINGS: "Ralph" Suit Seeks Payment of Back Wages

KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: "Sciabacucchi" Files Securities Suit
LANDEC CORPORATION: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action in Calif.
LAS TORTUGAS: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Still Faces Royalty Class Suit
LIBERATOR MEDICAL: Facing Suits over CR Bard Merger Deal

MACY'S INC: Faces Suit for Alleged Misleading Label of Products
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: $23.5MM Settlement Reached in "Thomas"
MATSON INC: Agreed to Pay $350,000 to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
MATTSON TECH: Faces "Durgin" Suit Over Proposed E-Town Merger
MDL 1840: Costco Appeals from "Most Favored Nation" Clause Ruling

MDL 1917: LG et al. Seek Dismissal of Price-Fixing Claims
MEAL SYSTEMS: "Gallion" Suit Seeks Injunctive Relief Under TCPA
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Lucas-Salerno Class Suit Remains Pending
META FINANCIAL: MetaBank(R) Defending 4 Class Actions
MIAMI, FL: Faces S&S National Suit over Solid Waste Mgmt Services

MID-AMERICA BUILDING: Faces "Luz" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
NATURAL GROCERS: "Engl" Data Breach Case Proceeds to Discovery
NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal in "Tanguilig" Case Remains Pending
NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal in "Rubenstein" Class Action
NEIMAN MARCUS: Defending "Zaslav" Class Action in N.Y.

NEIMAN MARCUS: "Remijas" Cyber-Attack Suit Remains Pending
NISSAN: Sued in Calif. over Air Bag Problems in Frontier Pickups
OCEAN POWER: Seeks Dismissal of 3rd Amended Class Suit
OOMA INC: Seeks Dismissal of California Class Action
PDQ TRUCK: "Crepeau" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, Benefits

PETRO RIVER: Defending Against Donelson-Friend Suit
PIER 1: Kenney and Davie Cases in Process of Being Consolidated
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal from Case Dismissal Pending
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces "Michaeli" Lawsuit
PHOENIX COMPANIES: MOU Reached in "White" Lawsuit

PRECISIONS HUMAN: "Zarro" Suit Alleges FLSA, Wage Law Violation
PRICELINE GROUP: Still Involved in 40 Cases over Travel Tax
PROFESSIONAL RODEO: Dallas Judge Rejects Injunction Bid
RELIANCE TRUST: Faces Suit for Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duties
RITE AID: 9 Class Actions Filed Challenging Merger

RITE AID: Faces Class Action by Jerry Herring in M.D. Pa.
RITE AID: Still Defending Wage Actions in California
RUBEN VARELA: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over FLSA Violation
SAFARI CAYMAN: Lead Plaintiffs, Counsel Named in Merger Suit
SANTA FE NATURAL: Sued Over "Natural" American Spirit Cigarettes

SEMPRA ENERGY: 25 Complaints Filed Related to Aliso Canyon Leak
SOUTHERNCARE INC: "McKenzie" Suit Seeks Damages, Backpay, OT Pay
STAR OF AMERICA: "Haverkamp" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages, OT
STRAIGHT PATH: Faces "Zacharia" Securities Class Suit in N.J.
TARGA RESOURCES: "Greenthal" Files Suit Over Targa Merger Deal

TAYLORMADE ELECTRIC: "Wilber", "Baker" Allege FLSA Violations
TENARIS GLOBAL: "Terrel" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
VERDE ENERGY: "Bunnel" Suit Hits Automated Marketing Calls
VIKING CLIENT: Faces "Jun" Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
VISTA COVE: Faces "Ferman" Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violations

WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement Order Under Appeal by Class Member
WALGREENS BOOTS: To File Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
WALGREENS BOOTS: Defending Class Actions on Rite Aid Merger
WARNER MUSIC: Settles Suit over Happy Birthday Song for $14MM
WARNER MUSIC: Mediation on Feb. 22 in Music Downloads Case

WOODLAND DIAGNOSTIC: Sandusky Suit Alleges JFPA Violations
XEROX CORP: Call Center Employees Sue over Unpaid Overtime
XURA INC: Parties Await Court Decision on Motion to Certify


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Order Awarding Claims to Widow
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Wins Summary Judgment in "Holzworth"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment in "Mindel"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms $4MM Punitive Damages in "Casey"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utica Wins Summary Judgment vs. Clearwater

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Begin"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Eckert" Remanded to Louisiana State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Wins Dismissal of "Joiner"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Sheriff Wins Summary Judgment v. Detainee
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Policyholders Can't Intervene in Acquisition Bid

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Denied Summary Judgment in "Franklin"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Company's Suit vs. Travelers Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Dismissal of "Herbert"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Remands "Hernandezcueva"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Dismissal of NY Suit Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Sets Feb. 2017 Trial for "Neumann"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment Favoring Kuettel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Blames Dozens for Husband's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Sues Private School in Asbestos Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dad Awarded Six-Figure Payout for Lethal Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Son Blames Dozens for Father's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R&Q Seeks Rescission of Reinsurance Certs.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Father's Death Due to Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean-up Plan Approved for Libby, Mont.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sen. Flake Bill Requires Transparency on Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Family Can Sue Over Lethal Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Pleads Guilty to Environmental Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niagara County Gov't Faces Another Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Last Defendant in Owensboro Woman's Suit Settles
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at New Bolton Interchange Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow's $2.3-Mil. Award Delayed Yet Again
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Not Liable in Worker's $20MM Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Revives Naval Worker's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Files RICO Suits


                            *********


29 WEST: "Rudi" Suit Seeks to Recover On-Call Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Mildred Rudi, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 29 West 46 Street, LLC, 830 Eighth Avenue,
LLC, 106 Greenwich, LLC, 1265 Broadway LLC, Torkian Group LLC,
Torkian Manager, Corp, Torkian Office, LLC, and Torkian Realty,
LLC. d/b/a Torkian Group, Hersel Torkian, Benjamin Torkian and
John Doe and Jane Doe #1-10, Case No. Case 1:15-cv-09859-LAK
(S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2015), seeks an injunction against the
Corporate Defendants, award of unpaid overtime wages due under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, damages for
failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring as required
under the New York Labor Law, liquidated and/or punitive damages,
recovery of minimum wages and overtime compensation, reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees, appropriate damages for retaliatory
acts taken against Plaintiff under New York Labor Law, including
back pay, reinstatement, emotional distress, other appropriate
actual, general, compensatory or punitive damages.

29 West 46 Street, LLC owns and manages an office building located
at 29 West 46th Street, New York, NY 10036 where Plaintiff worked
as a building superintendent. She was required to remain on-call
status for twenty-four hours on Saturdays and Sundays and worked
an average of four hours for each on call day. She allegedly was
not paid overtime premium during these instances and she was
allegedly terminated as a result of her complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, New York 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


ABILITY INC: Class Action Plaintiff Withdrew Injunction Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ability Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 30, 2015, that the plaintiff
has withdrawn a request for injunction in a class action lawsuit
related to a merger deal.

Cambridge Capital Acquisition Corporation, the members of the
Cambridge board of directors and Parakou Tankers, Inc. ("Parakou")
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Brian Levy v. Cambridge Capital Acquisition Corp., et
al., No. 2015 CA 003339 in connection with Cambridge's proposed
business combination with Parakou, which was terminated on May 6,
2015. The complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th
Judicial Circuit of Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Action") by a
person identifying himself as a stockholder of Cambridge. On
October 15, 2015, a first amended and restated derivative
complaint captioned Brian Levy v. Cambridge Capital Acquisition
Corp., et al., No. 2015 CA 003339 was filed. The amended complaint
added Holdco and Ability Computer & Software Industries Ltd. as
additional defendants.

The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
members of the Cambridge board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Cambridge stockholders by approving the
contemplated merger with Ability and that Ability is aiding and
abetting the Cambridge board of directors in the alleged breaches
of their fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges that
Cambridge was obligated to liquidate on June 23, 2015 and redeem
the outstanding public shares from the funds held in the trust
fund and that the efforts to violate Cambridge's amended and
restated certificate of incorporation are ultra vires and
therefore void acts. The complaint further alleges that
Cambridge's directors have various conflicts of interest in the
transaction and that such conflicts of interest are not adequately
disclosed to stockholders in the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus that the Company filed with the SEC on
September 17, 2015. The action sought injunctive relief but on
December 16, 2015, the plaintiff withdrew the request for an
injunction. The amended complaint continues to seek damages and
reimbursement of fees and costs, among other remedies.


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Seeks Dismissal of New Jersey Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Aeterna Zentaris Inc. seeks dismissal of a class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the
Company said in its Form F-10 Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 30, 2015.

"We and certain of our current and former officers are defendants
in a purported class-action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), brought on
behalf of shareholders of the Company," the Company said. "The
lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the defendants between April 2, 2012
and November 6, 2014, or the Class Period, regarding the safety
and efficacy of Macrilen(TM), a product we developed for use in
the diagnosis of AGHD, and the prospects for the approval of the
Company's NDA for the product by the FDA. The plaintiffs seek to
represent a class comprised of purchasers of our Common Shares
during the Class Period and seek damages, costs and expenses and
such other relief as determined by the Court."

On September 14, 2015, the Court dismissed the lawsuit stating
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim, but granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend. On October 14, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint against the Company.

"We will seek to have the lawsuit dismissed again as we believe
that the Second Amended Complaint also fails to state a claim,"
the Company said.

The Court was scheduled to conduct a hearing on its motion to
dismiss on January 19, 2016.


ALICO INC: Settlement Reached in Merger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Alico, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in a consolidated class
action lawsuit over the Company's merger deal with 734 Citrus
Holdings, LLC, have reached a settlement of the dispute, and are
in the process of formally documenting their agreements.

Effective February 28, 2015, the Company completed the merger (the
"Merger") with 734 Citrus Holdings, LLC ("Silver Nip Citrus")
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger with 734 Sub, LLC, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Silver Nip Citrus and,
solely with respect to certain sections thereof, the equity
holders of Silver Nip Citrus. At the time of the Merger, the
ownership of Silver Nip Citrus was held by (i) 734 Agriculture,
74.89%, (ii) Mr. Clay Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, 5% and (iii) an entity controlled by Mr. Clay Wilson.
20.11%. Silver Nip Citrus entities include 734 Harvest, LLC, 734
Co-op Groves, LLC, 734 LMC Groves, LLC and 734 BLP Groves, LLC.

On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Shiva Y. Stein v. Alico, Inc., et al., No. 15-CA-000645
(the "Stein lawsuit"), was filed in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County, Florida,
against Alico, Inc. ("Alico"), its current and certain former
directors, 734 Citrus Holdings, LLC d/b/a Silver Nip Citrus
("Silver Nip"), 734 Investors, LLC ("734 Investors"), 734
Agriculture, LLC ("734 Agriculture") and 734 Sub, LLC ("734 Sub")
in connection with the acquisition of Silver Nip by Alico (the
"Acquisition"). The complaint alleges that Alico's directors at
the time of the Acquisition, 734 Investors and 734 Agriculture
breached fiduciary duties to Alico stockholders in connection with
the Acquisition and that Silver Nip and 734 Sub aided and abetted
such breaches. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary and
equitable relief, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and
expenses.

On May 6, 2015, a putative stockholder class action and derivative
lawsuit captioned Ruth S. Dimon Trust v. George R. Brokaw, et al.,
No. 15-CA-001162 (the "Dimon lawsuit"), was filed in the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County,
Florida, against Alico, its current directors, Silver Nip, 734
Investors and 734 Agriculture in connection with the Acquisition
of Silver Nip by Alico. The complaint alleges claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and
tortious interference with contract against Alico's directors,
unjust enrichment against three of the directors and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Silver Nip, 734
investors and 734 Agriculture. The lawsuit seeks, among other
things, rescission of the Acquisition, an injunction prohibiting
certain payments to Silver Nip stockholders, unspecified damages,
disgorgement of profits, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees)
and expenses.

On July 17, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Stein and Dimon lawsuits
filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating their cases
for all purposes under the caption, In re Alico, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Master File No. 15-CA-000645 (the "Consolidated
Action") and seeking the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead
and liaison counsel. The court entered that proposed order on July
21, 2015.

On October 16, 2015, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action
reported to the court that the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Consolidated Action and other claims
related to the Acquisition, and that they are in the process of
formally documenting their agreements. That process is ongoing and
the settlement remains subject to final documentation and court
approval following notice to the relevant Alico shareholders. Once
the parties have completed the settlement documentation, they will
contact the court to schedule a hearing at which they will request
the court to preliminarily approve the settlement and to set a
final settlement hearing date.


ANTHEM: "Reid" Suit Seeks Damages for Failure to Provide Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Reid, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. v. Anthem, formerly
known as Anthem of California, Inc., a California corporation;
Anthem Holding Corp., formerly known as Wellpoint Health Networks,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health
Insurance Company, formerly known as Anthem Life, and Health
Insurance Company, a California corporation; Anthem of California,
Inc.; and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC605110
(Cal. Super Ct., County of Los Angeles, December 22, 2015), seeks
to recover damages for Anthem's failure to provide benefits under
the "Anthem Bluecross Life and Health Insurance Company Individual
Right Plan PPO 40"; interest, including pre-judgment interest, and
other economic and consequential damages, including special
damages and general damages, in a sum to be determined at the time
of trial; general damages for mental and emotional distress in a
sum to be determined at trial; attorney's fees, witness fees, and
costs of litigation incurred; punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendants,
costs of suit incurred; and other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper, pursuant to California Civil Code.

Andrea brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all
other California residents who are similarly situated. The class
which Andrea represents is composed of all California resident
Anthem insureds unreasonably denied or delayed coverage of
prescribed and medically necessary prosthetics, including, but not
limited to, microprocessor knees and all of their component parts,
as a result of bad faith and unfair, unlawful and fraudulent
business practices.

California Anthem is an American health insurance company founded
in the 1940s, prior to 2014 known as WellPoint, Inc. It is the
largest for-profit managed health care company in the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association. It was formed when Anthem Insurance
Company acquired WellPoint Health Networks, Inc., with the
combined company adopting the name WellPoint, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Conal Doyle, Esq.
          Stephen Beke, Esq.
          DOYLE LAW
          9401 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 608
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 385 0567
          E-mail: conaI@conaldoylelaw.com
                  sbeke@conaIdoylelaw.com


APEX SCHOOL: Doesn't Have Proper Accreditation, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
a class action lawsuit in Raleigh, N.C. claims that a North
Carolina for-profit religious school engaged in deceptive business
practices by not having proper accreditation.

Apex School of Theology Inc. (ASOT) was founded in Raleigh in 1995
and, according to its website and promotional materials, offers
"theological degrees 100 percent online."

Lead plaintiffs Kevin and Audra Henry claim that ASOT was
"suppressing and withholding from the plaintiffs and from
consumers information regarding ASOT's lack of proper
accreditation."

ASOT's lack of accreditation has led to students not being
eligible to obtain professional licensure, according to the
complaint. The Henrys say that ASOT took thousands of dollars from
them and other students under false pretenses.

"ASOT is not a regionally accredited school under the professional
licensing laws of the State of North Carolina, particularly the
laws applicable to eligibility to apply for licensure as a
licensed professional counselor or a licensed married and family
therapist in North Carolina," the Jan. 25 complaint states.

The Henrys claim the school falsely represented that its Master of
Arts in Christian Counseling program was properly accredited in
the field of professional counseling.

The class action alleges unfair and deceptive business practices,
infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty and
fraud. The lawsuit states the aggregate damages "are likely to be
in the millions of dollars."

The class says that the school, its board of trustees, and certain
professors and staff members are accountable for the alleged
misrepresentations.

Named defendants include Joseph Perkins, Percy High, William Daye,
Wesley Elam, William Richardson, Mark Royster, Frank Byrd,
Clarence Rogers, James Layton, Jason Keith, Clarice Atwater, Percy
Chase, Dorothy Hicks, Herbert Davis, Grover Hall, and John
Bradshaw.

Robert Lewis, Jr. in Raleigh represents the class. He could not be
reached for comment due to travel plans.

Defendant Davis, executive vice president of ASOT, did not
immediately return a request for comment.


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Defending Consolidated Securities Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Research Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors have been named as
defendants in a consolidated class action pending before the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California regarding certain public statements in connection with
the Company's hepatitis B drug research.

The consolidated class action, initially filed as Wang v.
Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal.,
filed Oct. 10, 2014), and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et
al., No. 2:14-cv-07911 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014), asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions
captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D.
Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et
al., No. 2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and
Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed
Jan. 22, 2015), were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary
duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the
facts underlying the securities claims.

An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar
claims is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially
filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5,
2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar.
16, 2015).  Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified
amounts and some seek various forms of injunctive relief.


AT&T INC: Suit over California's Regulation 1585 Refiled
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the lead plaintiff behind a
2015 class action over Regulation 1585, a California law regarding
sales taxes on cellphone purchases, refiled the suit in Sacramento
County Superior Court.  The case is Alina Bekkerman v. California
Board of Equalization; Verizon; AT&T; Sprint;
T-Mobile.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Entered Into Summary Agreement to Settle Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2016, that
BancorpSouth Bank (the "Bank"), the wholly-owned banking
subsidiary of BancorpSouth, Inc. (the "Company"), entered on
January 5, 2016, into an agreement (the "Summary Agreement") to
settle a class action lawsuit filed on May 18, 2010 by an Arkansas
customer of the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida. The suit challenged the manner in which
overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to the
posting order of debit card and ATM transactions. The suit also
made a claim under Arkansas' consumer protection statute. This
case was substantially similar to a large number of cases in a
multi-district litigation (approximately 29 as of the date of this
Current Report) actively litigated against other United States
banks in recent years, nearly all of which (approximately 26 as of
the date of this Current Report) have been settled. As a result of
this settlement, the Company expects to record a one-time expense
of Sixteen Million Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars
($16,500,000) in the fourth quarter of 2015, representing amounts
to be paid in connection with the settlement net amounts the
Company has accrued for this legal proceeding in previous periods.

The Bank agreed to the proposed settlement and entered into the
Summary Agreement solely by way of compromise and settlement and
to avoid further litigation expense. The Bank's agreement to the
terms of the proposed settlement, however, is not in any way an
admission of liability, fault or wrongdoing by the Bank. The
Summary Agreement includes the following terms, among others:

     * A settlement class consisting of identifiable current and
former BancorpSouth account holders (the "Settlement Class
Members") who were alleged to have sustained damages based on the
Bank's high-to-low posting of debit card and ATM transactions when
compared to an estimate of chronological posting of the same debit
card and ATM transactions during the applicable limitations
periods for the states where such accounts were opened and/or
maintained.

     * Payment by the Bank of Twenty-Four Million and 00/100
Dollars ($24,000,000) for the creation of a settlement fund (the
"Settlement Fund") for the benefit of the Settlement Class
Members.

     * In addition to the creation of the Settlement Fund, the
Bank shall pay fees and costs of the notice administrator and
settlement administrator up to a maximum of Five Hundred Thousand
and 00/100 Dollars ($500,000) incurred: (i) in providing class
notice to the Settlement Class Members; and (ii) in administering
the Settlement Fund. In the event the fees and costs of the notice
administrator and settlement administrator exceed this amount, all
additional fees and costs shall be paid from the Settlement Fund.
To the extent residual Settlement Funds remain after the initial
distribution to Settlement Class Members, those residual
Settlement Funds shall be paid to the Bank to reimburse it for the
actual costs, expenses and fees it paid to the notice
administrator and settlement administrator in connection with the
settlement.

     * Upon the effective date of the settlement, lead plaintiff
Swift and all Settlement Class Members (who do not timely opt-out
of the settlement) shall each grant a full and complete release to
the Company in a form to be agreed upon by the parties.

     * The Summary Agreement must be reduced to a formal written
agreement that is agreeable to all parties. The parties anticipate
submitting the final agreement to the Court by January 22, 2016.
The final agreement will be subject to preliminary court approval,
issuance of notice to the Settlement Class Members, and then final
court approval. Until these conditions have been satisfied, and
barring any appeal, the settlement will not be final.

As noted, the proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and
final court approval, and the Company and the Bank can provide no
assurance that such approval will occur in any specific time frame
or at all.


BEST OVERNITE: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Best Overnite Express, Inc. and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC604543 (Cal. Super., December
16, 2015), seeks unpaid wages and interest for all hours worked at
minimum wage rate, damages from failure to authorize or permit
required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements, injunctive and other equitable relief,
and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor Code
Sections 226(e) and 1194.

Best Overnite Express, Inc. operates in Los Angeles County with
its main place of business located at 406 Live Oak Avenue,
Irwindale, California. Garcia was employed as a truck driver.

Garcia alleges that the Defendant did not pay minimum wage rates
and missed break periods, did not reimburse uniform maintenance
and cell phone call charges, and failed to provide wage
statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, California 90211
      Tel: (310) 432-0000
      Fax: (310) 432-0001


BIOMED REALTY: Parties in Maryland Action Entered Into MOU
----------------------------------------------------------
BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. and BioMed Realty, L.P. said in their
Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 6, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit on
January 5, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU")
with the plaintiffs in the Maryland Action, which sets forth the
parties' agreement in principle to a settlement.

On or about December 10, 2015, BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. (the
"Company") mailed a definitive proxy statement relating to a
special meeting of stockholders of the Company scheduled to be
held on January 21, 2016, for the purpose of acting on the
following matters: (i) to consider and vote on a proposal to
approve the merger of the Company with and into BRE Edison L.P.,
which we refer to as the merger, and the other transactions
contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
October 7, 2015 and as may be amended from time to time, among the
Company, BioMed Realty, L.P., BRE Edison Holdings L.P. ("Parent"),
BRE Edison L.P. and BRE Edison Acquisition L.P., which we refer to
as the merger agreement, (ii) to consider and vote on a proposal
to approve, on a non-binding, advisory basis, the compensation
that may be paid or become payable to the Company's named
executive officers that is based on or otherwise relates to the
merger and (iii) to consider and vote on a proposal to approve any
adjournments of the special meeting for the purpose of soliciting
additional proxies if there are not sufficient votes at the
special meeting to approve the merger and the other transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement.

Four purported class action lawsuits related to the merger
agreement were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, which were subsequently consolidated into a single
proceeding captioned In Re BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, No. 24-C-15-005173 (the "Maryland Action"). On January
5, 2016, the Company, each of the members of the Company's board
of directors, Morgan Stanley, Parent and The Blackstone Group L.P.
("Blackstone") entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU") with the plaintiffs in the Maryland Action, which sets
forth the parties' agreement in principle to a settlement of that
action. As explained in the MOU, the Company, the members of the
Company's board of directors, Morgan Stanley, Parent and
Blackstone have agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the
expense, disruption, and distraction of further litigation and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The MOU
contemplates that the parties will seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement providing for the certification of a
mandatory non-opt-out class, for settlement purposes only, that
includes any and all record and beneficial owners of the Company's
common stock (excluding defendants, their subsidiary companies,
affiliates, assigns, and members of their immediate families)
during the period beginning on October 7, 2015, through the
effective date of the consummation of the merger, including any
and all of their respective successors in interest, predecessors,
representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs,
assigns or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or
entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them,
and each of them and a global release of claims relating to the
merger as set forth in the MOU. The claims will not be released
until such stipulation of settlement is approved by the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement
or that the court will approve such settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. The settlement will not
affect the consideration to be received by the Company's
stockholders in connection with the merger.

As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the merger.


CALAVO GROWERS: Continues to Defend Against El Dabe Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Calavo Growers, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class
action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 30, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2015.  The Company added
that the next hearing in the case is expected during the second
quarter of fiscal 2016.

In January 2015, various class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  These were consolidated into a single case -- El
Dabe, et al. v. Calavo Growers, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-00400
(C.D. Cal.) -- during the Company's second fiscal quarter.

The case arises from the Company's announcement on January 15,
2015 that it had identified a non-cash misstatement in its
historical consolidated financial statements related to its
treatment of contingent consideration in the Company's acquisition
of Renaissance Food Group, LLC in June 2011. The same day, the
Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission announcing that the Company was recording a
non-cash charge totaling $88.9 million before tax ($54 million net
of tax) in connection with the error. The complaint alleges that
the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5 by
fraudulently misstating the Company's finances in the Company's
public filings.  The complaint also alleges that certain of the
Company's officers and directors are liable for these actions
pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2015, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015,
this motion to dismiss was granted, and the plaintiffs were
granted leave to amend the complaint.  During the first quarter of
fiscal 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the
Defendants again moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The next hearing before the Court is expected during the second
quarter of fiscal 2016.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit and
we do not expect that such legal claims and litigation will
ultimately have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position or results of operations," the Company said.


CARMAX INC: Still Defends "Fowler" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. continues to defend the class action lawsuit by John
Fowler, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2015.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v.  CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.
The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act.  The putative class consisted
of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees
who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to
the present.

On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with
respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June 16, 2009,
the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply
with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.  The court
also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard
to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales
consultant putative class.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act.

On November 21, 2011, the court granted CarMax's motion to compel
the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individual
basis.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on March
26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court's order granting CarMax's motion to compel arbitration.

On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court.  On
February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted
CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California Court of
Appeal decision and remanded the case to the California Court of
Appeal for further consideration. The California Court of Appeal
determined that the plaintiffs' Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act claim is not subject to arbitration, but the remaining
claims are subject to arbitration on an individual basis.

CarMax appealed this decision with respect to the Private Attorney
General Act claim on March 9, 2015 by filing a petition for review
with the California Supreme Court. On April 22, 2015, the
California Supreme Court denied the petition for review.

On August 20, 2015, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court,
which was denied. Therefore, the Private Attorney General Act
claim may proceed in the California state court. The Fowler
lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest,
civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and
the recovery of attorneys' fees.

"We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or
range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in
this matter," the Company said.


CHC GROUP: Defending S.D.N.Y. Suit over Petrobas Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
CHC Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the two securities
class action lawsuits that were previously filed against the
Company were consolidated into a single action, Rudman et al. v.
CHC Group et al., which is pending in federal district court for
the Southern District of New York.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on November 6, 2015, and the Company had until
December 18, 2015 to respond to the amended complaint.

"The amended complaint alleges that the Company and others failed
to disclose in our IPO materials that one of our major customers,
Petrobras, had suspended payments on certain contracts due to the
global stand-down of Airbus H225 aircraft.  The amended complaint
seeks class treatment and unspecified damages," the Company said.

The Company maintains adequate insurance to respond to the
lawsuit.  Moreover, the Company disputes the allegations in the
complaints and will vigorously defend against them.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Parties in Reed and Sikora Cases Executed MOU
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 24, 2015, that the parties in the Reed and Sikora
lawsuits have executed a memorandum of understanding with respect
to the terms of settlement, which is subject to Court approval.

On April 11, 2013, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer
County, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code, by requiring
employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820).  A similar
lawsuit covering a different time period was also filed in Placer
County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al;
Case No. SCV27073).  By stipulation the parties agreed to transfer
the Reed and Sikora cases to Los Angeles County.  Both cases (Case
Nos. SCV0032820 and SCV27073) were subsequently coordinated
together in Los Angeles County by order of the Judicial Council.
The parties participated in voluntary mediation on June 25, 2015
and have executed a memorandum of understanding with respect to
the terms of settlement, which is subject to Court approval and is
intended to be a full and final resolution of the actions.

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


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend Against "Masters" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated continues to defend against
the Masters class action lawsuit, the Company said in an exhibit
to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 24, 2015.

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

On March 2, 2015, Case NO. 37-2014-00040278 was transferred and
assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County
Superior Court.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of fees,
penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff
and other purported class members.

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


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend Against "Garcia" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated continues to defend against
the "Garcia" class action lawsuit, the Company said in an exhibit
to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 24, 2015.

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

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


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend Against "Guglielmo" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated continues to defend against
the "Guglielmo" class action lawsuit, the Company said in an
exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 24, 2015.

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

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


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Tagalogon" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 24, 2015, that a former restaurant management employee
filed on December 10, 2015, a class action lawsuit in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company improperly
classified its managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and
failed to provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other
claims.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act in addition to other
monetary payments. (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., Case No. BC603620).

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


CONNECTICUT: Sued over Mandatory Confinement Due to Ebola Scare
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
dozen people who traveled to Africa during the 2014 Ebola outbreak
claim in a federal class action in Bridgeport, Conn. that
Connecticut wrongfully confined them to their homes for three
weeks.

Distinguishing the quarantine from thought-out public health
guidelines, the plaintiffs say their ordeal was borne from
"sensationalist news accounts" and "a close gubernatorial race."

"Neighbors and co-workers shunned Liberian immigrants living in
Connecticut. Colleagues and administrators told public health
students who had traveled to Liberia to help stop the epidemic
that they were 'selfish' for putting Connecticut at risk," the
lawsuit filed by Yale Law School's Jerome N. Frank Legal Services
Organization states. "None of this hardship was necessary."

Led by the Liberian Community Association of Connecticut, the
plaintiffs say Gov. Dannel Malloy instituted a statewide public
health emergency on Oct. 7, 2014, that "undermined the urgent
public health response to Ebola."

Indeed the decision by Malloy and then Public Health Commissioner
Jewel Mullen to quarantine Connecticut residents who had spent
time in Ebola-ravaged Liberia came after Malloy told reporters
that the individuals were "not sick and not a risk to public
health," according to the 49-page lawsuit.

Each of the plaintiffs denies having been in contact with anyone
exhibiting Ebola symptoms.

The governor's office meanwhile defended the quarantine.

"Our first priority remains protecting the public from both
foreseeable and unforeseeable harms," Malloy's spokesman Chris
McClure said in a statement that notes the "enthusiasm and
ambition" of the Yale students who filed the complaint.

"We are going to continue to be prepared for any contingencies and
take the necessary steps to provide the protection the public
expects," McClure added.

The plaintiff group includes a family of six who moved to the
United States on a visa on Oct. 17, 2014.

Louise Mensah-Sieh, husband Nathaniel Sieh and their four children
were allegedly quarantined in the West Haven basement apartment of
Mensah-Sieh's sister after arriving at JFK Airport in New York
City.

The lawsuit describes the apartment as "a poorly insulated
basement, heated only by small space heaters." "Sometimes all six
would huddle in the bed together, under blankets, to keep warm,"
the family added.

Attorneys say West Haven police stationed themselves outside the
apartment round the clock. In one instance, officers allegedly
told the family that they could not pay for a pizza delivery with
paper money because it was contaminated.

The family says their children were treated them like criminals,
having to endure police guards shining lights on them.

Connecticut's method of announcing the quarantine is under
scrutiny as well. The complaint says health officials informed the
family about the quarantine over the phone, two days after
questioning them at JFK airport, and never served any written
information about the quarantine.

Noting plans to visit family and friends in Liberia, the Mensah-
Sieh family say they worry about future potential quarantines.

A bishop and his wife who work in Liberia and plan to return to
the United States later this month are plaintiffs as well.

Two of the other plaintiffs are former doctoral candidates at the
Yale School of Public Health who traveled to Liberia to aid the
government there in the Ebola response.

One of those plaintiffs, Ryan Boyko, had a 100-degree fever a few
days after his return to the United States, and he was transported
to Yale-New Haven Hospital on Oct. 15, 2014. Boyko repeatedly
tested negative for the virus and his fever subsided.

State officials nevertheless quarantined Boyko to his home for two
additional weeks, the complaint states, noting that he had already
been monitored for Ebola for one week.

Boyko says hospital security officers drove him to his New Haven
apartment in an unmarked car, and police stood guard outside his
home.

Both Boyko and fellow quarantined doctoral candidate Laura Skrip
says they were denied sufficient supplies during the quarantine,
including food and toiletries, as required by state law. The two
plaintiffs say they were allowed to briefly step outside their
apartments to pick up deliveries.

Boyko was unable to see his girlfriend, however, and says that
relationship ended.

The quarantine also kept Boyko from his son, of whom he shares
custody with his ex-wife, and from an international public health
conference later that month, according to the complaint.

Boyko says he dropped out of the doctoral program after the
quarantine interfered with his gig as a paid teaching assistant at
Yale College.

This is not the first case of quarantined individuals suing
political officials over the Ebola panic. New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie was sued last year for similarly quarantining a nurse who
had worked in Sierra Leone.

Ebola is spread through physical contact with bodily fluids or via
objects contaminated with the virus. It cannot be spread through
the air. The incubation period can range from a couple of days to
three weeks.

In response to the 2014 outbreak, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention announced a safety plan for monitoring those who
might have contracted the disease, which included special
screenings but not "movement restrictions" for asymptomatic
individuals who had traveled to the affected areas in Africa or
who had been in contact with infected individuals. The CDC later
changed its position to recommend "controlled movement" on
asymptomatic individuals.

There have been no confirmed cases of Ebola in Connecticut.


CONSTANT CONTACT: Defending Class Suit over Endurance Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Constant Contact, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Constant
Contact"), on October 30, 2015, entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Endurance"), and Paintbrush Acquisition
Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of
Endurance ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among other things
and subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein, Merger
Sub will be merged with and into Constant Contact (the "Merger"),
with Constant Contact surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Endurance.

At the special meeting of stockholders held on January 21, 2016,
the stockholders of Constant Contact, Inc. voted to adopt the
Merger Agreement.

On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Merger, captioned Irfan Chawdry, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No.
11797 (the "Complaint") was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware naming Constant Contact, each of Constant
Contact's directors, Endurance, and Merger Sub as defendants. The
Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that in
connection with the Merger the directors of Constant Contact
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of
Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for
purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales
process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders
to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly
preclusive deal protection devices. The Complaint seeks, among
other things, either to enjoin the Merger or to rescind the Merger
should it be consummated, as well as an award of plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and costs in the action.

The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the
Complaint, Constant Contact said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2015.  The
defendants believe the claims asserted in the Complaint are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit.


COOPER COMPANIES: CooperVision Still Defending Contact Lens Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2015, that since March 2015,
more than 50 putative class action complaints were filed by
contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens manufacturers,
in conjunction with their respective Unilateral Pricing Policy
(UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each other and
certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices at which
certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs
are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc., other contact lens
manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in various courts
around the United States.

In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. CooperVision denies the allegations and
intends to defend the actions vigorously.

"We are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse
effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to
estimate the range of potential loss, if any," the Company said.


DAHLIA GROUP: Faces "Zhao" Suit for FLSA, NY Labor Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Sheng Zhao v. Dahlia Group, Inc., Christine Chiang, Sony
LI, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case 2:15-cv-07325-DLI-RER
(E.D.N.Y., December 23, 2015), alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law, arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

Dahlia Group, Inc. is a Motor Carrier.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: 718.353.8588
     E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


DAHLIA GROUP: 2nd "Zhao" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
CHUN SHENG ZHAO v. DAHLIA GROUP, INC., CHRISTINE CHIANG, SONY
LI, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case 1:15-cv-07327 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 23, 2015), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various
willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or
practices.

Dahlia Group, Inc. is a Motor Carrier.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: 718.353.8588
     E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


DELTA APPAREL: Wage-and-Hour Class Suits Settled for $300,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. and other defendants are settling a wage-and-
hour class action lawsuit for $300,000, Delta said in its Form 10-
K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 15, 2015, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2015.

"We were served with a complaint in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or about March 13,
2013, by a former employee of our Delta Activewear business unit
at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution facility alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws and unfair business
practices with respect to meal and rest periods, compensation and
wage statements, and related claims (the "Complaint")," the
Company said.

"The Complaint is brought as a class action and seeks to include
all of our Delta Activewear business unit's current and certain
former employees within California who are or were non-exempt
under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint also names as
defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent contractor of Soffe,
and a former employee, and sought to include all current and
certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe and the Soffe
independent contractor within California who are or were non-
exempt under applicable wage and hour laws.

"Delta Apparel, Inc. is now the only remaining defendant in this
case. The Complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
monetary damages and compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and
costs, and pre-judgment interest.

"On or about August 22, 2014, we were served with an additional
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, by a former employee of Junkfood and two former
employees of Soffe at our Santa Fe Springs, California
distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and
hour laws and unfair business practices the same or substantially
similar to those alleged in the Complaint and seeking the same or
substantially similar relief as sought in the Complaint. This
complaint is brought as a class action and seeks to include all
current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe, our Delta
Activewear business unit, the Soffe independent contractor named
in the Complaint and an individual employee of such contractor
within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage
and hour laws.

"Delta Apparel, Inc. and the contractor employee have since been
voluntarily dismissed from the case and the remaining defendants
are Junkfood, Soffe, and the Soffe contractor.

"On September 17, 2015, an agreement in principle was reached
between all parties to settle the above-referenced wage and hour
matters. Pursuant to that agreement, the defendants in the matters
have agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $300,000 in exchange for
a comprehensive release of all claims at issue in the matters.
Delta Apparel, Inc., Soffe and Junkfood have collectively agreed
to contribute $200,000 towards the aggregate settlement amount,
which is in our accrued expenses as of October 3, 2015. The
settlement agreement requires the approval of the applicable
courts before it can be finalized and the parties are currently
seeking the necessary approvals."


DEMARINI SPORTS: Accused of Deceptive Marketing of Softball Bats
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hiroyaki Oda, Corey Roth v. DeMarini Sports, Inc., DeMarini Sports
Group Limited Partnership; Wilson Sporting Goods Co., and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case 8:15-cv-02131-JLS-JCG (D.D.Cal.,
December 23, 2015), alleges that Defendants have a uniform and
long-standing pattern of employing unfair and deceptive practices
with respect to the sale of their products through
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the characteristics,
uses, benefits and overall quality and fitness of their Softball
Bats.

The Defendants are manufacturers of the DeMarini Softball Bats.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian D. Chase, Esq.
     Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
     BISNARCHASE LLP
     1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
     Newport Beach, California 92660
     Phone: 949-752-2999
     Fax: 949-752-2777
     E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
     jbeligan@bisnarchase.com

        - and -

     Jesse M. Bablove, Esq.
     BORDIN MARTORELL LLP
     6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
     Los Angeles, California 90045
     Phone: 323-457-2110
     Fax: 323-457-2120
     E-mail: jbablove@bordinmartorell.com


DUNKIN DONUTS: Sued in N.Y. over Tax in Pre-Packaged Coffee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that New Yorkers brought a
federal class action in Manhattan against Dunkin' Donuts over the
sales tax it charges on pre-packaged coffee, noting that unheated
food and deli coffee are exempt in the state.


ENDOCYTE INC: Indiana Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Endocyte, Inc., said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2016, that the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
dismissed the shareholder class action lawsuit filed in 2014
against Endocyte and certain of its officers, directors and
underwriters in connection with the events leading up to cessation
of the PROCEED Phase 3 clinical trial. In dismissing the lawsuit
without prejudice, the Court stated that the plaintiffs must
"demonstrate sufficient facts exist to justify an amended
pleading" by February 1, 2016, or face a dismissal with prejudice.


ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Says 80% Shareholder Won't Join Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17,
2015, that "While we have not yet been served with any Complaints,
we have retrieved, from publicly-available court files, copies of
two Complaints filed on December 1 and December 2, 2015. It is
very important to note that we have been advised by ERBA Mannheim
that ERBA Mannheim (which owns >80% of the outstanding shares of
our company) will not be joining any class action and will not be
bringing a claim against us. We cannot yet calculate the total
potential damages, but based upon our understanding of the public
float (excluding ERBA Mannheim) and the price drop alleged by one
of the Claimants we have seen, the number appears to be around US
$2,500,000. Like other public companies, we have insurance, which
we expect to cover matters such as securities claims like these.
We thank our investors and are hopeful that most of you will
continue to stay with us and support our growth objectives."


EROS INT'L: Faces "Sharma" Suit for Securities Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
RAJIV SHARMA v. EROS INTERNATIONAL PLC, JYOTI DESHPANDE, ANDREW
HEFFERNAN, and PREM PARAMESWARAN, Case 2:15-cv-08816-WHW-CLW
(D.N.J., December 22, 2015), is a federal securities class action
against Eros and certain of its officers and/or directors for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased Eros securities between November 12, 2013 and November
13, 2015, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Eros is a global company in the Indian film entertainment
industry. Eros co-produces, acquires and distributes Indian
language firms in multiple formats worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road Roseland
     New Jersey 07068
     Phone: (973) 994-1700

        - and -

     Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
     Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
     SAXENA WHITE P.A.
     5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
     Boca Raton, FL 33486
     Phone: (561) 394-3399


EUREKA FINANCIAL: Shareholder Filed Class Action in Baltimore
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eureka Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that a purported shareholder
of the Company filed on October 20, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City captioned Fruma
Rubin vs Eureka Financial, its directors and NexTier. The
complaint alleges that the directors of the Company breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the proposed merger with NexTier
for inadequate consideration and agreeing to unreasonable deal
protection devices. The complaint further alleges that the Company
and NexTier aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary of
duties by the directors of the Company. The plaintiff seeks, among
other things, the entry of an order (1) granting class
certification, (2) declaring that the conduct of the defendants in
approving the merger constituted a breach of their fiduciary
duties, (3) enjoining the individual defendants from implementing
any of the deal protection measures, and (4) awarding plaintiff
and the class appropriate compensatory damages. At this early
stage of the litigation, it is not possible to access the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
any potential financial impact of the lawsuits on the Company. The
defendants believe the claims against them are without merit and
intend to contest the matter vigorously.


EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that motions to dismiss the
complaint in the case, In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation,
is pending before the court.  The parties have submitted their
respective supporting and opposing briefs.

On August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A
Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other
similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC). The complaint names as defendants
EZCORP, Inc., Paul E. Rothamel (our former chief executive
officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer
and former chief operating officer) and asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In general, the complaint alleges that the implementation of
certain strategic and growth initiatives were less successful than
represented by the defendants, that certain of the Company's
business units and investments were not performing as well as
represented by the defendants and that, as a result, the
defendants' disclosures and statements about the Company's
business and operations were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On October 17, 2014, the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan, also
purporting to be the holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock and
acting for itself and on behalf of other similarly situated
holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the
United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York
styled Automotive Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP, Inc., et al
(Case No. 1:14-cv-8349-ALC). The complaint names EZCORP, Inc., Mr.
Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither as defendants, but also names Mr.
Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership. The complaint likewise
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, alleging generally that (1) EZCORP and the officer
defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither) issued false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning the business and
prospects, and compliance history, of the Company's online lending
operations in the U.K. and the nature of the Company's consulting
relationship with entities owned by Mr. Cohen and the process the
Board of Directors used in agreeing to it, and (2) Mr. Cohen and
MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP,
participated in the preparation and dissemination of the Company's
disclosures and controlled the Company's business strategy and
activities.

On October 21, 2014, the plaintiff in the Automotive Machinists
Pension Plan action filed a motion to consolidate the Close action
and the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action and to appoint
the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan as the lead plaintiff. On
November 18, 2014, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under
the caption In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
1:14-cv-06834-ALC), and on January 16, 2015, appointed the lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

On March 13, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended
Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, alleging generally that:

     * EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr.
Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the Company's online lending operations in the U.K.
(Cash Genie) and Cash Genie's compliance history;

     * EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and
       misleading statements and omissions regarding the
       nature of the Company's consulting relationship with
       Madison Park LLC (an entity owned by Mr. Cohen) and
       the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing to it;

     * EZCORP's financial statements were false and misleading,
       and violated GAAP and SEC rules and regulations, by
       failing to properly recognize impairment charges with
       respect to the Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond;
       and

     * Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling
       persons of EZCORP, were aware of and controlled the
       Company's alleged false and misleading statements and
       omissions.

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss, and the parties have
submitted their respective supporting and opposing briefs. That
motion is pending before the Court.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to
continue to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims,"
the Company said.


EZCORP INC: Plaintiff in Texas Case Must File Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that under a Texas court's
current scheduling order, the plaintiffs were given until early
January 2016 to file an amended complaint, after which the
defendants will have 45 days to file a motion to dismiss.

The Company said, "On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported
holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on
behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting
Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS). The complaint names as defendants
EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw (our chief executive officer) and
Mark E. Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer) and
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

The complaint relates to the Company's announcement on July 17,
2015 that it will restate the financial statements for fiscal 2014
and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleges generally that
the Company issued materially false or misleading statements
concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and
prospects and that the Company misrepresented the financial
performance of the Grupo Finmart business.

On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled
Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was
also filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these
2 lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be
consolidated.

On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the
two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective
counsel appointed as co-lead counsel. Under the Court's current
scheduling order, the plaintiffs have until early January 2016 to
file an amended complaint, after which the defendants will have 45
days to file a motion to dismiss.

"This case is in the very early stages," the Company said. "We
cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to
defend vigorously against all allegations and claims."


FEDEX CORP: Defending Wage-and-Hour Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in a number of lawsuits containing various class-action
allegations of wage-and-hour violations. The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits allege, among other things, that they were forced to work
"off the clock," were not paid overtime or were not provided work
breaks or other benefits. The complaints generally seek
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both.

"We do not believe that a material loss is reasonably possible
with respect to any of these matters," the Company said.


FEDEX CORP: Provides Update on Misclassification Suits
------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, provided updates on
various class action and other lawsuits alleging misclassification
of its owner-operators as independent contractors.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 25 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should
be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.

On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee). In sum, the court ruled on FedEx's summary judgment
motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all
claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had
been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators
in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of 20
states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20
cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in
January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not
make a determination with respect to the correctness of the
district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to
the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit were stayed.

On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20
factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas
Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class
members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was
subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both
parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete
the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made
recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19
cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground requested
that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential
differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas.

On July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion
confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding
that the class members are employees, not independent contractors.
Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other 19 cases to a
representative of the court for purposes of setting a case
management conference to address briefing and argument for those
cases.

"During the second quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for
the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case," the Company said.
"In the second quarter of 2016 the Kansas case settled, and we
increased the accrual to the amount of the settlement. The
settlement will require court approval."

The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three
of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received
court approval. The cases in Arkansas and Florida settled in the
second quarter of 2016, and FedEx established an accrual in each
of these cases for the amount of the settlement. The settlements
are subject to court approval.

Two cases in Oregon and one in California were appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the
district court decisions and held that the plaintiffs in
California and Oregon were employees as a matter of law and
remanded the cases to their respective district courts for further
proceedings. In the first quarter of 2015, FedEx recognized an
accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in those cases.

In June 2015, the parties in the California case engaged in
mediation and reached an agreement to settle the matter for $228
million, and in the fourth quarter of 2015 FedEx increased the
accrual to that amount.

EmploymentLawAcademy.com reports that the judge overseeing a class
action lawsuit against FedEx Ground over its classification of
certain drivers as independent contractors instead of employees
has approved the company's June-announced $228 million settlement
with 2,300 California-based FedEx drivers.  (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 27, 2015)

The two cases in Oregon have been consolidated with a non-MDL
independent contractor case in Oregon. The three cases
collectively settled in the second quarter of 2016, and FedEx
increased the accrual in these cases to the amount of the
settlement. The settlement is subject to court approval.

The aggregate amount of independent contractor case settlements
during the second quarter of 2016 was $47 million, and the related
aggregate accrual increase was $41 million during the quarter.


FEDEX CORP: Defending Contractor-Model Cases Outside of MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that the Company is
defending contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer
part of the multidistrict litigation. These cases are in varying
stages of litigation.

"For these cases, as well as the remaining 19 cases before the
Seventh Circuit, we do not expect to incur a material loss in
these matters; however, it is reasonably possible that potential
loss in some of these lawsuits or changes to the independent
contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be
material," the Company said.

"In these cases, we continue to evaluate what facts may arise in
the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may
render and how these facts and rulings might impact FedEx Ground's
loss. For a number of reasons, we are not currently able to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in these cases. The
number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of full-time
drivers is defined and how many individuals will qualify based on
whatever criteria may be established."

"In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited
discovery into damages in certain of these cases, which could vary
considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be dependent on
evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which has yet to be
produced in the cases. Further, the range of potential loss could
be impacted substantially by future rulings by the court,
including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx Ground's defenses,
and on evidentiary issues. As a consequence of these factors, as
well as others that are specific to these cases, we are not
currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. We
do not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters.

"Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's
independent contractors, could, among other things, entitle
certain of our owner-operators and their drivers to the
reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-
hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit
liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the
independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in
certain jurisdictions. We believe that FedEx Ground's owner-
operators are properly classified as independent contractors and
that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the
company's independent contractors."


FIRST TENNESSEE BANK: Harasses Alleged Debtors' Kin, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that First Tennessee Bank
illegally harasses relatives and neighbors of alleged debtors by
autodialed phone calls as it services $16 billion in consumer
loans a year, a class action claims in Riverside, Calif. Federal
Court.


FUEL SYSTEMS: Faces Stockholder Suits over Westport Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that "We are
aware of four putative stockholder class actions that have been
filed since the announcement of the merger with Westport which
challenge the proposed merger.  We believe that the claims are
without merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously."


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Securities Action in N.D. Ga. Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: GALT), a developer of
therapeutics that target galectin proteins to treat fibrosis and
cancer, announced that the United States District Court for
Northern Georgia has dismissed all claims against it and certain
officers, directors and shareholder 10X Fund L.P. alleged in a
Consolidated Securities Class Action originally filed in July 2014
and all claims against certain officers and directors alleged in a
Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Action originally filed in
August 2014.

The Securities Class Action alleged that Galectin and the other
named defendants violated certain federal securities laws during
the purported class period of October 25, 2013 through July 28,
2014. In a detailed 23-page ruling, the Court concluded, among
other things, that the allegations in the Amended Complaint
"failed to state a claim for relief" and that "Defendants did not
engage in impermissible actions to manipulate the price of its
shares."

The Shareholder Derivative Action was brought nominally on behalf
of Galectin to recover damages based on allegations similar to
those raised in the Securities Class Action. The Court dismissed
the derivative suit for lack of standing and failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Court entered final judgments of dismissals in both actions,
that is, dismissals "with prejudice", based on the Court's finding
that any further amendment of the complaints would be futile.
Plaintiffs have the right to appeal the Court's dismissals within
30 days. Based on the Federal Court's rulings, Galectin intends to
seek dismissal of a duplicative shareholder derivative action in
Nevada that was filed after the federal actions.

The Company and the other named defendants are represented by King
& Spalding LLP in these shareholder actions.

"We are very pleased with the Court's dismissal of both actions,"
said Peter G. Traber, M.D., president, chief executive officer and
chief medical officer of Galectin Therapeutics. "We are gratified
that these matters are now behind us as we continue to focus our
efforts on our clinical programs in significant unmet medical
needs, including non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with
advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis."

Galectin Therapeutics -- http://www.galectintherapeutics.com/--
is developing carbohydrate-based therapies for the treatment of
fibrotic liver disease and cancer based on the Company's unique
understanding of galectin proteins, which are key mediators of
biologic function. Galectin seeks to leverage extensive scientific
and development expertise as well as established relationships
with external sources to achieve cost-effective and efficient
development. The Company is pursuing a development pathway to
clinical enhancement and commercialization for its lead compounds
in liver fibrosis and cancer.


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Charlotte City Sues Over Alum-Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Charlotte, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Reichl, General
Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC,
Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade
Logistics, Inc., Chemtrade Chemical, Corp., GEO Specialty
Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC,
Chemtrade Solutions, LLC, and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-08755-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. December 18, 2015), seeks permanent
enjoinment, damages, monetary relief, treble damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney fees in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. and Sections 4
and 16 of the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C.

Charlotte City treats and delivers more than 100 million gallons
of drinking water to customers on a daily basis and operates three
water treatment plants, 76 lift stations, and 8,400 miles of water
distribution and wastewater collection pipes. Liquid alum is a
primary ingredient in the process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chemtrade Solutions LLC is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road in Parsippany,
New Jersey.  Chemtrade Solutions LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, New Jersey 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700

         - and -

      Judith A. Starrett, Esq.
      CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
      600 East Fourth Street
      Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
      Tel: (704) 336-5801

         - and -

      Gary Jackson
      RABON LAW FIRM, PLLC
      225 East Worthington Avenue, Suite 100
      Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
      Tel: (704) 247-3247

         - and -

      Paul F. Novak
      MILBERG LLP
      Chrysler House
      719 Griswold Street, Suite 620
      Detroit, Michigan 48826
      Tel: (313) 309-1760

         - and -

      Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
      Elizabeth McKenna, Esq.
      Charles Slidders, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza
      New York, New York 10119
      Tel: (212) 594-5300


HAWKINS INC: Water System Asserts Anti-Competitive Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Area Water and Sewer System, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Hawkins, Inc., Frank A. Reichl,
General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical
Performance Products, LLC, GenTek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics
Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., GEO Specialty Chemicals,
Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC, Thatcher Group, Inc.,
Kemira Chemicals, Inc., Southern Ionics, Inc., and John Does 1-50,
CASE 0:15-cv-04498-ADM-JJK (D.Minn., December 23, 2015), seeks to
recover damages incurred by Plaintiff due to Defendants' and their
co-conspirators' alleged violation of the Sherman Act, by
conspiring to increase prices and otherwise restrain competition
in the market for Alum.

Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of Alum used by
municipalities to treat potable water and wastewater, by pulp and
paper manufacturers as part of their manufacturing processes, and
in lake treatment to reduce phosphorous levels contributing to
degraded water quality.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Janet C. Evans, Esq.
     GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY,MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A.
     500 IDS Center
     80 South Eighth Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 632-3456
     Fax: (612) 632-4456
     E-mail: jan.evans@gpmlaw.com

        - and -

     Brian R. Strange, Esq.
     Morvareed Z. Salehpour, Esq.
     STRANGE & BUTLER
     12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1900
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Tel: (310) 207-5055
     Fax: (310) 826-3210
     E-mail: bstrange@strangeandbutler.com
             msalehpour@strangeandbutler.com

        - and -

     James E. Atchison, Esq.
     Donald G. Beebe, Esq.
     THE ATCHISON FIRM, P.C.
     3030 Knollwood Dr.
     Mobile, AL 36693
     Phone: (251) 665-7200
     E-mail: jim.atchison@atchisonlaw.com
             don.beebe@atchisonlaw.com

        - and -

     M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
     THE DAMPIER LAWFIRM P.C.
     P.O. Box 161
     Fairhope, AL 36533
     Phone: (251) 990-0900
     E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com

        - and -

     R. Edward Massey, Jr., Esq.
     CLAY, MASSEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     509 Church Street
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Phone: (251) 433-1000
     E-mail: em@claymassey.com


HP INC: $100 Million Settlement in Securities Case Wins Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 16, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2015, that the court has granted final approval
to the $100 million settlement in the HP Securities Litigation.

In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated
putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011
to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and
making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy
and the financial performance of HP's enterprise services
business.

On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5(b) by concealing material information and making false
statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and that
certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by engaging
in a "scheme" to defraud investors. On July 2, 2013, HP filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 26, 2013, the court
granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss,
allowing claims to proceed against HP and Margaret C. Whitman
based on alleged statements and/or omissions made on or after May
23, 2012. The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims that
were based on alleged statements and/or omissions made between
August 19, 2011 and May 22, 2012.

The lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on
November 4, 2014 and, on December 15, 2014, the defendants filed
their opposition to the motion. On June 9, 2015, HP entered into a
settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities class action. Under the terms of the settlement, HP,
through its insurers, will contribute $100 million to a settlement
fund that will be used to compensate persons who purchased HP's
shares during the period from August 19, 2011 through November 20,
2012. No individual is contributing to the settlement. HP and its
current and former officers, directors, and advisors will be
released from any Autonomy-related securities claims as part of
the settlement.

On July 17, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement. On November 13, 2015, the court granted final approval
to the settlement.


HP INC: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Still Pending
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their second amended
complaint in the HP ERISA Litigation remains pending, HP Inc. said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended October
31, 2015.

In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative
class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to
November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby
violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative
information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and
HP's enterprise services business and by failing to restrict
participants from investing in HP stock.

On August 16, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On
March 31, 2014, the court granted HP's motion to dismiss this
action with leave to amend. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint containing substantially similar
allegations and seeking substantially similar relief as the first
amended complaint.

On June 15, 2015, the court granted HP's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in its entirety and denied plaintiffs
leave to file another amended complaint. On July 2, 2015,
plaintiffs have appealed the court's order to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


HP INC: "Karlbom" Seeks to Certify Calif.-Based EDS Wokers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 16, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the "Karlbom"
lawsuit have filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of
all California-based EDS employees in the Infrastructure
Associate, Infrastructure Analyst, Infrastructure Specialist and
Infrastructure Specialist Senior job codes from March 16, 2005
through October 31, 2009 that they claim were improperly
classified as exempt from overtime under state law.

Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a
purported wage and hour class action filed on March 16, 2009 in
California Superior Court. The plaintiffs claim that EDS and HP
information technology employees in the Infrastructure job codes
working in California were misclassified as exempt from overtime
and wrongfully paid under the law.

The plaintiffs filed the motion to certify a Rule 23 state class
of all California-based EDS employees on October 30, 2015.

Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Hewlett
Packard Enterprise has been assigned responsibility for this
litigation.


HP INC: "Benedict" Class Suit Remains Pending in N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company, remains pending, HP
Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 16, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2015.

Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class action
filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleging that certain
technical support employees allegedly involved in installing,
maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or hardware
for HP were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP violated
California law by, among other things, allegedly improperly
classifying these employees as exempt.

On February 13, 2014, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification. On May 7, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain
Technical Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and
Colorado that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from
overtime under state law. On July 30, 2015, the court dismissed
the Technology Consultant and certain Field Technical Support
Consultant opt-ins from the conditionally certified FLSA
collective action.

Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Hewlett
Packard Enterprise has been assigned responsibility for this
litigation.


HP INC: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Copeland I" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 16, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2015, that the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case, A.J.
Copeland v. Raymond J. Lane, et al.

A.J. Copeland v. Raymond J. Lane, et al. ("Copeland I") is a
lawsuit filed on March 7, 2011 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
wasted corporate assets in connection with HP's alleged violations
of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 ("FCPA"), HP's
severance payments made to Mark Hurd (a former Chairman of HP's
Board of Directors and HP's Chief Executive Officer), and HP's
acquisition of 3PAR Inc. The lawsuit also alleges violations of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") in connection with HP's 2010 and 2011 proxy
statements.

On February 8, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. On October 10, 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint. On
November 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
an unjust enrichment claim and claims that the defendants violated
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with HP's 2012 proxy statement.

On December 13, 14 and 17, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss
the amended complaint. On December 28, 2012, the plaintiff moved
for leave to file a third amended complaint. On May 6, 2013, the
court denied the motion for leave to amend, granted the motions to
dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the defendants'
favor. On May 31, 2013, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October
26, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the action.


HP INC: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Pension Fund Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument has not yet been scheduled in a Ninth Circuit appeal
in the securities class action lawsuit by the Cement & Concrete
Workers District Council Pension Fund, HP Inc. said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2015.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class
action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct
("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was
serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that
period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior
in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP.

On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September
9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9,
2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on
October 24, 2013.

On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant filed its opening
brief in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. HP filed its
answering brief on January 16, 2015 and the plaintiff-appellant's
reply brief was filed on March 2, 2015. Oral argument has not yet
been scheduled.


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Facing Suit over Headway Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hutchinson Technology Incorporated is facing class action lawsuits
related to its merger deal with Headway Technologies, Inc.,
Hutchinson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2015.

On November 1, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Headway Technologies,
Inc., a California corporation ("Parent"), and Hydra Merger Sub,
Inc., a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Subsidiary"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
Merger Subsidiary will merge with and into the company, and the
company will continue as the surviving corporation and as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Parent and Merger
Subsidiary are each beneficially owned by TDK Corporation, a
Japanese electronics company ("TDK").

Following the announcement of the Merger, three actions were filed
by purported shareholders of the company. Two of the actions,
captioned Ridler v. Hutchinson Technology Incorporated, et al. and
Harnik v. Hutchinson Technology Incorporated, et al. were filed in
the District Court, First Judicial District, McLeod County, State
of Minnesota. Plaintiffs in the Ridler action purport to bring the
action as a class action on behalf of the public shareholders of
the company, and as a derivative action on behalf of the company
as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff in the Harnik action purports to
bring the action as a class action on behalf of the public
shareholders of the company. Both complaints name as defendants
the company, the members of its Board, Parent and Merger
Subsidiary.

The Harnik complaint also names TDK Corporation. Both complaints
generally allege that the Board breached its fiduciary duties to
company shareholders in connection with the merger because, among
other reasons, the Board failed to fully inform themselves of the
market value of the company, the Board failed to exercise valid
business judgment, the Board failed to maximize shareholder value,
the members of the Board were interested in the transaction, and
certain provisions in the merger agreement unfairly preclude a
third party from making an offer for the company.

The Ridler complaint also alleges claims against the Board for
waste and abuse of control, a claim against the Board, Parent and
Merger Subsidiary for equitable relief under the Minnesota
Business Corporation Act, and a claim against the company, Parent
and Merger Subsidiary for aiding and abetting the Board's alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

In addition to its allegations against the Board, the Harnik
complaint alleges that TDK Corporation, Parent and Merger
Subsidiary aided and abetted the Board's alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. Both complaints seek compensatory damages,
equitable relief, and injunctive relief, including an order
enjoining the closing of the merger. Both complaints also seek an
award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements.

The third action, captioned Erickson v. Hutchinson Technology
Incorporated, et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff in the Erickson
action purports to bring the action as a class action on behalf of
the public shareholders of the company. The Erickson complaint
names the company and its directors as defendants, and alleges
that they have violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a), and Rule 14a-9,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a preliminary
proxy statement that contains materially incomplete and misleading
statements and omissions. The Erickson complaint seeks injunctive
relief, including an order enjoining the filing of a definitive
proxy statement and the closing of the merger until the alleged
deficiencies in the preliminary proxy statement have been
corrected; an accounting for damages in an unspecified amount; and
an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements.

"We believe that the actions are without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against all claims asserted," the Company said.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Still Faces Hamilton Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company is a defendant in three wage-and-hour suits seeking class
action certification that were filed between August 29, 2012 and
June 24, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas. Each of these cases is among several others filed by
Plaintiffs' attorney against contractors working in the Port
Arthur, Texas Motiva plant on various projects over the last few
years. The claims are based on alleged failure to compensate for
time spent bussing to and from a work site, donning safety wear
and other activities.

In a separate earlier case based on the same allegations, a
federal district court ruled that the time spent traveling on the
busses is not compensable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit upheld the district court's ruling, and the U.S. Supreme
Court declined to review plaintiffs' appeal of the Fifth Circuit
dismissal.

To date, no other plaintiffs have joined the suit, and the statute
of limitations precludes any new claimants from seeking recovery
against the Company, as the Company's employees stopped working at
the project over two years ago. Due to the absence of any exposure
beyond the named plaintiffs, and the limited exposure for any time
spent bussing into the facility, the Company expects any payments
associated with the settlement of this matter would not result in
a material impact on the company's results of operations or
financial position.

"As such, we have not recorded a reserve for this matter as of
September 30, 2015," the Company said.


JETRO HOLDINGS: "Ralph" Suit Seeks Payment of Back Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Christian Ralph, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jetro Holdings, LLC, Jetro
Holdings, Inc. and Does 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC604542 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, December 17, 2015),
seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime wages, missed meal
periods, damages resulting from failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due within the
required time and upon separation of employment in violation of
Business and Professions Code Sec. 11200.

Defendants sell wholesale grocery products to grocery, retailers
and food service operators at warehouse locations in California.

Defendants allegedly failed to pay at least minimum wage for all
hours worked by Plaintiff, improperly calculated overtime rate by
not including performance bonuses, incentive payments, shift
premiums, required Plaintiff to work over eight hours per day
without overtime premium and failed to include non-discretionary
performance bonuses, incentive payments, shift premiums and other
wages into their regular rate of pay thereby underpaying overtime
wages, deprived them  of timely meal periods or required them to
work through meal periods, failed to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failed to timely pay all wages due upon
termination in violation of Business and Professions Code Sec.
17200, et seq.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, California 92618
      Tel: (949) 379-6250
      Fax: (949) 379-6251


KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: "Sciabacucchi" Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI v. KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and
MARTIN SHKRELI, Case 3:15-cv-05992-CRB (N.D.Cal., December 23,
2015), is a class action on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired KBIO securities between November
19, 2015 and December 17, 2015, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

KBIO is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of
monoclonal antibody therapeutics for serious medical conditions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
     Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
     SAXENA WHITE P.A.
     5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
     Boca Raton, FL 33486
     Phone: (561) 394-3399
     Fax: (561) 394-3382
     E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
             lhooker@saxenawhite.com

        - and -

     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
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160
     E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
             rprongay@glancylaw.com
             lportnoy@glancylaw.com


LANDEC CORPORATION: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Landec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2016, for the
Fiscal Quarter Ended November 29, 2015, that plaintiffs filed on
September 30, 2015, a wage and hour class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Barbara County. Plaintiffs
are non-exempt employees, or former employees, of the plant
contract labor provider of Apio who allege California Labor Code
violations. The Company, and its contract labor provider, are
vigorously co-defending this lawsuit.


LAS TORTUGAS: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO RODRIGUEZ, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Las Tortugas, LLC, Las Tortugas
De Aurora, LLC, Las Tortugas en Commerce City, LLC, Santana, Inc,
Hugo Javier Santana and Juan Santos, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02740 (D. Colo., December 17, 2015), seeks liquidated damages in
the amount of unpaid compensation, including wages, overtime
compensation, reasonable attorney's fees and further relief as may
be necessary and appropriate pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq., Colorado Wage Claim Act,
C.R.S. Sec. 8-4-101, et seq. and Colorado Minimum Wage Order Nos.
27 to 31.

Rodriguez worked as a cook, prep cook and cashier in the
Defendant's Denver restaurant. He claims to have regularly worked
more than 40 hours per week and at times more than 12 hours per
day without overtime compensation. Defendants also failed to
provide compensated rest periods of 10 minutes for each 4 hours
worked. Defendants Santana and Santos exercised administrative
control over these restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary Jo Lowrey
      Sarah J. Parady
      1725 High Street, Suite 1
      Denver, CO 80218
      Tel: (303)-593-2595
      Fax: (303)-502-9119
      Email: MaryJo@lowrey-parady.com
             Sarah@lowrey-parady.com


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Still Faces Royalty Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Layne Christensen Company continues to face a class action lawsuit
lodged on behalf of lessors and royalty owners, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2015.

"On April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a purported class
action suit against three of our subsidiaries and two other
companies supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners
from 2004 to the present," the Company said. "The plaintiff
essentially alleges that we and two other companies allocated the
market for mineral leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral
leasing within the state of Kansas. The plaintiff seeks
certification as a class and unquantified damages."

"On April 1, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed one of the
other two company defendants without prejudice. Since this
litigation is at an early state, we are currently unable to
predict its outcome or estimate its exposure."


LIBERATOR MEDICAL: Facing Suits over CR Bard Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Liberator Medical Holdings, Inc. is defending class action
lawsuits related to its merger deal with C. R. Bard, Inc.,
Liberator said in its Form 10-k Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2015.

The Company in November 2015 recently entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger with C. R. Bard, Inc., a New Jersey corporation
and Freedom MergerSub, Inc., a Nevada corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bard ("MergerSub").  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, upon the terms and subject to the conditions described
therein, MergerSub will merge with and into the Company, with the
Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bard.

At the effective time of the Merger:

     -- each outstanding share of common stock of the Company
        (other than shares owned by the Company, Bard or
        MergerSub, each of which will be cancelled for no
        consideration) will be cancelled and converted into the
        right to receive $3.35 in cash, without interest and less
        any applicable withholding taxes (the "Merger
        Consideration"); and

     -- each outstanding option to purchase shares of common
        stock, whether vested or unvested, will be cancelled at
        the Effective Time in exchange for the right to receive
        an amount in cash equal to the excess, if any, of the
        Merger Consideration over the exercise price payable in
        respect of the shares of common stock of the Company
        subject to such option and any required withholding tax
        (the "Option Consideration").

The aggregate purchase price for the outstanding shares and
options is approximately $181 million in cash.

"On November 25, 2015, a putative class action complaint
challenging the merger was filed by Dan Schmidt, a shareholder, in
the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, State of Nevada,
against the Company, Bard, MergerSub and individual members of our
board of directors," the Company said.

"On November 30, 2015, a putative class action complaint
challenging the merger was filed by Peter K. Nagel, a shareholder,
in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, State of
Nevada, against the Company, Bard, MergerSub and individual
members of our board of directors.  On November 30, 2015, a
putative class action complaint challenging the merger was filed
by Thomas Gambino, David S. Leibowitz, and Charles L. Rigsby, Jr.,
all shareholders, in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit of Martin County, Florida, against the Company and
individual members of our board of directors.

"On December 1, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada, by
Henry H. Sahrmann and Christine E. Sahrmann, alleged shareholders
of the Company, against the Company, Bard, MergerSub and
individual members of our board of directors.

"On December 4, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, by Judith Klinger,
an alleged shareholder of the Company, against the Company, Bard,
MergerSub and individual members of our board of directors.

"On December 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint
challenging the merger was filed by Laurie May, an alleged
shareholder of the Company, in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit of Martin County, Florida, against the Company,
Bard, MergerSub and individual members of our board of directors.

"On December 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint
challenging the merger was filed by Franklin Torres, an alleged
shareholder of the Company, in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit of Martin County, Florida, against the Company,
Bard, MergerSub and individual members of our board of directors.

"The foregoing complaints allege that the members of our board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders of
the Company by, among other things, approving the merger agreement
without taking steps to maximize the value of the Company to its
shareholders, agreeing to terms in the merger agreement that
improperly limit the board of directors' ability to investigate
and pursue superior proposals, and failing to protect against
alleged conflicts of interest.  The complaints further allege that
the Company, Bard and/or MergerSub aided and abetted such alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The complaints seek injunctive
relief relating to the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
including enjoining the named defendants from completing the
merger.

"Some of the complaints also seek damages in the event the merger
is consummated. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot
presently be determined and therefore the Company is unable to
estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time. Accordingly,
adjustments, if any, that might result from the resolution of this
matter have not been reflected in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements."


MACY'S INC: Faces Suit for Alleged Misleading Label of Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Haley and Sylvia Thompson v. MACY'S, INC. and
BLOOMINGDALE'S, INC., Case 4:15-cv-06033-KAW (N.D.Cal., December
23, 2015), arises from Defendant's alleged deceptive and
misleading labeling and marketing of merchandise they sell at
their retail stores, including outlet stores, in the states of
California and Florida and throughout the United States.

Defendant Macy's operates 900 stores in 45 states under names
including Macy's, Bloomingdales' and Bloomingdale's Outlets, with
approximately 132 stores in California and 60 stores in Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert S. Green, Esq.
     GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
     2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
     Larkspur, CA 94939
     Phone: (415)477-6700
     Fax: (415)477-6710
     E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

        - and -

     Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
     GILMAN LAW LLP
     8951 Bonita Beach Rd, S.E., Suite 525
     Bonita Springs, FL 34135
     Phone: (239)221-8301
     Fax: (239)790-5150
     E-mail: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: $23.5MM Settlement Reached in "Thomas"
---------------------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11,
2015, that MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation (the "Company") and
certain of its current and former officers and directors on
December 10, 2015, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with
the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit, Thomas, et al. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. et al.,
Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-01160-JST, pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Class
Action Litigation"). The proposed settlement releases all claims
asserted against all defendants in the Class Action Litigation
except for Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. and does not release
claims asserted in the derivative actions Hemmingson, et al. v.
Elkins, et al., No. 1-15-CV-278614 (PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa
Clara Cnty.) and Bushansky v. Norby, et al., No. 1-15-CV-281284
(PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.) (the "Derivative
Actions"). The Class Action Litigation and the Derivative Actions
are more fully described in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2015.

The Memorandum of Understanding provides for an aggregate
settlement payment by the Company of $23.5 million, which includes
all attorneys' fees, costs of administration and plaintiffs' out-
of-pocket expenses, lead plaintiff compensatory awards and
disbursements. The Company expects the settlement will be fully
funded by insurance proceeds. The settlement includes the
dismissal of all claims against the Company and the named
individuals in the Class Action Litigation without any liability
or wrongdoing attributed to them. The settlement described in the
Memorandum of Understanding remains subject to stockholder notice,
court approval and other customary conditions.


MATSON INC: Agreed to Pay $350,000 to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matson, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2016, that Matson, Inc.,
Horizon Lines, Inc. and the former directors of Horizon, were
named as defendants in a putative class action captioned In Re
Horizon Lines, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10399-VCL,
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, arising out of
the Company's acquisition of Horizon. On February 13, 2015, the
parties entered into a memorandum of understanding to
preliminarily resolve the litigation. The parties subsequently
elected not to seek final approval of that settlement.

On December 7, 2015, the Court entered a stipulated order
dismissing plaintiffs' claims without prejudice and setting a
hearing for February 26, 2016 for consideration of an anticipated
application by plaintiffs for an award of attorney's fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

On December 28, 2015, the Court approved a stipulation under which
the Company agreed to pay $350,000 to lead plaintiffs' counsel for
attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of their claim
for attorneys' fees and expenses. The Court has not been asked to
review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of a fee or its
reasonableness, and has vacated the February 26, 2016 hearing.


MATTSON TECH: Faces "Durgin" Suit Over Proposed E-Town Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Durgin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kenneth Kannappan, Fusen Chen, Kenneth
Smith, Scott Peterson, Richard Dyck, Scott Kramer, Tom St. Dennis,
Mattson Technology, Inc., Beijing E-Town Dragon Semiconductor
Industry Investment Center, LP, and Dragon Acquisition Sub, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 11837 (Del. Chancery Ct., December 22,
2015), seeks to enjoin defendants from taking any steps to
consummate its Definitive Merger Agreement with E-Town Dragon
(Proposed Transaction) or, in the event the Proposed Transaction
is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the individual
Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good
faith, and due care, and seeks injunctive and other equitable
relief to prevent the irreparable injury that the Company's
stockholders will continue to suffer absent judicial intervention.

Mattson Technology designs, manufactures, and markets
semiconductor wafer processing equipment used in the fabrication
of integrated circuits (ICs or chips). Mattson is a leading
supplier of dry strip and rapid thermal processing (RTP) equipment
to the global semiconductor industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rd-legal.com
                  jjr@rd-legal.com

               - and -

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
          Christa A. Menge, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
                  cmenge@zlk.com


MDL 1840: Costco Appeals from "Most Favored Nation" Clause Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation has filed a notice of appeal from a
final judgment that denied its bid to invoke a "most favored
nation" provision under the settlement reached in the Motor Fuel
Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, Costco said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 18, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 22,
2015.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer.

The Company is named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);
Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP
Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D.
Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v.
Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202
(D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et
al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP
Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D.
Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No.
06-2582 (D.Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America
Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara
Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751
(S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC,
et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan
Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07
0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et
al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP
Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D.
Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil
Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt,
et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D.
Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in
which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which was
subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the
extent allowed by law and subject to other terms and conditions in
the agreement, to install over five years from the effective date
of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States
of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class
representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments
to class members.

On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised
settlement, which did not materially alter the terms. On April 24,
2012, the court granted final approval of the revised settlement.

A class member who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the
order approving the settlement. Plaintiffs have moved for an award
of $10 in attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs and
payments to class representatives. The Company has opposed the
motion.

On March 20, 2014, the Company filed a notice invoking a "most
favored nation" provision under the settlement, under which it
seeks to adopt provisions in later settlements with certain other
defendants, an invocation that class counsel opposed. The motion
was denied on January 23, 2015. Final judgment was entered on
September 22, 2015, and the Company has filed a notice of appeal.


MDL 1917: LG et al. Seek Dismissal of Price-Fixing Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that multinational electronics firms accused of conspiring to fix
the prices of cathode ray tubes for more than a decade fought to
stop the antitrust case from going to trial in San Francisco on
Feb. 9.

Philips, Toshiba, Hitachi, LG and their subsidiaries, accused of
forming a cartel to inflate the prices of cathode ray tubes used
in TVs and monitors from 1995 to 2007, argued five motions for
summary judgment before U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar.

The electronics giants claimed they stopped making and selling
price-fixed tubes in March 2003, more than four years before
buyers sued them on antitrust claims in November 2007, making the
allegations untimely under the statute of limitations.

But the plaintiffs -- including Dell and Sharp Electronics -- say
that though the defendants stopped making the tubes in 2003, their
roles in the conspiracy did not end there.

Philips and LG, for instance, announced they would stop making
tubes in March 2003, even as they launched a new joint venture --
LG.Philips Display, or LGP -- which continued to make and sell the
price-fixed products.

"After the transfer of the assets to LGP, the Phillips
subsidiaries facilitated and assisted the conspiracy," class
attorney Philip Ioveino told the court. "They did not take
affirmative acts to disavow the conspiracy."

Ioveino may be reached at:

     Philip Ioveino, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor
     Albany, NY 12207
     Tel: 518 434 0600
     Fax: 518 434 0665
     E-mail: piovieno@bsfllp.com

LG made a "seamless transition" of its tube manufacturing
enterprise to the new joint venture, using the same assets and
employees as before, Dell attorney Matthew Kent told the judge.
LG had the power to appoint three members to LGP's board of
directors, and it invested significant assets in the new company,
Kent said.

He may be reached at:

     Matthew Kent, Esq.
     ALSTON & BIRD LLP
     1201 West Peachtree St NW # 4200
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Tel: 404-881-7000
     E-mail: matthew.kent@alston.com

LG attorney Miriam Kim countered: "Arguments that LG had a right
to appoint board members or invest income do not support liability
under the corporate separateness doctrine. There's no allegation
that LG was an illicit conspirator itself."

She may be reached at:

     Miriam Kim, Esq.
     MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
     560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
     San Francisco, CA  94105
     E-mail: Miriam.Kim@mto.com

Sharp Electronics attorney Kira Davis made the same argument in
fighting Toshiba's motion for summary judgment. Davis said that
when Toshiba stopped making tubes in 2003, it transferred its
manufacturing assets to a new joint venture with Panasonic called
Matsushita Toshiba Picture Display Co., or MTPD.

Toshiba gained $52 million from the joint venture's formation and
35.5 percent ownership of the company, Davis said, so its role in
the conspiracy did not end when it shifted tube manufacturing to
the joint venture in 2003.

Toshiba attorney Christopher Curran rejected that: "There's no
case in which a company has been held liable simply for having a
35 percent share in a company," Curran said.

He may be reached at:

     Christopher Curran, Esq.
     WHITE & CASE LLP
     701 Thirteenth Street, NW
     Washington DC 20005-3807
     Tel: 202 626 3643
     E-mail: ccurran@whitecase.com

When Tigar asked Curran how much time passed between the joint
venture's formation and its taking part in the tube cartel, Curran
said MTPD began fixing tube prices within the first month of its
creation.

"Would it be an unfair characterization of the evidence submitted
to me today, that at a time when Toshiba employees came into a
venture for which Toshiba owned 35 percent, this joint venture
decided to participate in a conspiracy?" Tigar asked.

Curran responded that a reasonable jury could not find Toshiba is
on the hook for the actions of another entity.

Turning to Hitachi's motion for partial summary judgment, class
attorney Samuel Randall said Hitachi's exit from the tube
manufacturing industry in March 2003 was part of an effort to
further the conspiracy.

"The fact that these five Hitachi entities did not continue to
manufacture tubes after 2003 was part of the conspiracy," Randall
said. "The other members commented that Hitachi's exit made the
conspiracy more concentrated and more effective."

Randall cited Hitachi's selling of manufacturing equipment to a
co-conspirator as evidence of its continued role and ability to
benefit from the scheme.

Randall said Hitachi also profited from its ownership share in the
company Hitachi Shenzen Color Display Devices, which manufactured
and sold price-fixed tubes after 2003.

Hitachi attorney Cathleen Hartge echoed the arguments of her
fellow defendants' attorneys, saying that ownership share in a
company does make it legally responsible for a company's
misconduct.

"The Supreme Court has held mere shareholder status cannot make a
company liable for the actions of a company," Hartge told Tigar.
"The withdrawal standard and fundamental concept of corporate
separateness make it a matter of law."

Hartge insisted that Hitachi met the standard for withdrawal from
the antitrust scheme by taking "affirmative acts inconsistent with
the object of the conspiracy" when it stopped selling tubes and
divested its manufacturing assets.

She may be reached at:

     Cathleen H. Hartge, Esq.
     MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
     560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
     San Francisco, CA  94105
     Tel: (415) 512-4035
     E-mail: Cathleen.Hartge@mto.com

The defendants sought to dismiss Dell and Sharp Electronics as
plaintiffs, saying they could not sue for conduct that occurred
before November 2003, because they knew of the scheme back then
and failed to take action.

LG attorney Brad Brian cited to a deposition in which a Dell vice
president acknowledged twice under oath that he suspected price
fixing and collusion in the cathode ray tube industry.

"That is an admission that puts them on notice and obligates them
to conduct an investigation," Brian said. "Instead, they negotiate
to try to get a better deal."

Dell attorney Michael Kenny replied that after interviewing 10
Dell employees for more than 70 hours, including senior executives
from the procurement department, the depositions revealed that the
witnesses had no knowledge of the price fixing scheme.

Although a few witnesses said they had suspicions, Kenny said,
that does rise to the level of having facts or knowledge of an
illegal conspiracy.

He may be reached at:

     Michael P. Kenny, Esq.
     ALSTON & BIRD
     One Atlantic Center
     1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
     Atlanta, 30309-3424
     Tel: 404-881-7179
     E-mail: mike.kenny@alston.com

"One must possess facts in order to have inquiry," said Sharp
Electronics attorney Craig Benson. "Defendants must irrefutably
prove that diligent inquiry would have turned up facts that give
rise to the claim."

After more than two hours of debate, Tigar ended the hearing,
saying he would take the arguments under consideration.

The multidistrict antitrust litigation stretches back to November
2007, when direct and indirect buyers accused a cadre of global
electronics giants of conspiring to fix prices in the $19 billion
cathode ray tube industry for a dozen years at the turn of the
21st century.

In January, Tigar approved $38 million in attorneys' fees -- 30
percent of a $127 million settlement -- for direct buyers of the
cathode ray tubes.

Defendant companies have settled claims against them for varying
amounts: Chunghwa and Philips for $10 million and $15 million,
respectively; Panasonic for $17.5 million; LG for $25 million;
Toshiba for $13.5 million; and Hitachi and Samsung SDI for $13.5
million and $33 million respectively.

The case captioned, In re:  CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 07-5944-SC (N.D. Cal.).  The individual cases
are:

   Electrograph Sys., Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd.   No. 11-cv-01656
   Electrograph Sys., Inc. v. Technicolor SA  No. 13-cv-05724
   Siegel v. Hitachi, Ltd.                    No. 11-cv-05502
   Siegel v. Technicolor SA                   No. 13-cv-05261

Attorneys for Philips Electronics North America Corporation,
Philips Taiwan Limited, and Philips do Brasil Ltda. are:

     Jon V. Swenson, Esq.
     BAKER BOTTS LLP
     620 Hansen Way
     Palo Alto, CA 94304
     Telephone: (650) 739-7500
     Facsimile: (650) 739-7699
     Email: jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com

          - and -

     John M. Taladay, Esq.
     Joseph Ostoyich, Esq.
     Erik T. Koons, Esq.
     Charles M. Malaise, Esq.
     BAKER BOTTS LLP
     1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
     Washington, DC 20004-2400
     Telephone: (202) 639-7700
     Facsimile: (202) 639-7890
     Email: john.taladay@bakerbotts.com
            joseph.ostoyich@bakerbotts.com
            erik.koons@bakerbotts.com
            charles.malaise@bakerbotts.com


MEAL SYSTEMS: "Gallion" Suit Seeks Injunctive Relief Under TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Gallion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Meal Systems, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00036 (C.D. Cal., January 6, 2016), seeks to recover
damages and injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Meal Systems is located at Fort Worth, TX. This business
specializes in Restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Dr. #725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Lucas-Salerno Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit by David Lucas and Eric Salerno, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31,
2015.

On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of
themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed
a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S.
District Court for Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB
JLB).  The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A.
Bank violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price
advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions.  The
Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as
a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory
damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust
enrichment, costs and attorney fees.

"We intend to vigorously defend the case," the Company said.

The case is, David M. Lucas, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jos. A. Bank
Clothiers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB (S.D.
Cal.); and on August 6, 2015, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt
granted the Plaintiffs' motion to compel documents from Jos. A.
Bank.  A copy of that ruling is available at http://is.gd/awgX9e
from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel Frech, Esq.
     Stuart Edward Scott, Esq.
     SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER, LLP
     1001 Lakeside Ave, Suite 1700
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Tel: 877-696-3303
     Fax: 216-696-3924
     E-mail: DFRECH@SPANGLAW.COM
             SSCOTT@SPANGLAW.COM

          - and -

     Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
     Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq.
     Tycko and Zavareei LLP
     1828 L Street, NW - Suite 1000
     Washington, DC  20036
     Tel: (202) 973-0900
     E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
             jkaliel@tzlegal.com

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., is represented in the case by:

     E. Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
     James F Speyer, Esq.
     Arnold and Porter LLP
     44th Floor
     777 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA  90017-5844
     Tel: 213-243-4059
     Fax: 213-243-4199
     E-mail: Alex.Beroukhim@aporter.com
             James.Speyer@aporter.com


META FINANCIAL: MetaBank(R) Defending 4 Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that its subsidiary,
MetaBank(R), has been named as a defendant, along with other
defendants, in four class action litigations commenced in three
different federal district courts between October 23, 2015 and
November 5, 2015:

     (1) Fuentes, et al. v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case
         No. 1:15-cv-08372);

     (2) Huff et al. v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Cal. Case No.
         2:15-cv-02253-KJM-CMK);

     (3) Peterkin v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No.
         1:15-cv-08573); and

     (4) Jones v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Pa. Case No.
         5:15-cv-05996-JLS).

The complaints in each of these actions seek monetary damages for
the alleged inability of customers of the prepaid card product
RushCard to access the product for up to two weeks starting on or
about October 12, 2015. The plaintiffs allege claims for breach of
contract, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment,
conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty and violations of various
state consumer protection statutes prohibiting unfair or deceptive
acts or trade/business practices. Due to the recent filing of the
complaints, the Company is evaluating the cases and has not yet
filed an answer.

In addition, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC")
and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "Bureau" or
"CFPB") are examining the events surrounding the allegations with
respect to the Company and the other defendants, respectively. The
OCC has broad supervisory powers with respect to the Bank and
could seek to initiate supervisory action if it believes such
action is warranted.

"Because these cases were recently filed and are in their early
stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may
arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this
point," the Company said.  "Based on information available to us
at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential
loss, if any, for these actions because, among other things, our
potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and,
if so, the composition and size of any such class, as well as on
an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to
be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability
associated with these actions."


MIAMI, FL: Faces S&S National Suit over Solid Waste Mgmt Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&S National Waste, Plaintiff(s), v. City of Miami, Defendant(s),
Case No. 35607219 (Fla. Cir., December 16, 2015), seeks temporary
injunction against the Defendant, temporary and permanent
injunction, attorneys' fees and costs and other further relief in
violation of Procedural Due Process, breach of contract.

Plaintiff is into solid waste management and collects recyclable
refuse. It asserts that the City of the Miami set up their own
solid waste management facilities, in competition with Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harry Winderman, Esq.
      One Boca Place, Suite 2187A
      Boca Raton, Florida 33431
      Tel: (561) 241-0332
      Fax: (561) 241-5266
      Email: Harry4334@hotmail.com
             LynoraMae@gmail.com


MID-AMERICA BUILDING: Faces "Luz" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUZ on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown v. MID-AMERICA BUILDING MAINTENANCE,
CO., and BLAKE BERISH, Case: 1:15-cv-11605 (N.D.Ill., December 23,
2015), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, for Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime
wages to Plaintiff in violation of the FLSA and the IMWL.

MidAmerica Building Services has provided commercial, educational
and industrial cleaning services for clients in Wisconsin,
Illinois and Indiana for over 40 years.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
     Alvar Ayala, Esq.
     WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 701
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 795-9121


NATURAL GROCERS: "Engl" Data Breach Case Proceeds to Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado District Court issued a series of rulings that will
govern discovery in the case, BERNHARD ENGL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATURAL
GROCERS BY VITAMIN COTTAGE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC., a Colorado
corporation, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02129-MSK-NYW
(D. Colo.).

On Feb. 1, 2016, Magistarte Judge Nina Y. Wang gave her stamp of
approval on a Stipulated Protective Order that will govern the
exchange of discovery materials, including the designation of
confidential information, between the parties.

Among other things, the Stipulation provides that "All materials
produced or adduced in the course of discovery, including but not
limited to, initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests,
responses to subpoenas, deposition testimony and exhibits, and
information derived directly therefrom (hereinafter collectively
documents), shall be subject to this Order concerning Confidential
Information as that term is defined below. This Order is subject
to the Local Rules of this District and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on matters of procedure and calculation of time
periods."  A copy of the Stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/S4AXd9from Leagle.com.

Also on Feb. 1, Judge Wang signed off on a Stipulated Order
governing the discovery of electronically stored information.  A
copy of that Stipulated Order is available at http://is.gd/bAPVmr
from Leagle.com.

On Jan. 4, 2016, Judge Wang issued a recommendation to deny, as
moot, both the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint in Lieu of a Response
to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  A copy of that decision is
available at http://is.gd/JjLbB8from Leagle.com.

Two days later, on Jan. 6, Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger entered a
Trial Preparation Order that sets deadlines, imposes requirements
that supplement the Scheduling Order and the Civil Practice
Standards, and imposes requirements for trial.  A copy of that
Order is available at http://is.gd/331kCyfrom Leagle.com.

Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10,
2015, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that in the
case, Bernhard Engl v. Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, Inc.
and Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets, Inc., filed on September
25, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Company in
connection with a data security incident that affected the Company
during fiscal year 2015. The complaint purports to state an action
on behalf of a class of customers who used debit or credit cards
at the Company's stores.

"We believe the plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves in this proceeding. At this time, we
cannot predict: (i) whether the Court will certify plaintiff's
claims for class-wide treatment; (ii) how the Court will rule on
the merits of the plaintiff's claims; or (iii) the scope of the
potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome," the Company
said.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal in "Tanguilig" Case Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that an appeal in
the class action lawsuit by Bernadette Tanguilig remains pending
in California state appeals court.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated.

On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for the Company were
dismissed without prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was
dismissed by Ms. Monjazeb and refiled in the Superior Court of
California for San Francisco County.

This complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit
originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, sought monetary
and injunctive relief and alleged that the Company has engaged in
various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code, including without limitation, by (i) asking
employees to work "off the clock," (ii) failing to provide meal
and rest breaks to its employees, (iii) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and (iv)
failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during
shifts.

The Monjazeb and Tanguilig class actions were deemed "related"
cases and were then brought before the same trial court judge.

On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the
Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance
with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing
their ability to pursue a class action in court. However, the
court's order compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms.
Tanguilig because she is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement.  Further, the court determined that Ms. Tanguilig could
not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative
class action to those associates who were employed between
December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of our
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).

Following the court's order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed
demands for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) seeking to arbitrate not only their individual claims, but
also class claims, which the Company asserted violated the class
action waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. This led to
further proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the
arbitrations, and a decision by the trial court, on its own
motion, to reconsider its order compelling arbitration. The trial
court ultimately decided to vacate its order compelling
arbitration due to a recent California appellate court decision.
Following this ruling, the Company timely filed two separate
appeals, one with respect to Mr. Pinela and one with respect to
Ms. Monjazeb, with the California Court of Appeal, asserting that
the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change its earlier
determination of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

On June 29, 2015, after briefing and oral argument, the California
Court of Appeal issued its order affirming the trial court's
denial of the Company's motion to compel arbitration and awarding
Mr. Pinela his costs of appeal.

"On July 13, 2015, we filed our petition for rehearing with the
California Court of Appeal, which was denied on July 29, 2015,"
the Company said.  "On August 10, 2015, we filed our petition for
review with the California Supreme Court, and Mr. Pinela filed his
answer on August 31, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the California
Supreme Court denied our petition for review."

On October 6, 2015, the case was transferred back to the trial
court. On November 16, 2015, Mr. Pinela filed a motion to stay the
proceedings in the trial court until after the appellate court
resolves Ms. Tanguilig's appeal. On December 10, 2015, the hearing
on Mr. Pinela's motion to stay and a case management conference
were held, and the trial court judge issued an order granting the
motion and issuing a stay. The appeal with respect to Ms. Monjazeb
was dismissed since final approval of the class action settlement
had been granted.

                         Tanguilig Dispute

With respect to Ms. Tanguilig's case, the trial court decided to
set certain of her civil penalty claims for trial on April 1,
2014. In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's alleged
failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest breaks in
compliance with California law. On December 10, 2013, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, including
the civil penalty claims, based on her failure to bring her claims
to trial within five years as required by California law. After
several hearings, on February 28, 2014, the court dismissed all of
Ms. Tanguilig's claims in the case and vacated the April 1, 2014
trial date. The court awarded the Company its costs of suit in
connection with the defense of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, but denied
its request of an attorneys' fees award from Ms. Tanguilig.

Ms. Tanguilig filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of all
her claims, as well as a second notice of appeal from the award of
costs, both of which are pending before the California Court of
Appeal.

Should the California Court of Appeal reverse the trial court's
dismissal of all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, the litigation will
resume, and Ms. Tanguilig will seek class certification of the
claims asserted in her Third Amended Complaint. If this occurs,
the scope of her class claims will likely be reduced by the class
action settlement and release in the Monjazeb case; however, that
settlement does not cover claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for
alleged Labor Code violations from approximately December 19, 2003
to August 20, 2006 (the beginning of the settlement class period
in the Monjazeb case). Briefing on the appeals is complete, but no
date has been set for oral argument.

                     Settlement in Monjazeb Suit

In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a
mediation held on January 25, 2014, and the court granted final
approval of the settlement after the final approval hearing held
on September 18, 2014. Notwithstanding the settlement of the
Monjazeb class action, Ms. Tanguilig filed a motion on January 26,
2015 seeking to recover catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company.

A hearing was held on February 24, 2015, and the court issued an
order on February 25, 2015 allowing Ms. Tanguilig to proceed with
her motion to recover catalyst attorneys' fees related to the
Monjazeb settlement. On April 8, 2015, Ms. Tanguilig filed her
motion for catalyst attorneys' fees. A hearing on the motion was
held on July 23, 2015 and the motion was denied by the court on
July 28, 2015.

"Based upon the settlement agreement with respect to Ms.
Monjazeb's class action claims, we recorded our currently
estimable liabilities with respect to both Ms. Monjazeb's and Ms.
Tanguilig's employment class actions litigation claims in fiscal
year 2014, which amount was not material to our financial
condition or results of operations," the Company said. "With
respect to the Monjazeb matter, the settlement funds have been
paid by the Company and have been disbursed by the claims
administrator in accordance with the settlement. We will continue
to evaluate the Tanguilig matter, and our recorded reserve for
such matter, based on subsequent events, new information and
future circumstances."


NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal in "Rubenstein" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that an appeal
remains pending in a class action lawsuit filed by Linda
Rubenstein.

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the
Company's Last Call stores in California. Ms. Rubenstein alleges
that the Company has violated various California consumer
protection statutes by implementing a marketing and pricing
strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call stores in
California was originally offered for sale at full-line Neiman
Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is allegedly of
inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line stores. Ms.
Rubenstein also alleges that the Company lacks adequate
information to support its comparative pricing labels.

"On September 12, 2014, we removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. On October 17, 2014,
we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court
granted on December 12, 2014," the Company said. "In its order
dismissing the complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave
to file an amended complaint. Ms. Rubenstein filed her first
amended complaint on December 22, 2014."

"On January 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint, which the court granted on March 2, 2015. In
its order dismissing the first amended complaint, the court
granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file a second amended complaint,
which she filed on March 17, 2015. On April 6, 2015, we filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

"On May 12, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend,
and on June 9, 2015, Ms. Rubenstein filed a notice to appeal the
court's ruling. The appeal is pending and a briefing schedule was
recently set, with full briefing to be completed in February
2016."


NEIMAN MARCUS: Defending "Zaslav" Class Action in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC continues to defend a class action
lawsuit by Marney Zaslav, it said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015.

On February 2, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Bergdorf Goodman, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York, by Marney Zaslav. Ms. Zaslav
seeks monetary relief and alleges that she and other similarly
situated individuals were misclassified as interns exempt from
minimum wage requirements instead of as employees and, therefore,
were not provided with proper compensation under the New York
Labor Law. The Company is vigorously defending this matter.


NEIMAN MARCUS: "Remijas" Cyber-Attack Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC continues to defend a class action
lawsuit by Hilary Remijas related to a 2013 cyber-attack, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 14, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended October 31, 2015.

"Three class actions relating to a cyber-attack on our computer
systems in 2013 (the Cyber-Attack) were filed in January 2014 and
later voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs between February and
April 2014," the Company said.

The plaintiffs had alleged negligence and other claims in
connection with their purchases by payment cards and sought
monetary and injunctive relief. Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus
Group, LLC, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on January 13, 2014 but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 15, 2014, without
prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint.

Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on January 27,
2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 11,
2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint.

Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right to
re-file a complaint.

Three additional putative class actions relating to the Cyber-
Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs'
purchases by payment cards. Two of the cases, Katerina Chau v.
Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on March 14, 2014, and Michael
Shields v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on April 1,
2014, were voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice as to Chau and
without prejudice as to Shields. The third case, Hilary Remijas v.
The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was filed on March 12, 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was
filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne
Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident)
and asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes,
invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws. The
Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on July 2,
2014.

On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked
standing due to their failure to demonstrate an actionable injury.

On September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the district court's
order dismissing the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Oral argument was held on January 23, 2015. On July 20, 2015, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's
ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.  A copy of that decision is available at
http://is.gd/GnRqCNfrom Leagle.com.

On August 3, 2015, the Company filed a petition for rehearing en
banc. On September 17, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the Company's petition for rehearing.

The district court held a status conference on October 29, 2015
and set a supplemental briefing schedule on the remaining portion
of the Company's previously filed motion to dismiss that had not
been addressed by the court, and scheduled a status hearing for
December 15, 2015.

Andrew McClease v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on
December 30, 2014, alleging negligence and other claims in
connection with Mr. McClease's purchase by payment card. On March
9, 2015, the McClease case was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by stipulation of the parties.


NISSAN: Sued in Calif. over Air Bag Problems in Frontier Pickups
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that side air bags in 2011-12
Nissan Frontier pickups deploy without reason, endangering the
occupants, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


OCEAN POWER: Seeks Dismissal of 3rd Amended Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the
defendants are seeking dismissal of the third amended complaint in
the consolidated securities class action lawsuit.

The Company and its former Chief Executive Officer Charles
Dunleavy are defendants in consolidated securities class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey captioned In Re: Ocean Power Technologies,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799 (FLW) (LHG).
The consolidated actions are Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG; Chew, et al. v.
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815;
Konstantinidis v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-04015; and Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592.

On March 17, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Five More
Special Situation Fund Ltd. as the lead plaintiff. On May 18,
2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint.
The amended class action complaint alleges claims for violations
of sections 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for
violations of Sec.10(b) and Sec.20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 arising out of public statements relating to a now
terminated agreement between Victorian Wave Partners Pty. Ltd.
(VWP) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for the
development of a wave power station (the "VWP Project"). The
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On July 17, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
class action complaint.  Lead plaintiff filed a response to the
motion on August 31, 2015.

On October 9, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended class
action complaint which alleges claims for violations of sections
12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for violations
of Sec.10(b) and Sec.20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising out of public statements relating to the Company's
technology and a now terminated agreement between Victorian Wave
Partners Pty. Ltd. (VWP) and the Australian Renewable Energy
Agency (ARENA) for the development of a wave power station (the
"VWP Project").  The third amended class action complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  On November 5,
2015, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the third amended
class action complaint. The lead plaintiff has not yet responded
to the motion.


OOMA INC: Seeks Dismissal of California Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. is seeking dismissal of a class action lawsuit in
California, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015.

On August 13, 2015, Michelle Hernandez, Ashley Salina, John
Ramirez and Andre Rufus, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Talkatone,
LLC (the "TCPA Litigation"). The lawsuit alleges that the Company
and Talkatone, LLC sent unauthorized text messages to consumers on
behalf of the Company in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The complaint seeks class certification, statutory
damages of $500-$1,500 per violation, an injunction against
"wireless spam activities," and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's claims in the complaint
are without merit, responded by filing a motion to dismiss the
complaint on October 23, 2015, and will continue to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.


PDQ TRUCK: "Crepeau" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, Benefits
------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Crepeau, Perry Blanchard and Ernest M. Vigil, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PDQ
Truck, LLC and Robert Guyette, in his individual and corporate
capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-02750 (D. Colo., December
18, 2015), seeks damages in the amount of their unpaid
compensation, liquidated and penalty damages, injunctive,
declaratory or other equitable relief and reasonable attorney's
fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201,
et seq., Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7434, Colorado
Constitution, Art. XVIII, Sec. 15, Colorado Wage Act, Colo. Rev.
Stat. Sec. 8-4-101, et seq. and the Colorado Contract Law.

Thomas Crepeau, Perry Blanchard and Ernest M. Vigil were former
interstate truck drivers for the Defendant. Blanchard was also a
mechanic and safety manager. The Plaintiffs have allegedly been
paid sub-minimum wages, deprived of benefits including but not
limited to social security payments, worker's compensation
insurance, misclassified as contractors and subjected to illegal
deductions such as business expenses and truck maintenance.

PDQ is a Colorado corporation with a principal office at 50 S.
Kalamath St., Englewood, CO 80110 with Robert Guyette as the owner
and operator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Skye Resendes, Esq.
      William B. Richards, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Phone: (619) 696-9006
      Fax: (619) 564-6665
      Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
             skye@consumersadvocates.com
             bill@consumersadvocates.com


PETRO RIVER: Defending Against Donelson-Friend Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. is defending against a class action by
Martha Donelson and John Friend, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31,
2015.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action
complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v.
United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No.
14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding").  The plaintiffs added as
defendants 27 specifically named operators, including the Company,
as well as all Osage County lessees and operators who have
obtained a concession agreement, lease or drilling permit approved
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA")  in Osage County allegedly
in violation of National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BIA improperly
approved oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling
permits prior to August 12, 2014, without satisfying the BIA's
obligations under federal regulations or NEPA, and seek a
determination that such oil and gas leases, concession agreements
and drilling permits are void ab initio.  Plaintiffs are seeking
damages against the defendants for alleged nuisance, trespass,
negligence and unjust enrichment.

On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
motion to dismiss the Proceeding on various procedural and legal
arguments.  Plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to
dismiss on October 27, 2014.  Spyglass filed its reply brief on
November 10, 2014 and the plaintiffs have been granted leave until
November 19, 2014 to file a surreply to Splyglass's reply brief.
Once the briefing cycle is concluded on November 19, 2014, the
motion to dismiss becomes ripe for determination by the court.
Oral arguments may be ordered by the court.  There is no specific
timeline by which the court must render a ruling.


PIER 1: Kenney and Davie Cases in Process of Being Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Kenney and the
Davie class action cases are in the process of being consolidated
into a single action.

On August 28, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas - Dallas Division, captioned Kathleen Kenney, Plaintiff, v.
Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner,
Defendants (the "Kenney Case"), alleging violations under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The lawsuit was filed
on behalf of a purported putative class of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1 Imports, Inc. between
December 19, 2013 through February 10, 2015, and seeks to recover
damages purportedly caused by the Defendants' alleged violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages
plus interest and attorneys' fees.

A second related case, captioned Town of Davie Police Pension
Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and
Charles H. Turner, Defendants (the "Davie Case"), was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas -
Dallas Division on October 21, 2015 making similar allegations on
behalf of a purported putative class of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1 Imports, Inc. between December
19, 2013 and September 24, 2015. The complaint includes additional
allegations regarding asserted misstatements occurring during the
expanded class period and also seeks certification as a class
action, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees.

The Kenney Case and the Davie Case are in the process of being
consolidated into a single action. Although the ultimate outcome
of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company
believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to
defend against them vigorously.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal from Case Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that an appeal
from the dismissal of a securities-related class action lawsuit
remains pending.

"On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against us
and certain of our executive officers and one consultant
(collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of certain purchasers
of our common stock," the Company said. "The complaints have been
brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general,
include allegations that Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii)
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the interim results of our
bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially
inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

On February 5, 2013, the court consolidated the related actions
with the low-numbered case (captioned Anderson v. Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG (FMOx)).
After the court issued two separate orders granting the
Defendants' two separate motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the
court issued a third order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice.

On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
respect to the court's order granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss. Lead plaintiff's opening brief with respect to the appeal
was filed on December 15, 2014 and the Defendants' answering brief
was filed on January 30, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a reply brief
on February 27, 2015.

"We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the action," the Company said.

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


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces "Michaeli" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to face a
derivative/class action complaint captioned, Michaeli v. Steven W.
King, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015.

On October 10, 2013, a derivative/class action complaint,
captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL,
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against certain of the Company's executive officers and directors.

"The complaint alleges that our directors and executives breached
their respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain
purportedly improper compensation decisions made by our Board of
Directors during the past three fiscal years, including: (i) the
grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-
routine broad-based stock option grant to our directors,
executives, all other employees and certain consultants on
December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during the past three
fiscal years, of compensation to our non-employee directors," the
Company said. "In addition, the complaint alleges that our
directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and
seeking stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially
false and misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting
of stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking recession of a portion
of the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and the stock
options granted to the defendants on December 27, 2012, as well as
disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our non-
employee directors during the three fiscal years prior to the
filing of the complaint and other monetary relief for our
benefit."

The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on February 5,
2014.

"We believe that the derivative/class action complaint are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the action," the Company
said.


PHOENIX COMPANIES: MOU Reached in "White" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2015, that
the parties to a class action lawsuit by Thomas White have reached
a memorandum of understanding to resolve the dispute.

As disclosed in the company's definitive merger proxy statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
November 18, 2015 (as amended or supplemented from time to time,
the "proxy statement"), a putative class action lawsuit was filed
on October 26, 2015, by a purported stockholder of Phoenix in the
Superior Court of the State of Connecticut (the "Court")
challenging the transaction and alleging that the individual
members of the Board of Directors of Phoenix (the "Phoenix Board")
violated their fiduciary duties to the Phoenix stockholders and
that the defendant companies  --  Phoenix, Nassau, and Merger Sub
--  aided and abetted such alleged breaches.

On November 18, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the
action, which is styled Thomas White v. The Phoenix Companies,
Inc., et al., No. HHD-CV15 -- 6063180-S (the "Litigation"). The
amended complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining
the merger and, in the event the merger is completed, rescission
and/or damages as a result of the alleged violations of law, as
well as fees and costs.

Phoenix believes that the lawsuit is without merit and that no
further disclosure is required to supplement the proxy statement
under applicable laws; however, to eliminate the burden, expense
and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, and without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Phoenix has agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, to make
certain supplemental disclosures to the proxy statement. Nothing
in these supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of
the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of
the disclosures set forth herein.

On December 10, 2015, the parties to the Litigation (the "Settling
Parties") entered into the Memorandum of Understanding providing
for the settlement of the Litigation, subject to certain
confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs in the Litigation and
subject to the approval of the Court, among other things. The
defendants have vigorously denied, and continue vigorously to
deny, that they have committed any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the Litigation. The
Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the Settling
Parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims
which were or could have been asserted in the Litigation.

The parties to the Memorandum of Understanding will seek to enter
into a stipulation of settlement that will be presented to the
Court for final approval. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including approval by the Court,
which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of
the settlement. The stipulation of settlement will provide for,
among other things, the conditional certification of the
Litigation as a non opt-out class action. The stipulation of
settlement will provide for the release of any and all claims
arising from the merger, subject to approval by the Court. The
release will not become effective until the stipulation of
settlement is approved by the Court. In connection with the
settlement, subject to the ultimate determination of the Court,
counsel for plaintiff may receive an award of reasonable fees.
Neither this payment nor the settlement will affect the
consideration to be received by Phoenix stockholders in the merger
or the timing of the anticipated closing of the merger. There can
be no assurance that the Settling Parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve
the settlement even if the Settling Parties were to enter into the
stipulation. In such event, or if the merger is not consummated
for any reason, the proposed settlement will be null and void and
of no force and effect.


PRECISIONS HUMAN: "Zarro" Suit Alleges FLSA, Wage Law Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelina Zarro v. Precisions Human Resources Solutions, Case 2:15-
cv-06793-LDD (E.D.Pa., December 23, 2015), alleges that the
Defendant has improperly failed to pay the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Precision HR is a provider of comprehensive K-12 substitute
programs and staff outsourcing to public, charter and education
management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Murphy, Esq.
     MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
     Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803
     1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 267-273-1054
     Fax: 215-525-0210
     E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


PRICELINE GROUP: Still Involved in 40 Cases over Travel Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Priceline Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and
certain third-party OTCs are involved in approximately 40
lawsuits, including certified and putative class actions, brought
by or against U.S. states, cities and counties over issues
involving the payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel
occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.).

The Company's subsidiaries priceline.com LLC, Lowestfare.com LLC
and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all of these cases.
Generally, the complaints allege, among other things, that the
OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant travel
transaction tax ordinance with respect to the charge and
remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law.  The
complaints typically seek compensatory damages, disgorgement,
penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

In addition, approximately seventy-nine municipalities or
counties, and at least eleven states, have initiated audit
proceedings (including proceedings initiated by more than forty
municipalities in California, which have been inactive for several
years), issued proposed tax assessments or started inquiries
relating to the payment of travel transaction taxes.  Additional
state and local jurisdictions are likely to assert that the
Company is subject to travel transaction taxes and could seek to
collect such taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively.

With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company
believes that the laws at issue do not apply to the services it
provides, namely the facilitation of travel reservations, and,
therefore, that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be
owed.  Rather, the Company believes that the laws at issue
generally impose travel transaction taxes on entities that own,
operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or
provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations or other travel
services.  In addition, in many of these matters, the taxing
jurisdictions have asserted claims for "conversion" --
essentially, that the Company has collected a tax and wrongfully
"pocketed" those tax dollars -- a claim that the Company believes
is without basis and has vigorously contested.  The taxing
jurisdictions that are currently involved in litigation and other
proceedings with the Company, and that may be involved in future
proceedings, have asserted contrary positions and will likely
continue to do so.  From time to time, the Company has found it
expedient to settle, and may in the future agree to settle, claims
pending in these matters without conceding that the claims at
issue are meritorious or that the claimed taxes are in fact due to
be paid.

In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, the
Company may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts
may be substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the
assessments and the applicability of the laws in judicial
proceedings.  This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to
play" or "pay first."  For example, the City and County of San
Francisco assessed the Company approximately $3.4 million (an
amount that includes interest and penalties) relating to hotel
occupancy taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009, and issued a
second assessment totaling approximately $2.7 million, which the
Company paid in January 2013.  Payment of these amounts, if any,
is not an admission that the Company believes it is subject to
such taxes.  In the San Francisco action, for example, the court
ruled in February 2013 that the Company and OTCs do not owe
transient accommodations tax to the city and ordered the city to
refund the amount paid in July 2009; the Company also is seeking a
refund of the amount paid in January 2013. San Francisco has
appealed the court's ruling and has not refunded the amount paid
in July 2009 pending resolution of the appeal. The matter has been
stayed while the appeal in another case with the City of San Diego
is pending before the California Supreme Court.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse
developments in these pending or future cases and proceedings.
For example, in September 2012, the Superior Court in the District
of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the District and
against the OTCs ruling that tax is due on the OTCs' margin and
service fees, which the Company is appealing. As a result, the
Company increased its accrual for travel transaction taxes
(including estimated interest), with a corresponding charge to
cost of revenues, by approximately $4.8 million in September 2012
and by approximately $5.6 million in the three months ended March
31, 2013. Also, in July 2013, the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, ruled that the Company and the other OTCs are liable for
tax and other obligations under the Chicago Hotel Accommodations
Tax. In July 2014, the Company resolved all claims in this case
through settlement and the claims against the Company were
dismissed on September 3, 2014.

In addition, in October 2009, a jury in a San Antonio class action
found that the Company and the other OTCs that are defendants in
the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes of the local hotel
occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are, therefore, subject to
the requirements of those ordinances. The Company intends to
vigorously appeal the trial court's judgment when it becomes
final.

In a mixed decision, on March 17, 2015 the Hawaii Supreme Court
affirmed a ruling of the Tax Appeal Court for the State of Hawaii
holding that the Company and other OTCs are not liable for the
State's transient accommodations tax and upheld, in part, the Tax
Court's ruling that the OTCs, including the Company, are liable
for the State's general excise tax ("GET") on the margin and fee
retained by an OTC as compensation in a transaction. The Hawaii
Supreme Court reversed that portion of the Tax Court's decision
that had held that OTCs are liable for GET on the full amount the
OTC collects from the customer for a hotel room reservation, not
just margin and fee, without any offset for amounts passed through
to the hotel. The Company had recorded an accrual for travel
transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties),
with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, of approximately
$16.5 million in December 2012 and approximately $18.7 million in
the three months ended March 31, 2013, primarily related to the
Tax Court ruling. Also, during the year ended December 31, 2014
and three months ended March 31, 2015, the Company had paid
approximately $2.2 million and $0.6 million, respectively, to the
State of Hawaii related to the Tax Court ruling.

The March 2015 ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court significantly
reduced the Company's (and other OTCs') liability under the GET
statute since GET tax is now owed only on the Company's margin and
fee, not the gross amount charged to a customer in a transaction.
As a result, the Company reduced its accrual for travel
transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties) by
$16.4 million with a corresponding reduction to cost of revenues.
In addition, the Company will seek a refund of approximately $20
million paid to date in excess of its actual liability. The
Company will record a reduction in cost of revenues for the taxes
refunded by the State of Hawaii in the periods in which the cash
refunds are received.

An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation may
encourage the commencement of additional litigation, audit
proceedings or other regulatory inquiries and also could result in
substantial liabilities for past and/or future bookings,
including, among other things, interest, penalties, punitive
damages and/or attorney fees and costs.  There have been, and will
continue to be, substantial ongoing costs, which may include "pay
first" payments, associated with defending the Company's position
in pending and any future cases or proceedings.  An adverse
outcome in one or more of these unresolved proceedings could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's business and could be
material to the Company's results of operations or cash flow in
any given operating period. However, the Company believes that
even if it were to suffer adverse determinations in the near term
in more of the pending proceedings than currently anticipated,
given results to date it would not have a material impact on the
Company's liquidity because of the Company's available cash.

To the extent that any tax authority succeeds in asserting that
the Company's services are subject to travel transaction taxes and
that the Company has a tax collection responsibility for those
taxes, or the Company determines that it has such a
responsibility, with respect to future transactions, the Company
may collect any such additional tax obligation from its customers,
which would have the effect of increasing the cost of travel
reservations to its customers and, consequently, could make the
Company's travel reservation services less competitive (as
compared to the services of other OTCs or travel service
providers) and reduce the Company's travel reservation
transactions; alternatively, the Company could choose to reduce
the compensation for its services.  Either action could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business and results of
operations.

In many of the judicial and other proceedings initiated to date,
the taxing jurisdictions seek not only historical taxes that are
claimed to be owed on the Company's gross profit, but also, among
other things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or
attorney fees and costs.  Therefore, any liability associated with
travel transaction tax matters is not constrained to the Company's
liability for tax owed on its historical gross profit, but may
also include, among other things, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees.  To date, the majority of the taxing
jurisdictions in which the Company facilitates hotel reservations
have not asserted that these taxes are due and payable.  With
respect to taxing jurisdictions that have not initiated
proceedings to date, it is possible that they will do so in the
future or that they will seek to amend their tax statutes and seek
to collect taxes from the Company only on a prospective basis.


PROFESSIONAL RODEO: Dallas Judge Rejects Injunction Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that a
federal judge in Dallas ruled that the Professional Rodeo Cowboys
Association can prohibit members of a breakaway group from
competing in PRCA events, but refused to dismiss the Elite Rodeo
Association's antitrust lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn on Feb. 4 denied the Elite Rodeo
Association's request for a preliminary injunction.

The newly formed ERA and star rodeo athletes Trevor Bazile, Bobby
Mote and Ryan Motes filed an antitrust class action in November
last year after the PRCA enacted bylaws banning ERA cowboys and
owners from PRCA-sanctioned rodeos.

The ERA cowboys claimed the PRCA was "bullying its own membership"
by locking them out of PRCA rodeos if they compete in ERA-
sanctioned events.

Organized similarly to the breakaway Professional Bull Riders
organization, the ERA features top rodeo athletes in several
events. It plans to hold its first season this year with national
broadcasts of its nine events on Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2
cable channels. ERA plans to hold a final World Championship Rodeo
at the American Airlines Center in downtown Dallas in November.

Judge Lynn disagreed with the argument that cowboys who do not
compete in PRCA rodeos will be unable to make a living as rodeo
athletes.

"The court concludes that plaintiffs have not made a clear showing
that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary
injunction, nor that they are likely to succeed on the merits
their claims," Lynn wrote.

"The evidence shows that ERA members are projected to be able to
earn as much through ERA rodeos as they previously earned through
the PRCA. For example, plaintiffs presented evidence regarding
Bobby Mote's net earnings. He testified that his net earnings in
2015 were $30,000: approximately $100,000 earned at forty-eight
regular season rodeos, and $40,000 at the NFR [National Finals
Rodeo], offset by $110,000 in costs for medical expenses, travel,
entry fees, and the like. For the ERA's 2016 regular season
events, the evidence was that a very successful ERA competitor
could earn approximately $80,000 at regular season ERA events, and
an additional $3 million will be awarded at the World
Championship."

Lynn found that ERA's business model reduced an athlete's expenses
by eliminating costly entry fees, reducing the number of rodeos,
and reducing travel costs that can exceed $50,000 a year.

"An ERA member could thus potentially accrue gross earnings of
$80,000 in eight trips, instead of $100,000 in forty-eight," the
opinion states.

The ruling negates a Jan. 7 opinion in which Lynn halted
enforcement of the bylaws for six weeks as she studied the
lawsuit.

The PRCA said in a statement Feb. 5, that the "bylaws at issue
will be immediately enforced."

The announcement was followed by the withdrawal of several ERA
members from competition at the Fort Worth rodeo.

ERA president and CEO Tony Garritano said the group will press on
with its debut season.

"The ERA will continue to present the best collection of
professional rodeo athletes during its inaugural 2016 season --
starting with the first ERA rodeo next month in Redmond, Oregon,"
he said in a statement.

Although Lynn refused to halt enforcement of the bylaws, she
denied the PRCA's motion for summary judgment to end the lawsuit.

She found the plaintiffs have "sufficiently and plausibly pled"
the existence of monopoly power: "(P)laintiffs have pled
sufficient facts to raise their prospects for relief above a
speculative level." she wrote.

Total purses from PRCA events averaged $39.2 million a year from
2009 to 2012, according to the 2012 PRCA Annual Report.

The case is captioned, THE ELITE RODEO ASSOCIATION d/b/a ELITE
RODEO ATHLETES, TREVOR BRAZILE, BOBBY MOTE, AND RYAN MOTES,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. PROFESSIONAL RODEO COWBOYS
ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant. No. 3:15-cv-03609-M (N.D. Tex.).


RELIANCE TRUST: Faces Suit for Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONDA A. PLEDGER, SANDRA BRITT, JENNIFER L. PRIMM, AND ALEX
BROOKS, JR., individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons of the Insperity 401(k) Plan, v.
RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY, INSPERITY, INC., INSPERITY HOLDINGS, INC.,
INSPERITY RETIREMENT SERVICES, L.P., INSPERITY RETIREMENT PLAN
COMMITTEE, AND JOHN DOES 1-20, Case 1:15-cv-04444-MHC (N.D.Ga.,
December 22, 2015), was brought for alleged breach of fiduciary
duties by Defendants.

Reliance Trust Company is a domestic bank organized under Georgia
law with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bradley S. Wolff, Esq.
     SWIFT, CURRIE, MCGHEE, & HIERS, LLP
     1355 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 300
     Atlanta, GA 30309-3231
     Phone: (404) 874-8800
     Fax: (404) 888-6199
     E-mail: brad.wolff@swiftcurrie.com

        - and -

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
     Troy A. Doles, Esq.
     Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
     Heather Lea, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
     100 South Fourth Street
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     Fax: (314) 621-7151


RITE AID: 9 Class Actions Filed Challenging Merger
--------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended November 28, 2015, that as of November 30,
2015, the Company was aware of eight (8) putative class action
lawsuits (the "Complaints") that were filed by purported Company
stockholders, against the Company, its directors, Walgreens Boots
Alliance, Inc. ("WBA") and Victoria Merger Sub Inc., ("Victoria")
challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger agreement
between the Company and WBA.  Seven (7) of these actions were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Smukler
v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Hirschler v. Standley, et al., Catelli
v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Orr v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., DePietro
v. Standley, et al., Abadi v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Mortman v.
Rite Aid Corp., et al.).

One (1) action was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common
Pleas of Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.).
The Complaints allege primarily that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing
to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal
protection devices that allegedly prevent the directors from
obtaining higher offers from other interested buyers for the
Company and allegedly failing to protect against certain purported
conflicts of interest in connection with the Merger.  The
Complaints further allege that the Company, WBA and/or Victoria
aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
Complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the closing of the
Merger as well as money damages and attorneys' and experts' fees.

On December 4, 2015, following the filing of the preliminary proxy
statement related to the proposed transaction with WBA (and after
the close of the quarter), a ninth complaint was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported Company
stockholders, Sachs Investment Group, Maurice Cohen and Steven
Krol (Sachs Investment Grp., et al. v. Standley, et al.), against
the Company's directors, WBA and Victoria challenging the
transactions contemplated by the Merger agreement between the
Company and WBA (the Sachs Complaint).  The Sachs Complaint
asserts claims similar to those alleged in the eight (8) earlier-
filed Complaints and also includes allegations that the
preliminary proxy statement contains material omissions, including
with respect to the process that resulted in the Merger agreement
and the fairness opinion rendered by the Company's banker.  The
Sachs Complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the closing
of the Merger, as well as money damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees.

Plaintiffs in the Sachs action also filed a motion for expedited
proceedings on December 4, 2015, and on December 7, 2015, they
filed a motion to consolidate the eight (8) actions filed in
Delaware and to appoint co-lead counsel.

On December 22, 2015, the plaintiffs in each of the eight (8)
cases then-pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery filed a joint
Stipulation and Proposed Order Consolidating the Related Actions
and Appointing Co-Lead Counsel and Delaware Counsel, which the
Court so ordered on December 23, 2015 (the "Consolidation Order").
The Consolidation Order designates the Sachs Complaint as the
operative pleading in the consolidated action, captioned In re
Rite Aid Corporation Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
11663-CB. On December 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed an amended motion for expedited proceedings and a
motion for preliminary injunction.


RITE AID: Faces Class Action by Jerry Herring in M.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended November 28, 2015, that on December 18,
2015 (after the close of the quarter), Jerry Herring, a purported
Rite Aid stockholder, filed a Direct Shareholder Class Action
Complaint for Violations of the Exchange Act with a demand for a
jury trial (the Herring Complaint), against Rite Aid, the
Individual Defendants, WBA and Merger Sub in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The
Herring Complaint alleges a claim for violations of Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants, and
a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the Individual Defendants and WBA. The Herring Complaint
alleges, among other things, that Rite Aid and its Board of
Directors disseminated an allegedly false and materially
misleading proxy. The Herring Complaint seeks to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the
proxy was materially false and misleading in violation of federal
securities laws, and an award of money damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees.


RITE AID: Still Defending Wage Actions in California
----------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended November 28, 2015, that the Company is
currently a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits
filed in state Courts in California alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining
primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed meals and
rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure
to provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). These suits
purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. The
Company has aggressively challenged both the merits of the
lawsuits and the allegations that the cases should be certified as
class or representative actions.


RUBEN VARELA: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Aurely Jannett Gutierrez Reyes and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, v. Ruben Varela, Vanesa
Garrido, Defendants, Case No. Case 1:15-cv-24644-MGC (S.D.Fla.,
December 17, 2015), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney
fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a domestic live-in housekeeper
at Defendants' residence. She received $3.85/hour as compared to
the mandated federal minimum wage of $6.55/hour.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, Florida 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


SAFARI CAYMAN: Lead Plaintiffs, Counsel Named in Merger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Safari Cayman L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended November 1, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California has
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the federal action
relating to the acquisition of Broadcom Corporation.

Safari Cayman L.P. is an exempted limited partnership formed under
the laws of the Cayman Islands pursuant to an Exempted Limited
Partnership Agreement (the "Initial Partnership Agreement") dated
May 26, 2015 by and between Pavonia Limited, a limited company
incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Singapore, as the
Partnership's general partner ("Holdco" or our "General Partner"),
and Antelope Cayman CLP Limited, an exempted company incorporated
under the laws of the Cayman Islands and a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Holdco (the Partnership's "Initial Limited Partner").

As of November 1, 2015, the Partnership has no operations and no
material assets or liabilities. "We have not carried on any
activities other than those incidental to the Partnership's
formation and the matters contemplated by the Merger Agreement. We
have no partnership units authorized and outstanding as of such
date," the Partnership said.

"We were formed in order to effect a proposed business combination
between Avago Technologies Limited, a limited company incorporated
under the laws of the Republic of Singapore ("Avago") and Broadcom
Corporation, a California corporation ("Broadcom"), pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of May 28, 2015, by and
among the Partnership, Holdco, our Initial Limited Partner, Avago,
Broadcom and certain other parties named therein (as amended, the
"Merger Agreement")."

Since the announcement of the Transactions, 11 putative class
action complaints have been filed by and purportedly on behalf of
alleged Broadcom shareholders. Two putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned: Wytas, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00979, filed on June 18, 2015;
and Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01303,
filed on August 15, 2015 (the "Federal Actions"). On September 2,
2015, plaintiffs in the Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al. matter
filed an amended complaint adding claims under the U.S. federal
securities laws.

One putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned
Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353, filed June
2, 2015. Eight putative class action complaints were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange,
captioned: Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00790689-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom Corp.,
et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015;
N.J. Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al.,
Case No. 30-2015-00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed
June 4, 2015; Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00791762-CU-BT-CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June
15, 2015; Seafarers' Pension Plan v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00794492-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 19, 2015; and Engel v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed
on July 2, 2015 (together with Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., the
"State Actions").

The Federal Actions and State Actions name as defendants, among
other parties, Broadcom, members of Broadcom's board of directors
and Safari Cayman L.P., and allege, among other things, that the
board of directors of Broadcom breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Merger Agreement and that Safari Cayman L.P. aided
and abetted the Broadcom directors in the alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
injunctive relief to prevent the Transactions from closing.
Additionally, the Federal Actions allege violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9.
On August 14, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, issued an order coordinating and consolidating
the State Actions, captioned Broadcom Shareholder Cases, JCCP
4834. On September 4, 2015, Broadcom, members of Broadcom's board
of directors and Safari Cayman L.P. filed a motion to stay the
State Actions. On September 18, 2015, the United States District
Court for the Central District of California consolidated the
Federal Actions under the caption In re Broadcom Corporation
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00979-JVS-PJW. On
September 25, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, stayed the State Actions pending the outcome of
the Federal Actions. On October 28, 2015, Broadcom supplemented
its disclosures, and filed additional proxy materials with the
SEC. On November 10, 2015, Broadcom shareholders voted to approve
the Transactions.

On November 16, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel in the Federal Action.


SANTA FE NATURAL: Sued Over "Natural" American Spirit Cigarettes
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEYHAN HAKSAL, MICHAEL ROBINSON, HARRY VARTANYAN, MICHAEL YANG,
DOUG PYLE, and NICK VADIS, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SANTA FE NATURAL
TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., a New Mexico Corporation; REYNOLDS AMERICAN
INC., Case 1:15-cv-01163 (D.N.Mex., December 22, 2015), is a
nationwide consumer class action brought on behalf of all persons
in the United States who were allegedly deceived by Defendants'
actions in packaging and marketing Natural American Spirit
cigarettes.

Defendant SFNTC manufactures and markets Natural American Spirit
cigarettes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006

        - and -

     John C. Bienvenu, Esq.
     Mark H. Donatelli, Esq.
     ROTHSTEIN, DONATELLI, HUGHES, DAHLSTROM, SCHOENBURG &
     BIENVENU, LLP
     Post Office Box 8180
     1215 Paseo de Peralta
     Santa Fe, NM 87501
     Phone: (505) 988-8004


SEMPRA ENERGY: 25 Complaints Filed Related to Aliso Canyon Leak
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy and Southern California Gas Company said in a Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 7, 2016, that 25 complaints have been filed against the
Company related to a leak.

On October 23, 2015, the Company discovered a leak at one of its
injection and withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility, located in the northern part of the San
Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon facility,
which has been operated by the Company since 1972, is situated in
the Santa Susana Mountains. SS25 is more than one mile away and
1,200 feet above the closest homes. It is one of more than 100
injection and withdrawal wells at the storage facility. The leak
is currently not impacting the Company's natural gas service
levels.

As of the date of the Form 8-K filing, 25 complaints have been
filed against the Company, some of which have also named Sempra
Energy, asserting causes of action for negligence, nuisance, and
trespass, among other things, and additional litigation may be
filed against the Company in the future related to this incident.
Many of these complaints seek class action status, compensatory
and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The Los Angeles City
Attorney has also filed a complaint against the Company for public
nuisance and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.
That complaint seeks an order to abate the public nuisance and
impose civil penalties. All of these complaints are currently
being reviewed by the Company and outside legal counsel. The cost
of defending the lawsuits, and any damages, if awarded, could be
significant.


SOUTHERNCARE INC: "McKenzie" Suit Seeks Damages, Backpay, OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Mckenzie, Individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated Plaintiff v. Southerncare, Inc., Curo Health
Services, LLC, and Ruth Button, Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-01136
(W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division, December 20, 2015), seeks actual
damages, owed wages, monthly benefit differential loss, lost
benefits, mental anguish damages and other compensatory,
liquidated and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees under Section 216 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq.

McKenzie worked as a nurse case manager and then as a clinical
liaison. He claims to have been paid a flat salary with no
overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours.

SouthernCare, Inc. is a domestic corporation located in San
Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Curo Health Services, LLC is a
domestic corporation located in Mooresville, Iredell County, North
Carolina. Southern Care is hospice provider affiliated with Curo
Health Services. Ruth Button is the Plaintiff's superior. McKenzie
reported that Button was allegedly certifying unqualified patients
for hospice care and forging doctors' signatures when certifying
these patients. Plaintiff claims that this resulted in his
eventual termination thus in violation of the Fair Claims Act 31
U.S.C. Sec. 3730(h), Anti-Retaliation Provision.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
      906 Basse, Suite 100
      San Antonio, TX 78212
      Tel: (210) 822-5666
      Fax: (210) 822-5650


STAR OF AMERICA: "Haverkamp" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages, OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trent Haverkamp, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Star of America, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00004-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., New Albany Division,
January 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated
damages, costs of suit, minimum wage and overtime pay, and further
relief as may be necessary and appropriate, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Star of America is a full service charter motor coach company
serving the mid-west states of Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gibbons Jr., Esq.
          Christopher S. Wolcott, Esq.
          GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
          3091 East 98th Street, Suite 280
          Indianapolis, IN 46280
          Telephone: (317) 706 1100
          Facsimile: (317) 623 8503
          E-mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com
                  chris@gibbongslegalgroup.com


STRAIGHT PATH: Faces "Zacharia" Securities Class Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Straight Path Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10,
2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a
complaint for a putative shareholder class action was filed on
November 13, 2015, in the federal district court for the District
of New Jersey against Straight Path Communications Inc. (the
"Company"), Davidi Jonas, and Jonathan Rand (the "individual
defendants"). The named plaintiff is Darlan Zacharia, and the
action is purportedly brought on behalf of all those who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between October
29, 2013, and November 5, 2015.

The plaintiff requested that each of the three defendants waive
service, and the defendants have until January 15, 2016, to
respond to that request and to the complaint.

The complaint alleges violations of (i) Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against the Company for
materially false and misleading statements that were designed to
influence the market relating to Straight Path's finances and
business prospects; and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendants for wrongful acts by controlling
persons. The allegations center on the claim that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements in its public filings
and conference calls during the relevant class period concerning
the Company's spectrum licenses and the prospects for its spectrum
business. The complaint seeks certification of a class,
unspecified damages, fees and costs.

The Company is aware of press reports regarding the filing of
additional complaints for putative class actions revolving around
the same facts and circumstances, but the Company is not aware of
any other complaint that was filed or served.

The Company intends to vigorously defend these claims, and is in
the process of evaluating its strategy and potential exposure.


TARGA RESOURCES: "Greenthal" Files Suit Over Targa Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Greenthal, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rene R. Joyce, Michael A.
Heim, James W. Whalen, Joe Bob Perkins, Ruth I. Dreessen, Robert
B. Evans, Barry R. Pearl, and Targa Resources Partners L.P., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00041 (S.D. Tex., Houston Division,
January 6, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps
to consummate the proposed merger between Targa LP and Targa
Resources Corp. unless and until the material information is
disclosed to Targa LP's unitholders.

Targa Resources Partners acquires, owns, develops, and operates a
diversified portfolio of complementary midstream energy assets.
The Company is involved in the gathering, compressing, treating,
processing and selling natural gas and fractionating and selling
natural gas liquids, or NGLs, and NGL products. The Company is
based in Houston Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227 7720
          tbilek@bileklaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles Schreiner, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983 9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983 9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
                  mschreiner@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
          Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482 3182
          Facsimile: (302) 482 3612
          Email: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com


TAYLORMADE ELECTRIC: "Wilber", "Baker" Allege FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER WILBER and JOSEPH BAKER v. TAYLORMADE ELECTRIC, LLC,
Case: 3:15-cv-02675 (N.D.Ohio, December 23, 2015), seeks money
damages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other
relief as a result of Defendant's alleged failure to pay wages and
overtime compensation due to Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated individuals in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
as well as the applicable wage and hour laws and regulations set
forth in the Ohio Revised Code.

TaylorMade Electric LLC provides residential electrician service
in Toledo, Ohio.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kera L. Paoff, Esq.
     WIDMAN & FRANKLIN, LLC
     405 Madison Avenue, Suite 1550
     Toledo, OH 43604
     Phone: (419)243-9005
     Fax: (419)243-9404


TENARIS GLOBAL: "Terrel" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
TERRY TERRELL, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TENARIS GLOBAL SERVICES (U.S.A.)
CORPORATION, Case No. Case 2:15-cv-01668-CRE (W.D. Penn., December
17, 2015), seeks back pay damages including unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid spread of hours payments, and unpaid wages,
prejudgment interest, injunctive relief, liquidated damages,
litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of
1968.

Terry Terrell was employed as a Field Service Specialist with
Tenaris, performing manual labor on oil and gas rigs between
approximately 2006 and July 2015. He worked for Tenaris in
Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota Texas, and Wyoming. He claims to be paid a fixed
salary per week, regardless of overtime services.

Tenaris Global Services (U.S.A.) Corporation is incorporated in
Delaware. It is a supplier of tubes and related services for the
energy industry. Tenaris maintains an office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERDE ENERGY: "Bunnel" Suit Hits Automated Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Candace Bunnell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-30220 (D. Mass., December
20, 2015), seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, statutory
and treble damages and attorneys' fees and costs in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq.

Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a Connecticut business located at 101
Merritt Seven Corporate Park, Second Floor, Norwalk, Connecticut
06851. It is in the business of energy speculation and energy
sales. It aggressively acquires energy rights and aggressively
markets energy sales to consumers, including through phone calls.

Verde allegedly contacted Plaintiff using an automated telephone
dialer without prior express consent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
      43 Danbury Road
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Tel: (203) 653-2250
      Fax: (203) 653-3424


VIKING CLIENT: Faces "Jun" Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH E. JUN v. VIKING CLIENT SERVICES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1
to 10, Case 2:15-cv-08821-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., December 22, 2015), was
brought for damages arising from Defendant's alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Viking Client Services, Inc. is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
     KIM LAW FIRM LLC
     411 Hackensack Avenue 2nd Floor
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone and Fax: (201) 273-7117
     E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


VISTA COVE: Faces "Ferman" Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maribel Ferman, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees of Vista Cove Of
San Gabriel, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Vista Cove of San Gabriel, Inc.
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC604364
(Cal. Super., December 16, 2015), seeks compensatory damages,
including without limitation special, general, incidental,
consequential and nominal damages, restitution and/or
disgorgement, statutory penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees
resulting from violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

Vista Cove is corporation organized under the laws of the State of
California. Ferman was employed as a medtech or caregiver. She
alleges that the Defendant did not provide meal and rest periods
as prescribed by California law. She also alleges that the
Defendant provided inaccurate wage statements. Defendant
terminated Ferman and has not paid all the wages and monies owed
to her.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
      Douglas W. Perlman, Esq.
      RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
      22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
      Torrance, California 90505
      Tel: (310) 961-9600
      Fax: (310)961-9094
      Email: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
             douglas@rastegarlawgroup.com


WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement Order Under Appeal by Class Member
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that a purported
class member who had objected to a class action settlement, has
taken an appeal from the court order approving the deal.

On December 5 and 12, 2014, putative shareholders filed class
actions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against the Walgreens Board of Directors, Walgreen Co., and
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. arising out of the Company's
definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in
connection with the special meeting of Walgreens shareholders on
December 29, 2014. The actions asserted claims that the definitive
proxy statement/prospectus was false or misleading in various
respects.

On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions, pursuant to
which Walgreens made certain supplemental disclosures. The
proposed settlement was subject to, among other things, court
approval.

On July 8, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement,
and on November 20, 2015, the Court entered an order of final
approval of the settlement.

On December 17, 2015, a purported class member who had objected to
the settlement appealed the Court's order. The appeal was docketed
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
and is in an early stage.


WALGREENS BOOTS: To File Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that defendants
were slated to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss
a class action on February 5, 2016.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals.

On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff. Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2015. Lead plaintiff
filed a response to the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2015,
and defendants plan to file a reply in support of the motion on
February 5, 2016.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Defending Class Actions on Rite Aid Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that from
November 3, 2015 through December 18, 2015, about 10 putative
class action lawsuits were filed by purported Rite Aid
stockholders arising out of the Company's proposed acquisition of
Rite Aid. Eight of these lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery (the "Delaware actions"), one lawsuit was filed in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (the
"Pennsylvania action"), and one lawsuit was filed in a federal
district court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the
"federal court action").

The Delaware actions allege that the Rite Aid Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing
to an unfair and inadequate price, and agreeing to deal protection
devices that preclude other bidders from making successful
competing offers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose all
allegedly material information concerning the proposed merger. The
Delaware actions allege that the Company and Victoria Merger Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
The plaintiffs in the Delaware actions have jointly informed the
Delaware court that they have agreed to consolidate the actions
pending in that court. The lawsuits are at an early stage.

The Pennsylvania action alleges substantially similar allegations
and claims as the Delaware actions. This lawsuit is at an early
stage.

The federal court action alleges that Rite Aid's preliminary proxy
statement filed with the SEC in connection with the proposed Rite
Aid acquisition was false or misleading in various respects, and
that the Company acted as a controlling person with respect to
those alleged violations. This lawsuit is at an early stage.


WARNER MUSIC: Settles Suit over Happy Birthday Song for $14MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a legal battle over the copyright to the song "Happy Birthday to
You" has settled for $14 million, paving the way for a declaration
that the song is in the public domain.

The terms of the class action settlement and a motion for
preliminary approval of it were filed late Feb. 8.

U.S. District Judge George King ruled in Los Angeles, in September
that music publisher Warner/Chappell Music does not hold a valid
copyright interest in the song "Happy Birthday to You," and that
evidence suggests the song has been in the public domain since
1922.

During court proceedings, the music publisher admitted that it
charged film and television producers between five and six figures
to use the most recognizable song in the English language.

By some estimates, the value of "Happy Birthday to You" royalties
is $2 million a year.

The melody of the song was composed in the late 1800s by school
teacher Mildred Hill in Louisville, Ky. The song was a variation
on "Good Morning to All" with lyrics by her sister, Patty Hill.

In 2013, documentary filmmaker Jennifer Nelson filed a class
action complaint through her production company, claiming
Warner/Chappell had collected and continued to collect millions of
dollars in licensing fees even though authorship and ownership of
the song were in dispute.

Nelson was shocked when Warner/Chappell charged her $1,500 to
license the song for a documentary about the song's history and
origins.

According to the settlement, her company Good Morning to You
Productions will receive an incentive payment of $15,000 for
participating in litigation that stretched over three years.

Filmmaker Robert Siegel and singer and guitarist Rupa Marya will
receive incentive payments of $10,000 each.

In a court filing, attorneys for the plaintiffs noted that their
case was built around an extensive investigation into the song's
history and origins and included an analysis of U.S. Copyright
Office and the Library of Congress records, historical source
materials, old court filings, and news reports.

"If approved by the court, by declaring the song to be in the
public domain the settlement will end more than 80 years of
uncertainty regarding the disputed copyright," a notice for
preliminary approval of the settlement states.

The case captioned, GOOD MORNING TO YOU PRODUCTIONS CORP., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., et al., Defendants.
Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)(C.D. Cal.).

Interim Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the [Proposed] Class:

     Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
     Betsy C. Manifold, esq.
     Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
     Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
     Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     750 B Street, Suite 2770
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619/239-4599
     Facsimile: 619/234-4599
     E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
             manifold@whafh.com
             rickert@whafh.com
             livesay@whafh.com
             dejong@whafh.com


WARNER MUSIC: Mediation on Feb. 22 in Music Downloads Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that mediation has
been scheduled for February 22, 2016, in a class action lawsuit
related to the pricing of digital music downloads.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served
the Company with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking
information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music.
Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay
the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate
their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages.

On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including the Company. However, on
January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the
District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and
on January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants'
petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court.

On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion in
part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the
CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide
variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of
Internet download purchasers. Plaintiffs filed an operative
consolidated amended complaint on August 31, 2011.

The Company filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on
October 9, 2015.  Plaintiffs filed an amended Class Certification
brief on October 12, 2015. The Company's opposition to the amended
brief is due February 12, 2016, and Plaintiffs' reply in support
of the brief is due June 10, 2016.

The Company filed amended answers to the fourth amended complaint
on November 3, 2015. A mediation has been scheduled for February
22, 2016.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits.


WOODLAND DIAGNOSTIC: Sandusky Suit Alleges JFPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
SANDUSKY WELLNESS CENTER, LLC v. WOODLAND DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING,
LLC, ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE,
INC., ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case: 3:15-cv-
02673-JZ (N.D.Ohio, December 23, 2015), seeks relief expressly
authorized by the Junk Fax Prevention Act: (i) injunctive relief
enjoining Defendants, their employees, agents, representatives,
contractors, affiliates, and all persons and entities acting in
concert with them, from sending unsolicited advertisements in
violation of the JFPA; and (ii) an award of statutory damages in
the minimum amount of $500 for each violation of the JFPA, and to
have such damages trebled, as provided by the Act.

Woodland Diagnostic is a diagnostic and imaging facility center
located at 5005 Whipple Ave Nw Canton OH 44718.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
     Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Phone: 847-368-1500
     Fax: 847-368-1501


XEROX CORP: Call Center Employees Sue over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Xerox stiffed call-center
employees for overtime and paid them in part with "items of value"
which it deducted from their paychecks, whether they wanted the
items or not, a class action claims in Sacramento, Superior Court.


XURA INC: Parties Await Court Decision on Motion to Certify
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xura, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 28, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2015, that the parties in the so-called
Israeli Optionholder Class Action are awaiting for the Court's
decision on the Motion to Certify.

Comverse Technology, Inc. ("CTI") and certain of its former
subsidiaries, including Comverse Ltd. (a subsidiary of the
Company), were named as defendants in four potential class action
litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to recover
damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or breach of
contract due to previously-settled allegations regarding illegal
backdating of CTI options that allegedly prevented certain current
or former employees from exercising certain stock options. The
Company intends to vigorously defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The
Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees. By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases. On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the
plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a
class of plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action. The
defendants responded to this amended complaint on November 11,
2012, and the plaintiffs filed a further reply on December 20,
2012. A pre-trial hearing for the case was held on December 25,
2012, during which all parties agreed to attempt to settle the
dispute through mediation.

The mediation process ended without success. According to the
parties' consent to submit summations in the motion to certify the
claims as a class action (the "Motion to Certify"), including the
certification of the class of plaintiffs, the court held the
following dates for submission of summations: Summations on behalf
of the plaintiffs were submitted on August 31, 2014; Summations on
behalf of the defendants were submitted on November 20, 2014; and
summations of response by the plaintiffs were submitted on
December 30, 2014. On February 9, 2015, the Judge presiding over
the case recused herself due to a conflict of interests. On March
30, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to the Court seeking to
have the case assigned to a new presiding Judge and as a result on
April 4, 2015 a new presiding judge was assigned to the case. The
parties are now awaiting for the Court's decision on the Motion to
Certify.

Separately, on July 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an
order that CTI hold back $150 million in assets as a reserve to
satisfy any potential damage awards that may be awarded in this
case, but did not seek to enjoin the Share Distribution. On July
25, 2012, the court decided that it will not rule on the motion
until after it rules on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs. On August 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to appeal the court's decision to the Israeli Supreme Court
(the "Appeal") and on November 11, 2012, CTI responded to
plaintiff's motion.

On July 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to the Supreme
Court to withdraw the Appeal and accordingly the Appeal was
dismissed.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively. The Katriel
litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16, 2009,
against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case Number
4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint Systems Ltd.
The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and
both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court.
These cases have been consolidated with the Tel Aviv District
Court cases.
The Company has not accrued for these matters as the potential
loss is currently not probable or estimable.

An additional case has been filed by an individual plaintiff in
the Tel Aviv District Court similarly seeking to recover damages
up to an aggregate of $3.3 million allegedly incurred as a result
of the inability to exercise certain stock options. The case
generally alleged the same causes of actions alleged in the
potential class action. In December 2014, the District Court
assigned the case to the Labor Court. In December 2015, the case
was settled without admission of liability by the defendants for
an immaterial amount.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Order Awarding Claims to Widow
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garrison Architects and Travelers Insurance Co., petition for
review of the adjudication of the Workers' Compensation Appeal
Board awarding fatal claim benefits to Randi Hoffman for the death
of her husband, Michael Piatetsky.  In doing so, the Board
affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge that
Piatetsky's fatal cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos while
working as an architect for Employer.  The Employer contends that
the Board erred because the Claimant's evidence did not support
causation.

In a Memorandum Opinion dated January 22, 2016, which is available
at http://is.gd/ET3vH7from Leagle.com, the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed the order of the Workers' Compensation
Appeal Board.

The case is Garrison Architects and Travelers Insurance Company,
Petitioners, v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Piatetsky),
Respondent, No. 1095 C.D. 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Wins Summary Judgment in "Holzworth"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a Memorandum Opinion & Order dated January 21, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/hbmxOnfrom Leagle.com, Judge John F.
Keenan of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted Defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company's
unopposed motion for summary judgment seeking summary judgment as
to each of Plaintiff Cheyanne Holzworth's six causes of action
alleged in the Amended Complaint.

The case is CHEYANNE HOLZWORTH, as Personal Representative for the
Estate of William Andrew Holzworth, Plaintiff, v. ALFA LAVAL INC.,
et al. Defendants, No. 12 Civ. 06088 (JFK)(S.D.N.Y.).

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Individually, Defendant, is represented by
Lisa M. Pascarella, Esq. -- lpascarella@pdltlaw.com -- Pascarella
Divita Lindenbaum & Tomaszewski PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment in "Mindel"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julia Ann Mindel, Ancillary Executrix of the Estate of Oscar
Mindel, Jr., appeals from a Summary Judgment of the Jefferson
Circuit Court in her action alleging a breach of duty resulting in
the decedent Oscar Mindel, Jr.'s death due to long-term asbestos
exposure.  She argues that the trial court erred in excluding an
expert witness who would have testified that the Appellees
deviated from the standard of care.  She also contends that even
if the testimony were properly excluded, Summary Judgment was
improperly rendered.

In an Opinion dated January 22, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/JLHnerfrom Leagle.com, Court of Appeals of Kentucky
affirmed the Summary Judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court.

The Jefferson Circuit Court sustained Appellees Fluor Enterprises,
Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment based on Mrs. Mindel's
inability to produce expert testimony as to the standard of care
as it existed during the design phase of the LG&E facilities, the
Court of Appeals noted.

The case is JULIA ANN MINDEL, ANCILLARY EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
OSCAR MINDEL, JR., Appellant, v. FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC. AND
FLUOR-DANIEL ILLINOIS, INC., Appellees, No. 2014-CA-000443-MR (Ky.
App.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms $4MM Punitive Damages in "Casey"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant/Appellant Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., appeals from a
judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs John Casey and Patricia
Casey on claims for personal injuries and loss of consortium
stemming from Mr. Casey's alleged bystander exposure to a Kaiser
Gypsum product containing asbestos and subsequent diagnosis with
mesothelioma.  The jury returned special verdicts finding Kaiser
Gypsum 3.5 percent comparatively at fault for the plaintiffs'
injuries and awarding the plaintiffs approximately $21 million in
compensatory damages.

The jury, however, could not reach a verdict with respect to
whether Kaiser Gypsum acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.
The trial court then ordered a limited retrial on the issue of
malice, oppression, or fraud, and, if necessary, the amount of
punitive damages.  The second jury awarded the plaintiffs $20
million in punitive damages, which the trial court reduced to just
under $4 million.

On appeal, Kaiser Gypsum contends reversal is required because the
trial court committed evidentiary and instructional errors;
improperly limited the scope of the retrial; and miscalculated the
amount of settlement credits.  Kaiser Gypsum also claims the
evidence of malice or oppression was insufficient to support an
award of punitive damages.

On cross-appeal, the plaintiffs challenge the trial court's
reduction of the amount of punitive damages.

In an Opinion dated January 21, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/4A2dXIfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Four, affirmed the judgment
of the trial court as it cannot conclude that there was abuse of
discretion in the trial court's decision to reduce the punitive
damages awards.

In the instant case, Kaiser Gypsum argues that the partial retrial
violated the Civil Code by having a separate jury decide the issue
of punitive damages.  According to Kaiser Gypsum, the "same trier
of fact" language in that section means that issues of liability
and the amount of punitive damages must always be decided by the
same trier of fact and that such issues may never be decided by
different juries.

Kaiser Gypsum contends the trial court erred in refusing to inform
the second jury that the first jury awarded plaintiffs $21 million
in compensatory damages and found Kaiser Gypsum's comparative
liability was 3.5 percent.  Kaiser Gypsum fails to show prejudice,
the Court of Appeals held.

The case is PATRICIA CASEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KAISER
GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Appellant, No. A133062 (Cal.
App.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utica Wins Summary Judgment vs. Clearwater
-----------------------------------------------------------
Utica Mutual Insurance Company commenced a diversity action
against Clearwater Insurance Company, alleging breach of contract
claims and seeking declaratory relief and damages.  Clearwater
counterclaims for breach of contract and seeks damages to recoup
the payments already provided to Utica.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., manufactures, distributes, and sells pump
products.  Utica, the insurer, issued primary and umbrella general
insurance policies to Goulds, the policyholder, for the relevant
years of 1978 to 1981.  Clearwater, the reinsurer, agreed to issue
reinsurance certificates for all four of Utica's umbrella
policies.2

Beginning in 1997, over 140,000 claims had been filed against
Goulds alleging asbestos-related bodily injuries attributed to
Goulds' pump products.  In accordance with its primary policy,
Utica defended and indemnified Goulds on these claims.

Pending are Utica's motion for summary judgment and Clearwater's
cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated January 20, 2016, which
is available at http://is.gd/uZMKsrfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gary L.
Sharpe of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York: (1) granted Utica's motion for summary
judgment; (2) denied Clearwater's motion for partial summary
judgment; and (3) dismissed Clearwater's counterclaim.

The case is UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
CLEARWATER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No. 6:13-cv-1178
(GLS/TWD)(N.D.N.Y.).

Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, is represented by
Phillip G. Steck, Esq. -- Cooper, Erving Law Firm, William M.
Sneed, Esq. -- wsneed@sidley.com  -- Sidley, Austin Law Firm,
Daniel R. Thies, Esq. -- dthies@sidley.com  --  Sidley, Austin Law
Firm & Thomas D. Cunningham, Esq. -- tcunningham@sidley.com  --
Sidley, Austin Law Firm.

Clearwater Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by David
M. Raim, Esq. -- draim@chadbourne.com -- Chadbourne, Parke Law
Firm & John F. Finnegan, Esq. -- jfinnegan@chadbourne.com --
Chadbourne & Parke LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Begin"
-----------------------------------------------------
In a Memorandum and Order dated January 19, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/pxZNrFfrom Leagle.com, Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois granted Defendant General Electric's Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Defendant Ingersoll-Rand's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Defendant CBS
Corporation's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs William D. Begin, et al., have failed to file a
response to any of the pending motions to dismiss.

The case is WILLIAM D. BEGIN and GINNY BEGIN, Plaintiffs, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEM CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-830-
SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

William D. Begin, Plaintiff, is represented by Laci Marie Whitley,
Esq. -- lwhitley@toverdict.com -- Flint & Associates, LLC &
Timothy P. Hulla, Esq. -- thulla@toverdict.com -- Flint &
Associates, LLC.

Ginny Begin, Plaintiff, represented by Laci Marie Whitley, Flint &
Associates, LLC & Timothy P. Hulla, Flint & Associates, LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Anita M.
Kidd, Esq. -- akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Esq. -- jmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com --
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Melanie R. King, Esq. --
mking@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Raymond R.
Fournie, Esq. -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Eckert" Remanded to Louisiana State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In an Order dated January 14, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/xw3ooTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Nannette Jolivette
Brown of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana granted Third-Party Plaintiff Administrators of the
Tulane Education Fund's Motion to Remand the case captioned DWIGHT
WILLIAM ECKERT, SR., et al. v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE
EDUCATIONAL FUND, et al., SECTION: "G" (4), Civil Action Case No.
15-5546 (E.D. La.).

In its "Motion to Remand or for Other Appropriate Relief," Tulane
asserts that although it has no objection to litigating in federal
court, and it is willing to waive procedural defects in St. Paul's
removal, it is concerned that the District Court nevertheless
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim before it.

The claim currently pending before the Court arises out of a state
court proceeding, originally filed on November 2, 2012, in which
Tulane was named as one of seventeen defendants in a civil action
seeking recovery for an injury allegedly suffered by Dwight
William Eckert, Sr., as a result of occupational exposure to
asbestos.  After obtaining information regarding insurance
coverage applicable to the period during which Eckert was employed
by Tulane, Tulane filed a third-party complaint against St. Paul
Fire and Marine Insurance Co. and U.S. Fire Insurance Co. on
October 29, 2014.  Both insurers were also named as direct action
defendants in a second amended petition filed by the plaintiff on
October 30, 2014.  After discovery revealed additional information
regarding relevant insurance coverage, Tulane filed an amended
Third Party Demand on September 25, 2015, naming as additional
third-party defendants ACE Group d/b/a in Louisiana as ACE
American Insurance Co. and ACE Property and Casualty Insurance
Co.; Westchester Fire Insurance Co.; and Crum & Forster Specialty
Insurance Co.  Meanwhile, Tulane reached a settlement with the
plaintiff, and plaintiff's claims against Tulane were dismissed by
order of the state court on October 5, 2015.  On October 27, 2015,
the plaintiff's direct action claims against St. Paul and U.S.
Fire were dismissed as well.

Dwight William Eckert, Jr, Plaintiff, is represented by Lawrence
G. Gettys, Esq. -- lgettys@heardrobins.com -- Heard, Robins, Cloud
& Black, LLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacey
Leigh Strain, Esq. -- strain@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard,
Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Esq. -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Esq. --
efoundas@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Esq. -- fdeblanc@kuchlerpolk.com
-- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis
Richeson, Esq. -- mricheson@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Esq. --
mdesormeaux@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Esq. --
mabraham@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC & Milele N. St. Julien, Esq. -- mstjulien@kuchlerpolk.com --
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Montello, Inc., Defendant, represented by David C. L. Gibbons,
Jr., Al M. Thompson, Jr., LLC.

Anco Insulations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Margaret M.
Joffe, Esq. -- mjoffe@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker &Carey, Duris Lee Holmes, Esq. --
dholmes@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP &
Jamie Hebert Baglio, Esq. -- jbaglio@pugh-law.com -- Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Esq. -- suek@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP, April Ann McQuillar, Esq. -- aprilm@spsr-law.com -- Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Esq. --
dkinler@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP,
James R. Guidry, Esq. -- jguidry@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Michael David Harold, Esq., Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Stephen Jared Austin, Esq. --
stephena@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Eagle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, April Ann McQuillar, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Stephen Jared Austin, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Esq. -- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Angela M.
Bowlin, Esq. -- abowlin@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Esq. -- jbrown@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Meredith
K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Esq. --
ptafaro@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot
L.L.C..

Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, Third Party
Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Lane Plauche, Jr., Esq. --
aplauche@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Elizabeth
Attie Babin Carville, Esq. -- acarville@pmpllp.com  -- Plauche,
Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, James K. Ordeneaux, Esq. --
jordeneaux@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Kenan
Slade Rand, Jr., Esq. -- krand@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli,
Parkerson, LLP, Mary L. Dumestre, Esq. --
mdumestre@stonepigman.com -- Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann,
LLC, Scott H. Mason, Esq. -- smason@pmpllp.com -- Plauche,
Maselli, Parkerson, LLP & Stephen G. Bullock, Esq. --
sbullock@stonepigman.com -- Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC.

Westchester Fire Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Jay M. Lonero, Esq. -- jlonero@lpwsl.com --
Larzelere, Picou, Wells, Simpson, Lonero, LLC & Stephen Marcus
Larzelere, Esq. -- slarzelere@lpwsl.com -- Larzelere, Picou,
Wells, Simpson, Lonero, LLC.

ACE Group, Third Party Defendant, represented by Lawrence G. Pugh,
III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey.

Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Jay M. Lonero, Larzelere, Picou, Wells, Simpson,
Lonero, LLC & Stephen Marcus Larzelere, Larzelere, Picou, Wells,
Simpson, Lonero, LLC.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Randall C. Mulcahy, Esq. --
rmulcahy@garrisonyount.com -- Garrison, Yount, Forte, Mulcahy &
Lehner, LLC & Robert T. Vorhoff, Esq. --
rvorhoff@garrisonyount.com -- Garrison, Yount, Forte & Mulcahy,
LLC.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Jay M. Lonero, Larzelere, Picou, Wells, Simpson,
Lonero, LLC, Stephanie Villagomez Lemoine, Larzelere, Picou,
Wells, Simpson, Lonero, LLC & Stephen Marcus Larzelere, Larzelere,
Picou, Wells, Simpson, Lonero, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Wins Dismissal of "Joiner"
------------------------------------------------------
Gene Joiner filed an employment discrimination complaint, without
the assistance of counsel, alleging that he was permanently
disabled as a result of asbestos exposure while employed at U.S.
Steel.

Defendant U.S. Steel moved to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, contending that: (1) the complaint is time barred on its
face because Mr. Joiner alleges that he received his notice of
right to sue letter in 2000, but waited fourteen years to file his
complaint; (2) Mr. Joiner hasn't alleged any facts that would
support a plausible claim for employment discrimination under any
of the statutes cited; and (3) any claim for work-related injuries
is barred by the exclusivity provisions in Indiana's Worker's
Compensation Act and/or Indiana's Occupational Disease Act.  The
Plaintiff hasn't responded.

In an Opinion and Order dated January 13, 2016, which is available
at http://is.gd/jgo1W4from Leagle.com, Judge Robert L. Miller of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division, granted the defendant's motion to
dismiss and dismissed the case.

The case is GENE A. JOINER, Plaintiff v. U.S. STEEL GARY,
Defendant, Cause No. 2:14-CV-277 RLM (N.D. Ind.).

Gene A Joiner, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

US Steel Gary, Defendant, is represented by Elizabeth M Bezak,
Esq. -- Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP & Terence M Austgen, Esq. --
Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Sheriff Wins Summary Judgment v. Detainee
---------------------------------------------------------------
On November 19, 2013, plaintiff Antwan Daniels, a pretrial
detainee at the Bladen County Jail filed a civil rights action pro
se on behalf of himself as well as formerly-named plaintiffs James
C. Willis, Edron C. Lewis, and Melton M. Melvin.

The Plaintiff collectively named Donnie Alman, Bladen County
Deputy Sheriff Prentice Benston, Bladen County Chief Jailer Phil
Corbett, Rodney Hester, and Benny Lennon as defendants.

In an Order dated January 21, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/DkbBOFfrom Leagle.com, Judge Louise W. Flanagan of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Western Division, denied the Plaintiff's motions for
summary judgment, granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement
Mental or Emotional Injury and motion to submit corrective
information, and granted Defendants Prentice Benston and Phil
Corbett's motion for summary judgment.

Judge Flanagan dismissed the Plaintiff's state law negligence
claims without prejudice.

The case is ANTWAN DANIELS Plaintiff, v. PRENTICE BENSTON and PHIL
CORBETT Defendants, No. 5:13-CT-3286-FL.

Antwan Daniels, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Prentice Benston, Defendant, is represented by Christopher J.
Geis, Esq. -- cgeis@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
PLLC.

Phil Corbett, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Geis,
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Policyholders Can't Intervene in Acquisition Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crosby Valve, LLC, ITT Corporation, and The Procter and Gamble
Company petition for review of two orders of the Insurance
Commissioner Michael F. Consedine.

The first order denied the Petitioners' petitions to intervene at
the agency level.  The second order approved the acquisition of
OneBeacon Insurance Company, OneBeacon America Insurance Company,
Potomac Insurance Company and Employers Fire Insurance Company
(Runoff Subsidiaries) by Armour Group Holdings Limited, through
its subsidiary Trebuchet US Holdings, Inc.

The Petitioners purchased general liability insurance policies
from the predecessors of the Runoff Subsidiaries covering claims
and liabilities for bodily injury and property damage.  The
Petitioners have sought coverage under the OneBeacon Policies for
asbestos, environmental and other third-party liability claims,
which continue to be asserted against Petitioners.

Armour filed an application to acquire OneBeacon Insurance Company
and Potomac Insurance Company with the Department of Insurance.
The Form A application was subsequently amended to include two
subsidiaries of OneBeacon Insurance Company, OneBeacon America
Insurance Company and Employers Fire Insurance Company, after they
were re-domesticated from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to
Pennsylvania.

The Petitioners filed applications to intervene in the proceeding
before the Department, on the basis that they were policyholders
of the Runoff Subsidiaries whose rights to access the OneBeacon
Policies and to obtain coverage for asbestos and environmental
exposures would be impaired if the proposed transaction was
approved.

The Insurance Commissioner denied Petitioners' motion to
intervene. In a separate order, the Insurance Commissioner granted
the Form A application and approved the proposed transaction. The
Petitioners filed a petition for review, asserting that the
Department's legal conclusions were not in accordance with law,
and its factual findings were not supported by substantial
evidence. Additionally, they assert that the Department's denial
of the motion to intervene was an abuse of discretion and contrary
to law because it disregarded Petitioners' due process rights, the
Administrative Agency Law and its own regulations.

The Petitioners also challenge the Department's decision to
withhold from them a large volume of financial data and actuarial
analyses of the adequacy of the Runoff Subsidiaries' reserves and
surplus. Petitioners assert that by depriving them of a meaningful
opportunity to participate in the administrative proceeding and
relying on documents and analyses that were not disclosed to
Petitioners and never made part of the administrative record, the
Department violated their right to due process in a matter that
directly impacted their interests. Petitioners request that this
Court vacate the Commissioner's decisions denying their petitions
to intervene and approving the transaction and remand for further
proceedings consistent with the requirements of due process and
the AAL.

The Petitioners filed an application to strike certified list of
the record. In the alternative, Petitioners request that this
Court vacate the Commissioner's order approving Armour's
acquisition of the Runoff Subsidiaries and remand to the
Department with directions to reconsider the decision based solely
on the non-confidential documents made available to the public.
Petitioners also assert that the Department violated their right
to due process by denying them access to certain documents
submitted by OneBeacon and Armour on the basis that the documents
contained confidential information.

In an Opinion dated January 14, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/hbbXohfrom Leagle.com, the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed the order of the Insurance Commissioner,
Michael F. Consedine, denying intervention.  The Court denied the
Petitioners' motion to strike the certified list of record.  The
Petitioners' petition for review is dismissed as moot.

The case is Crosby Valve, LLC, ITT Corporation, and The Procter
and Gamble Company, Petitioners, v. Department of Insurance,
Respondent, No. 78 C.D. 2015 (Pa. Cmmw.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Denied Summary Judgment in "Franklin"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Donna Franklin filed a diversity action against
Defendants Dana Holding Corporation, et al., alleging that the
Defendants manufactured asbestos that caused Ray Franklin's
asbestosis and, ultimately, his death.  Now pending before the
court is a Report and Recommendation on motions by Rockwell
Automation and Eaton Corporation to make the MDL 875 in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania's grant of summary judgment in
their favor final.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 12, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/OCxZpIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Virginia
Emerson Hopkins of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, denied Eaton and
Rockwell's motions as the court declined to adopt the magistrate
judge's Report and Recommendation.

There are two prerequisites to the grant of a motion under Rule
54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and there is no
showing sufficient to satisfy the second prong in this case, Judge
Hopkins found.

The case is DONNA FRANKLIN, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of RAY FRANKLIN, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. DANA HOLDING
CORPORATION, ET AL. Defendants, Case No. 2:11-CV-2731-VEH-SGC
(N.D. Ala.).

Ray Franklin, Plaintiff, is represented by Thomas J Knight, Esq. -
- tjknight@hubbardknight.com -- HUBBARD & KNIGHT & Steve R Morris,
Esq. -- tjknight@hubbardknight.com -- MORRIS LAW OFFICE.

Donna Franklin, Plaintiff, is represented by Thomas J Knight,
HUBBARD & KNIGHT & Steve R Morris, MORRIS LAW OFFICE.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Janine A McKinnon
McAdory, Esq. -- jmcadory@maynardcooper.com -- MAYNARD COOPER &
GALE PC, John A Smyth, III, Esq. -- jsmyth@maynardcooper.com --
MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC & Katherine Ann Berkmeier Collier, Esq. -
- kcollier@maynardcooper.com -- MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC.

Rockwell Automation, Defendant, is represented by Scott F Singley,
Esq. -- ssingley@brunini.com -- BRUNINI GRANTHAM GROWER & HEWES
PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Company's Suit vs. Travelers Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company of America filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case involving insurance
coverage under a Builder's Risk Policy that Travelers issued to
plaintiff Gerald H. Phipps, Inc., a construction company, for the
period from October 1, 2011 to October 1, 2012.

GHP filed a lawsuit in the District Court for Douglas County,
Colorado.  Travelers removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado and brings claims for
breach of contract, statutory and common law insurance bad faith,
and declaratory judgment.  Among other things, GHP seeks $804,661
in costs incurred after the water intrusion for asbestos
mitigation and remediation, spray-applied fireproofing, drywall,
and insulation.

In an Order dated January 8, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/Gnm84Ffrom Leagle.com, Judge Philip A. Brimmer of
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted Travelers' Motion for Summary Judgment as GHP has not
demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact that it suffered
damage to covered property under the policy.

Judge Brimmer held that summary judgment is therefore appropriate
as to GHP's breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims
and, because the Court concludes that Travelers correctly denied
coverage, summary judgment is appropriate on GHP's common law bad
faith claim as well.  The first, second, and fourth claims for
relief of plaintiff GHP are dismissed with prejudice.

The trial in the matter is vacated and the case is considered
closed.

The case is GERALD H. PHIPPS, INC. d/b/a GH Phipps Construction
Company, a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY
CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut corporation, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01642-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.).

Gerald H. Phipps, Inc., Plaintiff, is represented by Dennis Boyd
Polk, Esq. -- Holley, Albertson & Polk, P.C. & Heather S. Hodgson,
Esq. -- Holley, Albertson & Polk, P.C.

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Defendant, is
represented by Gregory Steve Hearing, II, Esq. --
ghearing@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP, John Roger Mann,
Esq. -- jmann@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP & John M.
Palmeri, Esq. -- jpalmeri@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Dismissal of "Herbert"
---------------------------------------------------------
James Herbert, Executor of the Estate of Vincent W. Gatto, Sr.,
appeals from the order, which granted American Biltrite, et al.'s
summary judgment in an asbestos litigation and dismissed the
complaint with prejudice as time-barred.

In a Non-Precedential Decision dated January 12, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/2Q2SQqfrom Leagle.com, the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Trial Court's Order.

The case is JAMES HERBERT, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF VINCENT W.
GATTO, SR., DECEASED, Appellant, v. AMERICAN BILTRITE AND ITS
DIVISION AMTICO; AZROCK INDUSTRIES, INC.; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION;
DAVIS FETCH CORPORATION OF PENNSYLVANIA; EGGERS INDUSTRIES;
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION; H.B. FULLER COMPANY; HAJOCA
CORPORATION; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION AND ITS LINDE DIVISION; WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
Appellees, No. 1702 WDA 2014 (Pa.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Remands "Hernandezcueva"
---------------------------------------------------
Joel and Jovana Hernandezcueva asserted claims for negligence and
strict products liability, together with several related claims,
against respondent E. F. Brady Company, Inc., alleging that
asbestos-containing products it distributed caused Joel
Hernandezcueva's mesothelioma.  The court granted E. F. Brady's
motion for non-suit on their claim for strict products liability
and some related claims.  Appellant Jovana Hernandezcueva
challenges the rulings on the motions for nonsuit and a new trial.

In an Order dated January 15, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/q6Mjlhfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Four, reversed the Judgment
solely with respect to the appellant's claim for strict products
liability against the respondent, and affirmed in all other
respects.  The matter is remanded for further proceeding.  The
Appellant is awarded her costs on appeal.

The case is JOVANA HERNANDEZCUEVA, Individually and as Successor-
in-interest, etc. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. E.F. BRADY COMPANY,
INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. B251933 (Cal. App.).

The Arkin Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin, Esq.; Farrise Firm and
Simona A. Farrise, Esq. -- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sherman Breitman, Jerry C. Popovich, Esq. and N. Asir Fiola, Esq.
for Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Dismissal of NY Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In an Order dated January 12, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/UsY2cXfrom Leagle.com, the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of New York, First Department, affirmed, with costs,
the Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or
about August 12, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied
defendants Beys Specialty, Inc., et al.'s motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety for failure to state a cause of action,
or alternatively, for leave to convert their motion to one for
summary judgment.

The case is INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS REMOVAL, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v. BEYS SPECIALTY, INC., ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, 16605,
652494/12 (N.Y. App. Div.).

Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury, Joseph J. Cooke,
Esq. -- jcooke@milbermakris.com, for appellants.

Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck P.C., New York,
Michael E. Greene, Esq. -- meg@robinsonbrog.com, for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Sets Feb. 2017 Trial for "Neumann"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a Case Management and Pre-trial Order dated January 8, 2016,
which is available at http://is.gd/SUD2NHfrom Leagle.com, Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California adopted the case management
statement of the parties and scheduled the trial date for February
27, 2017.

The trial, according to the Order, will run for no more than 16
days.  The court's trial schedule is 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. with
two fifteen-minute breaks, on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and
Friday.

The case is GUNTHER NEUMANN, Plaintiff, v. FOSTER WHEELER LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-04521-PJH (N.D. Calif.).

Gunther Neumann, Plaintiff, is represented by Alan R. Brayton,
Esq. -- Brayton Purcell LLP, Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, esq. --
Brayton Purcell LLP & David R. Donadio, Esq. -- Brayton Purcell
LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, is represented by Shelley Kaye
Tinkoff, Esq. -- tinkoff@hugoparker.com -- Hugo Parker LLP & Sara
J. Savage, Esq. -- ssavage@hugoparker.com -- Hugo Parker, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment Favoring Kuettel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah J. Palmer, surviving spouse of Gary J. Palmer, appeals
from a summary judgment dismissing Palmer's negligence claim
against A.W. Kuettel & Sons, Inc.

Kuettel moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not owe a duty
to warn Palmer about asbestos because no special relationship
existed between them. Kuettel also argued it was not liable for
any of Palmer's injuries because it did not manufacture any of the
asbestos-containing products it supplied and installed. The
district court granted Kuettel's motion on both grounds and
dismissed Palmer's action against Kuettel.

Palmer argues the district court erred in granting Kuettel's
motion for summary judgment. Alternatively, Palmer argues
Minnesota's nonmanufacturing seller statute should apply in this
case.

In a Decision dated January 14, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/LDuQFOfrom Leagle.com, the Supreme Court of North
Dakota affirmed the grant of summary judgment dismissing Palmer's
negligence claim against A.W. Kuettel, concluding Palmer has
failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to preclude
summary judgment.

The case is Deborah J. Palmer, surviving spouse of Gary J. Palmer,
deceased, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. 999 Quebec, Inc. (f/k/a
International Boiler Works Company), a Delaware corporation; A.H.
Bennett Company, a Minnesota corporation; A.L. Crump and Company,
Inc., an Illinois corporation; A.O. Smith Corporation, a Delaware
corporation; A.W. Chesterton Company, a Massachusetts corporation;
A.W. Kuettel & Sons, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Advocate
Asbestos Mines, Ltd., a Canadian Corporation, Airco, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; American Biltrite, Inc., American Standard,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; Anchor Packing Company, a Delaware
corporation; Apollo Piping & Supply, an Illinois corporation;
Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., a Canadian corporation; Atlas Turner,
Inc., a Canadian corporation; Australian Blue Asbestos, Pty., an
Australian corporation; Bayer Cropscience, Inc., (successor to
Rhone-Poulence, Inc., f/k/a Amchem Products, Inc., f/k/a Benjamin
Foster Company, a New York Corporation; Beazer East, Inc., f/k/a
Koppers Industries, Inc.; Beazer East, individually and as
successor in the interest to THEIM and as successor in interest to
Universal Refractories; Bell & Gossett a foreign corporation; Bell
Asbestos Mines, Ltd., a Canadian corporation; Bondex
International, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Bondex Company,
an Ohio corporation; Border States Industries, Inc., a North
Dakota corporation; Bryan Steam Corporation, an Indiana
corporation; Building Sprinkler's Company, Inc., a North Dakota
corporation; Burnham Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation; CBS
Corporation (f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation), a
Pennsylvania corporation; Calaveras Asbestos Mines, individually
and as a successor-in-interest to California Asbestos Company, a
California corporation; California Asbestos Company, a California
corporation; Carborundum Abrasives, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Carlisle Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Carol Cable
Corporation, a division of AVNET, Inc., a foreign corporation;
CertainTeed Corporation, a Maryland corporation; Chevron U.S.A.,
Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation; Chicago Wilcox Manufacturing
Company, an Illinois corporation; Chromalox (a division of Emerson
Electric Co.), a Missouri corporation; Cleaver Brooks, Division of
Aqua-Chem, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Columbia Bailer Company,
a Pennsylvania corporation; Crane Company, a Delaware corporation;
Crane Johnson Company, a North Dakota corporation; Crane Packing
Company, a foreign corporation; Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation (individually and as successor-in-
interest) to Mundet Cork Corporation; CSR, Ltd. (a/k/a Colonial
Sugar Refining Company, Ltd.), an Australian corporation,
individually and as an alter-ego of Australian Blue Asbestos,
Pty.; Dakota Welding Supply, a North Dakota corporation; Dana
Corporation, a Virginia corporation; Deltak, L.L.C., a Unit of
Jason, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Detroit Stoker, a Michigan
corporation; Domco Products Texas, L.P., f/k/a Azrock Industries,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; Dossert Corp., a New York
corporation; Draxton Sales, a Minnesota corporation; Durabla
Manufacturing Company, a Pennsylvania corporation; E.J. Lavino and
Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Eaton Corporation
(individually and as successor-in-interest to Samuel Moore &
Company; an Ohio corporation; Egbert Corporation, individually and
as success-in-interest to S.K. Wellman Corporation, an Ohio
corporation; Electric Supply Corp., an Illinois corporation;
Elliott Turbomachinery Company, Inc.; Emerson Electric Co., a
Missouri corporation; Ericsson, Inc., (f/k/a Cable Corp.) a
Delaware corporation (as successor-in-interest to Anaconda Wire &
Cable Company); Excelsior, Inc., an Illinois corporation; Essex
Group, Inc., Michigan corporation (individually and as successor-
in-interest to Essex International, Inc.; F.R.P. Products, Ltd., a
foreign corporation; F & C Supply, Inc., a North Dakota
corporation; Fargo-Moorhead Insulation Company, a North Dakota
corporation; Firebrick Supply Co., a Minnesota corporation; Fisher
Controls International, LLC, f/k/a Fisher Govenor Co., an Iowa
corporation; Foseco, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Foster Products
Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (as successor-in-interest to
Foster Products Division of H.B. Fuller Company and to the
Benjamin Foster Division of AmChem Products, Inc.); Foster Wheeler
Corporation, a New York corporation; Frommelt Safety Products, a
Wisconsin corporation; Fuel Economy Engineering Co., a Minnesota
corporation; Gardner Denver Machinery, Inc., (individually and as
successor-in-interest to Joy Technologies, Inc. f/k/a Joy
Manufacturing Company) a Delaware corporation; General Electric
Company, a foreign business corporation organized under the laws
of New York; General Engineering Development Corporation, f/k/a
Fuel Economy Engineering Company, a South Dakota corporation;
General Refractories Company; George T. Walker & Co., Inc., a
foreign corporation; Georgia-Pacific Corp., a Georgia corporation;
Goodrich Corporation, f/k/a B.F. Goodrich Company, a New York
corporation; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation;
Goulds Pumps; Graybar Electric, a New York corporation; Greene,
Tweed & Co., a Pennsylvania corporation; Grinnell Corporation, a
Minnesota corporation; H.B. Fuller, Co., a Minnesota corporation;
H.E. Everson Company, a North Dakota corporation; H.H. Robertson
Company, a Pennsylvania corporation; Hedman Mines, Ltd., a
Canadian corporation; Hennig Packing & Gasket Corporation, an
Illinois corporation; Henry Vogt Machine Company, a Kentucky
corporation; Hercules Chemical Company, Inc., a New Jersey
corporation; Hickory Insulation Co, a foreign corporation; Hobart
Brothers Co., an Ohio corporation; Honeywell, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; Houston Specialty Wire & Cable Co., a Delaware
corporation; IMO Industries, Inc.; Industrial Contractors, Inc., a
North Dakota corporation; Industrial Holdings Corporation, f/k/a
The Carborundum Company, a Delaware corporation; Ingersoll-Rand
Company, a New Jersey corporation; Illinois Insulation Contracting
Company, Inc., (f/k/a Illinois Roofing & Insulation Company), an
Illinois corporation; Inductotherm Industries, Inc., a New Jersey
corporation; Insulation Services, Inc., a Louisiana corporation;
International Vermiculite Co., an Illinois corporation; ITT
Corporation; J.H. France Refractories Company, a Pennsylvania
corporation; The Jamar Company, a Minnesota corporation
(individually) and as successor-in-interest and liability to the
Walker-Jamar Company, a former Minnesota corporation); Jaquays
Mining Company, an Arizona corporation; Jerguson Gage & Valve, a
foreign corporation; John Crane, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(successor-in-interest to John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. and Crane
Packing Company); Johnston Boiler Co., a Michigan corporation;
J.M. Asbestos Sales, Inc.; J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Kaiser
Gypsum Company, a Washington corporation; Kelly-Moore Paint
Company, a California corporation; Kelsey-Hayes Group (a division
of Varity Corporation), a Delaware corporation; Kewanee Boiler
Corporation (n/k/a OakFabCo, Inc.), an Illinois corporation; Lac
d' Amiante du Quebec, Ltee. (f/k/a/Lake Asbestos of Quebec), a
Canadian corporation; Lamons Metal Gasket Company, a Delaware
corp.; Lincoln Electric Co., an Ohio corporation; Lipe-Rollway
Corporation, a New York corporation; Lochinvar, a Tennessee
corporation; Mandan Electric Supply, a foreign corporation; Marmon
Corporation, a Delaware corporation; McMaster Carr Supply Company,
an Illinois corporation; McNeil Refractories, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation; Mellema Company, a Minnesota corporation; Metate
Asbestos Mines, an Arizona corporation; Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, a foreign corporation; Mine Safety Appliance
Company, a Pennsylvania corporation; Minnesota Mining &
Manufacturing, a Delaware corporation; Natkin Group, Inc., as
successor to Fuel Economy Engineering Company, a Delaware
corporation; Northern Plumbing & Heating, Inc., a North Dakota
corporation; Northern Plumbing Supply, Inc., a North Dakota
corporation; OakFabCo, Inc. f/k/a Kewanee Boiler Corporation an
Illinois corporation; The Okonite Company, Inc., a New Jersey
corporation; Owens-Illinois, Inc., an Ohio corporation; Parker
Boiler Co., a California corporation; Paul A. Douden, a Colorado
corporation; Paul W. Abbott Company, Inc., a foreign corporation;
Pfizer, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Phelps Dodge Industries, a
New York corporation; Pipe, Valve & Fittings, Co., a Colorado
corporation; Power Process Equipment, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation; Praxair Distribution, Inc., a foreign corporation;
Quin-T Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Rapid-American
Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Research Cottrell, Inc., a
New Jersey corporation; Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., a New York
corporation (as successor-in-interest to Benjamin Foster, a
division of AmChem Products Company); Riley Power, Inc., f/k/a
Riley Stoker Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation; Robinson
Insulation, a Montana corporation; Rockbestos-Surprenant Cable
Corp. (f/k/a The Rockbestos Company) a Delaware corporation (a
wholly owned subsidiary Marmon Corporation); Rockwell
International Corporation, a Nevada corporation; Rome Cable Corp.,
a Delaware corporation, (a subsidiary of Rome Group, Inc.);
Roughrider Supply, a foreign corporation; RPM, Inc., an Ohio
corporation; Ryall Electric Supply, Inc., a Colorado corporation;
S.O.S. Products Company, Inc., a New York corporation; Saint-
Gobain Abrasives, Inc. f/k/a Norton Company individually and as
successor by merger with Carborundum Abrasives Company, a
Massachusetts corporation; SEPCO Corporation, an Alabama
corporation; Singer Safety Company, an Illinois corporation;
Smith-Sharpe Company, a Minnesota corporation; Sprinkman Sons
Corporation, an Illinois corporation; Sternmerich Supply Co., a
Missouri corporation; Superior Boiler Works, Inc., a Kansas
corporation; Sussman Electric Boilers, a New York corporation;
Square D, a brand of Schneider Electric; 3M; Thermo Electric Co.,
a New Jersey corporation; The Trane Co., a New York corporation,
(a division of American Standard, Inc.); U.S. Filter Co., a
foreign corporation; Union Boiler Co., a Delaware corporation;
Union Carbide Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Uniroyal, Inc.,
a New Jersey corporation; United Conveyor Corporation, an Illinois
corporation; Victor H. Leeby Company, a North Dakota corporation;
Walker Jamar Company, A Minnesota corporation; Warren Pumps, LLC
f/k/a Warren Pumps, Inc.; Weil McLain Company, a Delaware
corporation; Western Steel & Plumbing, Inc., a North Dakota
corporation; Whittier Filtration, Inc. f/k/a U.S. Filter/Whitter,
Inc., a subsidiary of Water Applications & Systems Corporation, a
Delaware corporation; Yarway Corporation; Zurn Industries, Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation, Defendants A.W. Kuettel & Sons, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation, Appellee, No. 20150031, 2016 ND 17.

David C. Thompson, Esq. -- P.O. Box 5235, Grand Forks, N.D. 58206-
5235, for plaintiff and appellant.

Thomas M. Stieber, Esq. -- tstieber@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY &
MANSFIELD, Jason T. Mohr, Esq. -- jmohr@foleymansfield.com --
FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Kyle B. Mansfield, Esq. --
kmansfield@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD and Joanna M.
Salmen, Esq., Esq. -- jsalmen@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY &
MANSFIELD, 250 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1200, Minneapolis, MN
55401, for appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Blames Dozens for Husband's Death
--------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that
the widow of a former welder is is suing dozens of companies,
alleging his death was related to exposure to asbestos fibers.

Alma Singleton, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Curtis Singleton, filed a lawsuit Jan. 13 in St. Clair
County Circuit Court against Aurora Pump Company and dozens of
other defendants, alleging negligence and willful and wanton
conduct. Also singled out as defendants are Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company and Pneumo Abex LLC, for alleged conspiracy and
knowingly covering up information.

According to the complaint, most of Curtis Singleton's working
life was as a carman/welder/inspector at Cotton Belt/Southern
Pacific and as a laborer at Burlington Northern. At various times
during his work, the suit says, he was exposed to, inhaled,
ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers.

The suit alleges those products were manufactured, sold,
distributed or installed by the defendants.
The deceased first became aware he had developed lung cancer,
caused by asbestos exposure, on June 18, 2013. He died Aug. 3,
2013.

Alma Singleton seeks least $50,000 from each defendant for each
count, punitive damages and court costs. She is represented by
attorneys Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian &
Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-24


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Sues Private School in Asbestos Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Weston Mercury reported that a former teacher and mayor of
Axbridge is suing a North Somerset private school, claiming he
contracted an incurable lung disease after being exposed to
asbestos in the science labs.

Peter Yusen, aged 76, a retired teacher, has launched a High Court
bid for more than GBP200,000 in damages.

He is suing Sidcot School, near Winscombe, after nearly 20 years
teaching at the private Quaker school.

He was also the mayor of Axbridge during 2014, according to a
legal writ.

Mr Yusen claims he inhaled hazardous quantities of toxic asbestos
dust during his time at the school, causing asbestosis -- or
mesothelioma, an incurable cancer of the lungs' lining.

He is represented by Bristol-based solicitors Humphreys and Co and
barrister Andrew Hogarth QC, who allege Mr Yusen's regular
'collecting and distributing' of asbestos mats sparked exposure to
the now-banned substance, according to the writ.

A Sidcot School spokesman said: "We have received a claim from a
former employee which has been passed to our insurers and are
satisfied that our arrangements for protecting our staff from
asbestos have always met the required standards."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dad Awarded Six-Figure Payout for Lethal Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Ramsden, writing for Pendle Today, reported that a West
Craven father-of-two who developed deadly lung cancer after years
of being exposed to asbestos through his work has been awarded a
six-figure sum in compensation.

The family of former plumber Eddie Heap (78), who first began
working with asbestos more than 60 years ago, said incurable
mesothelioma has taken away his independence. He struggles to walk
any distance due to the disease, which was diagnosed after he
became short of breath and was referred to a chest specialist by
his GP.

MrHeap's condition deteriorated so much so that he was rushed to
hospital where he had one and a half litres of fluid drained from
his lung.

Further tests were carried out and a biopsy confirmed that he had
developed the debilitating illness.

His daughter Alex said: "Words cannot explain how shocked and
upset we were when dad was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
Unfortunately, we were all too aware of this horrific disease as
my dad had already lost his brother-in-law to it. Mesothelioma has
taken away all of dad's independence, he can't do the things he
used to, which is so upsetting to see."

Mr Heap was exposed to asbestos while working as an apprentice
plumber for a national retailer between 1955 and 1959. He was
responsible for the maintenance of pipes and heating systems, many
of which were heavily lagged with asbestos insulation. He often
worked in poorly ventilated areas, with asbestos contaminating his
clothes.

Mr Heap also spent 12 months working as a plumber for a car
manufacturer in the early 1960s where he would manually strip
asbestos lagging from boilers and heating pipes.

He was never provided with protective equipment or warned about
the danger of asbestos during his employment.

After Mr Heap's diagnosis the family instructed Thompsons
Solicitors to act on his behalf.

Alex added: "My family is so grateful to Thompsons Solicitors who
worked with us at a time when we were really in a state of
disbelief. Our solicitor ensured that the legal process was quick
and stress-free so that we could concentrate on supporting dad."

Mr Oliver Collett, of Thompsons Solicitors, added: "Eddie could
have first been exposed to asbestos more than 60 years ago, which
goes to show just how long it can take for this disease to
manifest.

"At Thompsons, we understand how important it is to act quickly
and work hard when an individual suffering from an asbestos-
related disease comes to us. Asbestos claims are notoriously
complex and, together with statements from Eddie, we were able to
pinpoint exactly when and where his exposure took place, meaning
that we settled the case and held his negligent employers to
account within four months of working with the family."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Son Blames Dozens for Father's Death
-----------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that
the son of a former laborer is suing dozens of companies, alleging
his father's exposure to asbestos fibers led to a premature death.

Louis Jimerson, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Henry W. Jimerson, filed the lawsuit Jan. 13 in St.
Clair County Circuit Court against Alcoa Inc. and many other
defendants, alleging negligence and willful and wanton conduct.
Metropolitan Life Insurance amd Pneumo Abex Corporation are
accused of conspiracy.

According to the complaint, Henry Jimerson worked from 1968 to
1990 as a boiler worker/steel worker at Reynolds Metal. On May 25,
2012, he was diagnosed with lung cancer, an asbestos-induced
disease, the suit says, and he died Jan. 22, 2014.

The suit alleges fraudulent misrepresentation, battery and
intentional infliction of emotional distress specifically against
Alcoa Inc. and Reynolds Metals Company.

The complaint states Metropolitan Life and Pneumo Abex both knew
the dangers of exposure to asbestos-containing products, yet
squelched the information for many years.

Louis Jimerson seeks compensatory damages of at least $50,000
against all defendants, punitive damages and other relief the
court deems appropriate. He is represented by attorneys Randy L.
Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC of
Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-25


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R&Q Seeks Rescission of Reinsurance Certs.
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that in a new complaint, R&Q
Reinsurance Co. seeks rescission of two facultative certificates
issued to Allianz Insurance Co., asserting that at the time the
certificates were issued Allianz knew, but failed to disclose,
that the reinsured risk included asbestos liabilities.

In a Feb. 2 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, R&Q further alleges that Allianz
billed, and R&Q paid, $89,173.61 in excess of the certificates'
limits and that it is entitled to recover this sum.

Allianz Insurance Co. issued umbrella insurance policies to
Kentile Floors Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Father's Death Due to Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that a
daughter is suing over her father's alleged exposure to asbestos
during the course of his working life.

Debbie Bowen, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Roger Dolen, filed the suit Jan. 13 in St. Clair County
Court against Dow Chemical Co. and Pneumo Abex Corp., et al.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. is also a named a defendant.

Among the counts against the defendants are negligence, willful
and wanton conduct, fraudulent misrepresentation, battery and
intentional infliction of emotional distress related to the
manufacture, distribution and use of asbestos-containing products.

According to the complaint, this asbestos litigation concerns the
death of Roger Dolen after he was exposed to, inhaled, ingested or
otherwise absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from
certain products with which he worked. Those products were also
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the defendants,
the lawsuit states.

On Nov. 6, 2014, the complaint states the defendant died from lung
cancer, an asbestos-induced disease that is caused by asbestos
exposure.

The count against Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and Pneumo Abex
Corp. involves conspiracy in that the defendants knew that
asbestos fibers were a carcinogen, the suit claims, yet they
covered up evidence about it.

The plaintiff seeks at least $50,000, punitive damages and
exemplary damages for each count. She is represented by Randy L.
Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC of
Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-26


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean-up Plan Approved for Libby, Mont.
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Brown, writing for Associated Press, reported that the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency granted final approval to a
costly cleanup program for a Montana community where health
officials say hundreds of people have been killed by asbestos
poisoning.

The agency's action comes more than 15 years after cleanup work
began in Libby, Montana, following media reports that revealed
rampant, asbestos-caused illness in the small town near the Idaho
border.

Yet even with the price tag on the cleanup exceeding $540 million,
contaminated material remains in the walls of many houses and in
the ground, prompting continued concern. Also, about 700
properties have yet to be investigated to determine if their
inhabitants are at risk.

Montana environmental regulators said in response to the
announcement that they want more details on how the EPA will
handle future discoveries of asbestos. The EPA has promised to set
up steps to deal with such instances but they are not yet fully in
place.

"That's been the biggest concern," said Jeni Flatow with the
Montana Department of Environmental Quality. "How do we handle it
when we come across it? If we're digging utility lines and come
across it, what are the protocols for protecting human health?"

Now that the cleanup plan has been approved, EPA officials said
they will turn next to finalizing procedures to handle future
asbestos discoveries. Those so-called "institutional controls"
will be based on consultations with community leaders, the DEQ and
others, said Rebecca Thomas, the EPA project manager in Libby.

"We know with great certainty that we will be leaving some
contamination behind where it doesn't pose (immediate) risk of
exposure," Thomas said.

The asbestos found in Libby can cause severe lung problems and
other health issues. It came from a W.R. Grace and Co. vermiculite
mine that operated for decades just outside town.

Health workers have estimated that as many as 400 people have died
and almost 3,000 have been sickened from exposure in Libby and the
surrounding area.

The mine was shuttered in 1990. W.R. Grace agreed in a 2008
settlement to pay the EPA $250 million for cleanup work.

The government has spent more than twice that much to date. The
cleanup is expected to continue for at least two to three years
more.

An EPA risk assessment last year found that the removal of a
million cubic yards of dirt and building material from properties
in Libby and neighboring Troy had significantly reduced asbestos
exposure risks.

Scientists say exposure to even a minuscule amount of the material
can cause lung problems. Vermiculite from the W.R. Grace mine was
shipped out by rail for use as insulating material in millions of
homes across the U.S.

Cleanup work on the highly-contaminated mine site and surrounding
wooded areas of the Kootenai National Forest has barely begun.
Those sites will be dealt with under a different plan, the EPA
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sen. Flake Bill Requires Transparency on Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Theobald, writing for Republic Washington Bureau, reported
that legislation sponsored by Sen. Jeff Flake to increase
transparency in the legal system has thrust the Arizona Republican
into the middle of a heated battle over how victims of asbestos
exposure are treated.

The debate pits business interests that say the legislation is
needed to prevent fraud against trial lawyers, groups representing
asbestos victims, unions and a large number of veterans groups
that counter the proposal is unnecessary and will put those who
file claims at risk for having their identities stolen.

The conflicting views and the strong emotions were on display at a
hearing on Flake's bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Flake chaired the hearing.

The House version of the legislation passed in January. No
Democrats voted for the bill, and 16 Republicans joined all
Democrats in voting against the measure.

The Arizona House delegation broke along party lines, with
Republican Reps. Trent Franks, Paul Gosar, Martha McSally, Matt
Salmon and David Schweikert all voted for the bill, and Democratic
Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick, Raul Grijalva, Ruben Gallego and Kyrsten
Sinema voted against it.

Flake's legislation in the Senate would require trusts set up to
handle asbestos claims to provide quarterly reports to the
bankruptcy court including the name of every person making a
claim, the person's exposure history, and the basis for their
claim. The reports would be open to the public.

Faced with a flood of asbestos-related lawsuits, some companies
chose to use a special provision of the bankruptcy code that
allowed them to create trusts that pay claims to victims. Other
companies still face lawsuits in the court system.

Proponents of Flake's legislation say more transparency is needed
to prevent plaintiffs and their lawyers from making multiple,
sometimes conflicting claims in lawsuits and trust claims about
the source of asbestos exposure.

Flake said additional information about the claims in trust cases
is needed to determine whether fraud is widespread.

But Elihu Inselbuch, a New York attorney who has represented
asbestos victims, countered that Flake's bill is the latest tactic
"to interfere with the operation of the ... trusts."

"This bill is a solution without a problem," testified Inselbuch,
who jousted with Republican committee members several times during
the hearing.

Flake said he welcomed "any and all recommendations" to improve
the legislation and protect the identities of asbestos victims.

Fifteen thousand Americans die each year from asbestos-related
diseases, according to the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization. Thirty percent of those suffering from asbestos-
related illnesses are veterans, and numerous veterans' groups have
come out against the legislation. These include the Vietnam
Veterans of America, the Marine Corps Reserve Association and the
Military Order of the Purple Heart.

In a letter to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the
groups argue information the legislation would reveal would make
people vulnerable to identity theft.

"Forcing our veterans to publicize their work histories, medical
conditions, Social Security numbers, and information about their
children and families is an offensive invasion of privacy," they
added.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., a member of the committee, said if
people want to improve transparency involving asbestos they should
support his bill, which would require the federal government to
create a public database listing all the products that contain
asbestos so people can avoid exposure.

The next step for Flake's bill would be for the Judiciary
Committee to debate it, propose amendments and decide whether to
recommend its passage by the full Senate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Family Can Sue Over Lethal Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Gate, reported that a state
appeals court in San Francisco has reinstated a lawsuit by a widow
and her children against Ford Motor Co. and two other possible
sources of lethal asbestos dust at a Coast Guard base where the
woman's late husband worked.

Gene Lepore was a civilian trainer at the base in Port Hueneme
(Ventura County) from 1974 until he retired in 2000. He regularly
visited a vehicle repair shop where mechanics worked on brakes
that, until protective measures were taken in 1986, emitted clouds
of asbestos-filled dust, said Stephen Tigerman, a lawyer for
Lepore's family. Lepore filed the suit in 2009 and died in May
2010 at age 62 of mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos fiber
in the lungs.

The suit was filed in San Francisco because its courts have a
fast-track program that expedites asbestos cases for the
terminally ill, Tigerman said. He said more than a dozen companies
have reached settlements with Geraldine Lepore and her children,
but four have held out, including Ford, whose trucks and other
vehicles had repair work done at the base.

Superior Court Judge Teri Jackson dismissed the suit in 2012,
saying Gene Lepore and his supporting witnesses had presented no
evidence that Lepore had been nearby when any products made by
Ford or the other defendants -- Navistar, the parent company of
International Harvester; Kelsey-Hayes, which manufactures brakes;
and Gibbs International, which makes vehicle replacement parts --
emitted asbestos into the air.

But the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said that
the witnesses had offered enough evidence to let a jury decide
whether Lepore had been exposed to asbestos dust from Ford,
Navistar and Kelsey-Hayes. The court upheld dismissal of the suit
against Gibbs.

In Ford's case, the court said, Lepore and others said he had been
at the repair center when mechanics were working on brakes, and
that Fords were regularly repaired there. A colleague said he and
Lepore often stood nearby while Fords were having their brakes
replaced.

That is enough evidence for a jury to "conclude Lepore was exposed
to asbestos released from products manufactured or distributed by
Ford," Justice Maria Rivera said in the 3-0 ruling. She reached
similar assessments for Navistar and Kelsey-Hayes, saying the
evidence against any of the three was not overwhelming but was
enough to submit to a jury.

Tigerman said the family was pleased with the ruling and would
look to settle the cases without a trial. Lawyers for the
companies could not be reached for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Pleads Guilty to Environmental Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
KLTV.com reported that a 60-year-old Kennard, Texas man has
pleaded guilty to federal environmental violations, announced U.S.
Attorney John M. Bales.

Rodney K. Beshears pleaded guilty to violating the work practice
standards of the Clean Air Act before U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy
Payne.

According to information presented in court, Beshears admitted
that in October of 2011, he and his employees began excavating and
removing a pipeline in northeast Texas.

On Dec. 16, 2011, an inspector with the Texas Department of State
Health Services conducted a site inspection where Beshears was
removing the pipeline near Diana, Texas, and informed Beshears
that the pipeline had a coating of asbestos. On Dec. 21, 2011,
Beshears received training on asbestos removal practices which
included instructions on the proper handling of asbestos material
required under the work practice standards of the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants or "NESHAP" rules
for asbestos when excavating and removing pipe with a coating of
asbestos.  On Jan. 13, 2012, the Texas Department of State Health
Services inspected another site where Beshears was excavating and
removing the pipeline just outside of Ore City, Texas and again
informed Beshears that the pipe had a coating of asbestos
material.

Beshears' removal of the pipeline continued through March, 2012,
during which time, Beshears removed, and caused others to remove,
several thousand feet of pipeline which contained regulated
asbestos containing material, between Diana and Ore City, Texas.
The excavation, cutting and removal of the pipeline, as directed
by Beshears, included no wetting of the asbestos material that
coated the pipeline as Beshears had been instructed during the
training.  The asbestos material was crumbled and pulverized by
hitting the pipe coating with a hammer to knock it off the pipe to
expose the pipe so it could be cut into pieces; asbestos was
crumbled and pulverized by dragging the pipe segments across the
ground; and asbestos was not disposed of at approved disposal
facilities.  Beshears was indicted by a federal grand jury on Sep.
3, 2014.

Under federal statutes, Beshears faces up to five years in federal
prison at sentencing. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed
by congress and is provided for informational purposes, as the
sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based
on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors.
A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a
presentence investigation by the U.S. Probation Office.

This case was investigated by the EPA's Criminal Investigation
Division in Dallas, Texas, the TCEQ's Criminal Investigation
Division, and the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, and
prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Noble.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niagara County Gov't Faces Another Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Prohaska, writing for The Buffalo News, reported that
Niagara County has another asbestos issue on its hands, but this
time it's been, in a sense, swept under the rug.

The installation of new carpeting in the County Clerk's office in
January may have resulted in the unprotected removal of floor
tiles that probably contained asbestos.

However, the scene has now been covered with the new carpeting,
and the removed material has been disposed of.

Two inspectors from the state Labor Department's Public Employee
Safety and Health Bureau visited the County Courthouse. They took
samples of floor tiles and carpet glue, according to William
Rutland, president of the county's blue-collar employees' union,
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The samples will be tested, and in the meantime, no warnings or
restrictions on use of the clerk's office have been posted.

However, with the old carpeting and the floor tiles beneath it
already landfilled, Rutland said, "It's too late" to prove how
much exposure there was, if any.

He's the same man whose complaint about the removal of loose
asbestos last May from a basement crawl space in the Shaw
Building, headquarters of the county Health and Mental Health
departments, led to a lengthy investigation.

On that occasion, welfare recipients working in exchange for
benefits carried some loose asbestos to a dumpster.

On Jan. 26 and 27, county maintenance workers, assisted by welfare
workers, were assigned to remove and replace 19-year-old carpet in
the clerk's office, newly occupied by Joseph A. Jastrzemski. He
was elected clerk in November to replace Wayne F. Jagow, who
retired after 20 years in office.

A county official who was not authorized to speak on the record
said the old carpet had been glued to the floor tile, and when the
carpet was pulled up, the tile came up with it.

Rutland said it was 9-inch tile, which implies the presence of
asbestos. Since asbestos, a fire retardant, was proven to cause
cancer, manufacturers generally produce asbestos-free tile in
other sizes to avoid confusion with the older material.

County Manager Jeffrey M. Glatz said, "If the stories are what
they say they are, the carpet never should have been pulled up."

Glatz said Jeffrey E. Gaston, the county's buildings and grounds
director, who joined the county after the Shaw Building episode,
told him the floor seemed to have been swept clean before the new
carpet was installed.

Glatz said in the aftermath of the Shaw Building episode, county
workers were trained, at the state's order, on how to recognize
and avoid asbestos.

"It's really frustrating and unbelievable," Glatz said. "You see
Mr. Rutland on Facebook criticizing the management. It was people
they (AFSCME) represent, and they didn't make anything known for
11 days . . . Why is it so hard to follow the rules?"

Rutland responded, "I would say it's a little early to be placing
blame."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Last Defendant in Owensboro Woman's Suit Settles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Mayse, writing for Messenger-Inquirer, reported that it was
scheduled to last almost all of February. But as it happened, the
asbestos exposure lawsuit filed by former Owensboro resident Doris
White against various area companies ended after fewer than three
full days of testimony.

White, who now lives in Louisville, sued her ex-husband's former
employer, Triangle Enterprises, and various other companies,
including General Electric, Alcoa, Goodyear, Big Rivers, Amec
Foster Wheeler and York. In her suit, White claimed she contracted
mesothelioma, a form of cancer exclusively associated with
asbestos exposure, from asbestos dust her then-husband, Ron Eades,
brought home on his work clothes during the years they were
married.

Eades was an insulator who worked at the facilities, sometimes as
an independent contractor, but mostly as an employee for Triangle,
a Paducah-based company that does insulation work.

White's attorneys have said previously that White is gravely ill.

Although several companies entered into settlements with White
before trial, there were still seven defendants involved when the
jury heard opening arguments on Feb. 2. Jurors heard testimony
from some of White's physicians about her medical condition.

After that testimony, several companies reached settlements with
White. Others entered into settlements with White's attorneys -- a
day when trial was canceled because of a juror's illness.  When
court resumed, the only remaining defendant was Triangle
Enterprises.

Jurors had seen about an hour of testimony, on video, when a
recess was called. A short time later, Daviess Circuit Judge Joe
Castlen announced Triangle had also reached a settlement with
White's attorneys.

"It was very unexpected," Castlen said. The settlements are
confidential, and Castlen said even he did not know the terms of
the settlements.

Joe Satterley, one of White's attorneys, said White "is extremely
satisfied with the result."

"We had a lot more evidence to present," Satterley said. "It's
probably frustrating for you not to hear the full story."

The attorneys and the judge then spent several minutes answering
questions from the jury, which shed some light on the settlement -
- and on the cost of staging a trial that initially involved about
14 companies, and 18 lawyers in the courtroom on the first day of
trial.

White, for example, has received more $1 million in medical care
since being diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2014.

"Some of the bills are being paid by (White's) insurance,"
Satterley said. "... But the insurance company has the right to go
after Ms. White, to be paid back" for what they've paid for her
care, Satterley said.

Of the $1 million, Satterley said, "we have to get all that, in
case" the insurance company sues to recoup its costs.

Tom Burns, who represented Triangle Enterprises, said Triangle was
satisfied with the settlement. But Burns said he had been ready to
make his case to the jury.

"It wasn't going to be boring," Burns said.

White had been scheduled to testify, and one consideration in
agreeing to the settlement was that she wouldn't be required to
come to Owensboro for the trial, Satterley said.

"I'm not sure she's in very good shape right now," Castlen said
about White.

Of the cost of the trial itself, one attorney remarked it could
have been as high as $100,000 each day.

"There were 18 attorneys here in the courtroom" when trial began,
Castlen said. "When he said $100,000, I wouldn't be surprised."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at New Bolton Interchange Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Thorp, writing for The Bolton News, reported that contractors
working on Bolton's new GBP48 million transport interchange have
discovered asbestos beneath the construction site.

Transport for Greater Manchester -- which is carrying out the
scheme -- said a small quantity of material suspected of
containing asbestos was excavated by workers.

After securing the area, specialist tests were carried out which
confirmed that the dangerous material was present in the samples.

The area was fully excavated and the affected material has now
been safely disposed of.

Transport chiefs said such discoveries were not uncommon and that
the incident has not pushed back the completion date of the
project.

TfGM head of programme management services Peter Boulton said:
"During redevelopment projects such as this, it is common for
contractors to encounter various types of ground contamination,
especially when the land has previously been used for industrial
or commercial purposes.

"In this instance, the contractor immediately secured the site in
the safest possible manner, arranged for the appropriate
excavation and disposal of the material and re-sequenced
construction activities.

"Construction of the interchange is progressing well and is
scheduled for completion at the end of 2016."

The asbestos discovery is not the only stumbling block the project
has met.

Contractors have also discovered uncharted utility services
beneath the work site. Workmen have also faced difficult weather
conditions over the winter months.

Mr Boulton added: "These different factors have required the
project to complete design and construction activities in a
different order to that originally planned, which has adjusted the
projected costs for the forthcoming financial year.

"However, the project is still forecast to be completed within the
GBP48 million budget."

Figures published by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority
indicate that the current forecasted expenditure on the project
for 2015/16 is GBP14.1 million compared to the previous forecast
of GBP13.6 million.

The new costings still fall within the approved budget.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow's $2.3-Mil. Award Delayed Yet Again
----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that it
was back in April of 2015 when an appellate court affirmed a lower
court's verdict and ruling to award $2.3 million in compensation
upon the conclusion of an Asbestos lawsuit brought by Frank and
Charlotte Vinciguerra.

And yet it isn't over, in spite of the appeal. That's because the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge by a
defendant to determine if a defendant might have the legal
capacity to ask jurors to decide whether or not a product alleged
to have contributed to a diagnosis of mesothelioma on the part of
Frank Vinciguerra may have indeed been "unreasonably dangerous."

This would be a further blow for Charlotte Vinciguerra, who lost
her husband, Frank, to asbestos mesothelioma. Now a widow,
Charlotte has little choice but to continue the process alone.

According to court records, Frank Vinciguerra toiled as a sheet
metal worker for E.I. DuPont Nemours & Co. at its Chambers Works
facility in Deepwater, New Jersey. With the exception of two
years, Vinciguerra worked at the plant from 1951 to 1985.

According to his asbestos claims, Vinciguerra was regularly made
to fashion and install gaskets made from Cranite, a substance
manufactured by Crane Co. and alleged to contain asbestos.
Vinciguerra would later face a diagnosis of malignant asbestos
cancer -- Mesothelioma -- and subsequently succumbed to the
disease.

Amongst other issues, Crane Co., it has been reported, put forward
its position that the industrial products company was prejudiced
by the original trial court's refusal to allow a jury instruction
saying that a product is defective when the lack of instructions
or warnings render it "not reasonably safe."

The appellate court, in April, disagreed with that notion.

"Upon review of the record, we conclude that the requested
instruction was not justified by Crane's theory of the case and
the evidence it presented at trial," the appellate court said in
April. "Crane's defense was not that Cranite was not 'unreasonably
dangerous.' Rather, Crane asserted that Cranite was not dangerous
at all."

Crane appealed the appellate court's ruling to Pennsylvania's
highest court, submitting several issues. It has been reported the
Court dismissed Crane Co.'s petition in practically every aspect
save for one: whether the 2014 Tincher v. Omega Flex Inc. decision
permits "a defendant in strict-liability claim based on a failure-
to-warn theory [the] right to have a jury determine whether the
product was 'unreasonably dangerous.'"

The Tincher decision struck down the longstanding 1978 decision in
Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co., which precluded all evidence of
negligence in strict liability cases. The Tincher decision also
fostered a shift in jury instructions.

It is not known if Crane Co. will pursue the matter to a higher
court if it fails in its petition with the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court. Regardless, the widow of Frank Vinciguerra has little
choice but to carry on with her asbestos claims in the absence of
her husband, felled as he was by asbestos mesothelioma.

The Asbestos lawsuit is Charlotte Vinciguerra v. Bayer Cropscience
Inc. et al., Case number 447 EAL 2015, in the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, Eastern District.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Not Liable in Worker's $20MM Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reported that a California
jury found Union Carbide not liable in a former mechanic and
welder's $20 million mesothelioma trial after a day of
deliberation.

During closing arguments, Union Carbide Corp. attorney R. Scott
Masterson of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP told jurors that
plaintiff Victor Jasniy had failed to prove that he was exposed to
Union Carbide's Calidria asbestos, much less that the product
caused his cancer.

"There's no dose," Masterson said, according to a trial
transcript.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Revives Naval Worker's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Dani Meyer, writing for Law360, reported that a California
appellate court revived a wrongful death suit against Ford and
others brought by the family of a naval construction center worker
who died from exposure to asbestos, finding that there is enough
evidence to block the automaker's attempt to shake the suit.

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that Ford Motor Co.,
Navistar Inc. and Kelsey-Hayes Co. shouldn't have been allowed to
escape the suit over Gene Lepore's wrongful death because his
family provided adequate evidence that they contributed to
Lepore's asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Files RICO Suits
-------------------------------------------
Steven M. Sellers and Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Brief --
Distress & Bankruptcy, reported that as the Senate Judiciary
Committee was set to consider an asbestos bankruptcy trust
overhaul bill aimed at what its business proponents say is abusive
litigation tactics by plaintiffs' attorneys, John Crane Co. Inc.
has filed new complaints accusing two plaintiffs' law firms of
filing fraudulent asbestos exposure claims.

Mark Behrens, a product liability defense attorney with Shook,
Hardy & Bacon in Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 27 the
FACT Act (H. R. 1927) would address some of the issues raised in
the complaints.

One of those issues is that plaintiffs' lawyers are waiting to
file asbestos trust claims involving bankrupt companies so that it
will appear, in their tort suits, that only solvent companies are
responsible for asbestos-related injuries.

"The FACT Act would bring about greater transparency with respect
to allegations made in asbestos bankruptcy trust claims, promoting
honesty with respect to claims made against trusts and against
solvent defendants in the tort system," said Behrens, who focuses
on product liability defense.

While the legislation is unlikely to pass in the Senate, the bill
and the suits reflect the high stakes at issue over a product
banned a quarter century ago and the huge pool of potential
plaintiffs.

For their part, lawyers for the plaintiffs' law firms dispute the
claims by John Crane, a company that has faced many suits over the
toxic substance. They also tell Bloomberg BNA the claims reflect a
broader effort to weaken legitimate litigation brought against
asbestos defendants.

Attorney Michael Magner, of Jones Walker in New Orleans, who
represents Dallas-based Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, told
Bloomberg BNA Jan. 26 the claims are "nothing more than
retaliation by a company that consistently loses its cases against
Simon Greenstone."

"Accusing the attorneys at Simon Greenstone of engaging in
wrongdoing is a cynical effort by John Crane to drive Simon
Greenstone out of the courtroom and convince other trial lawyers
to pull their punches when litigating against John Crane," Magner
said.

Daniel Brier, of Myers, Brier & Kelly in Scranton, Pa., who
represents Philadelphia's Shein Law Center and its partners,
defended the firm's misrepresentation of its asbestos clients, and
questioned the suits.

"This is part of a coordinated desperate strategy to attack
lawyers that represent American workers and service members
grievously and fatally harmed by asbestos products," Brier told
Bloomberg BNA Jan. 27 in an e-mail.

"Ben Shein's clients received financial compensation from John
Crane, Inc. many years ago after verdicts were entered following
trials before juries and judges," Brier said, adding that John
Crane paid the verdicts "presumably after concluding that there
was no factual or legal basis to appeal the verdicts."

John Crane's complaints, filed as part of motions to intervene in
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, claim the two law firms violated the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The company
also claims the firms violated federal mail, wire fraud,
obstruction of justice and witness tampering laws. The complaints
cite examples of allegedly false claims, undisclosed asbestos
exposure trust fund claims and other alleged abuses. The motions
to intervene were brought in similar litigation filed by
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC against plaintiff law firms
pending in the Western District of North Carolina. Those
complaints followed a 2014 finding by a bankruptcy court in North
Carolina that some asbestos claims in the Garlock litigation
contained "demonstrable misrepresentation."

That finding prompted Garlock to file complaints against
plaintiffs' law firms under RICO alleging racketeering, fraud and
conspiracy claims. John Crane contends its suits present issues
common to other cases filed in Garlock. The court hasn't yet ruled
on John Crane's motions to intervene. The recently-filed RICO
allegations may strike a legislative chord.

The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a Feb. 3 hearing on the
Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act -- a bill that would
address some of the abuses alleged in John Crane's complaints.

The FACT Act would amend Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code to
require each asbestos bankruptcy trust to file a report with the
bankruptcy court every quarter that "describes each demand the
trust received from, including the name and exposure history of, a
claimant and the basis for any payment from the trust made to such
claimant."

John Crane contends, in part, that the law firms wrongly delayed
filing of asbestos trust claims until after the completion of tort
litigation to create the false appearance that the plaintiffs "had
only been exposed to asbestoscontaining products for which
nonbankrupt companies were responsible."

While advocates of the legislation have conceded it is unlikely to
become law, they say hearings are an opportunity to publicize what
they say is suppression of evidence by the plaintiffs' bar.




                            *********

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  * * *