CAR_Public/160216.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 33


                            Headlines


AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ANTHEM INC: "Hunter" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract, Negligence
APPLE INC: PCVA to Proceed with iPhone "Error 53" Class Action
ATHENAHEALTH INC: May 2016 Final Approval Hearing Set
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces Suit by St. Louis Heart Center

ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces Suit by Michigan Urgent & Primary Care
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Posted $12.8MM Gain from Class Actions
BAYER: Judge Refuses to Consolidate Drug Claims Into Mass Tort
BIONDILLO'S BAKERY: "Mercado" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Recalls Mortadella and Deli Meat Products

BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: "Dixson" Suit Seeks Damages Under Unruh Act
CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court Ruling to Impact Class Action Strategy
CITIBANK NA: Seeks Approval of $23M Libor Class Action Settlement
CNT TRAY: Recalls Pistachio Products Due to Salmonella
COOK MEDICAL: Recalls Venous Catheters & Pressure Monitoring Sets

COTY INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending
CTI BIOPHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
CUBIC CORPORATION: Consumer Cases Settled for Nominal Amount
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
DRAFTKINGS INC: More Than 80 Fraud Suits Coordinated into MDL

E. I. DU PONT: 2017 Trial Set for 40 Drinking Water Cases
EMCORE CORPORATION: Faces "Mirasol" Class Action
EROS INT'L: "Popi" Suit Seeks Damages Under Securities Act
EUROPEAN NATURAL: Recalls Brian's Cauliflower Due to Sulfites
FIRST RESOLUTION: Ohio Supreme Court Keeps Jarvis Counterclaims

FLEETMATICS USA: "Gillard" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: 4 Securities Class Suits Filed in Texas
FORDHAM FINANCIAL: Judge Decertifies FLSA Collective Actions
FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Chopped Romaine Products Due to Allergens
GARDEN OF LIFE: Recalls Organic Shake Products Due to Salmonella

GENERAL MOTORS: Two Ignition Switch MDL Plaintiffs Lawyers at War
GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets Due to Soy
GOOGLE INC: Taps Cooley to Defend E-mail Scanning Class Action
GOPRO INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
H-E-B: Recalls Caramel Pecan Turtle Ice Cream Due to Wood Pieces

HORMEL FOODS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Contamination
HSBC: Reaches $470MM Mortgage Settlement with Gov't, 49 States
ILLINOIS: Faces Suit Over Appropriated Private Property
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Appellate Briefing to Be Held
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Oral Argument in "Lanier" Appeal Set

INTERNATIONAL FOODSOURCE: Recalls Raw Pistachios Products
JEL SERT: Recalls Banana Cream Pie Filling Due to Salmonella
KING SOOPERS: Recalls Gourmet Bread Pudding Due to Walnuts
KROGER: Former Call Center Workers File Wage Suit
LIFELOCK INC: Incurs Loss Following $113MM FTC Settlement

LIVING TREE: Recalls Macadamia Nuts and Organic Macadamia Butter
M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: "Alvarez" Case Scheduled for Mediation
MAHINA MELE: Recalls Macadamia Nut Products Due to Salmonella
MARIN PASTA: Recalls Pork Ravioli Products Due to Noncompliance
MCKESSON CORP: Class Certification Bid in TCPA Case Pending

META FINANCIAL: 3 Class Actions Filed Against MetaBank(R)
MORGAN & MORGAN: Settles Ex-Employee's Unpaid OT Class Action
MULTI-SHOT LLC: "Bradshaw" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
NATURAL HEALTH: March 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
NAVIENT CORP: April 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

NET I: Securities Litigation Has Been Closed
NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY: Settles Family Leave Suit for $700K
NEXT MODEL: Fashion Models File Class Action Over Mistreatment
NOVARTIS AG: U.S. Unit Faces 21 Reclast Product Liability Suits
NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz Faces 395 Reglan Product Liability Cases

NOVARTIS AG: NPC Faces 12 Cases Over Tekturna, Rasilez & Valturna
NOVARTIS AG: NPC Still Faces Private Payors' Suit in New Jersey
NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz Still Faces Solodyn(R) Claims
NOVARTIS AG: Alcon Still Faces Contact Lens Claims
NOVARTIS AG: NPC Still Faces Payors' Claims over Gleevec

NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz & Momenta Sued in Tenn. over Enoxaparin
NOVARTIS AG: Continues to Defend Eye Drop Products Class Suits
NOVARTIS AG: Gender Discrimination Claims Against Alcon Settled
NOVARTIS AG: NPC Continues to Defend Zometa & Aredia Claims
NOVARTIS AG: Excedrin Consumer Class Action Remains Pending

OUTERWALL INC: Appellate Court Upholds Trial Court's Rulings
PATIENT FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Tropper" Suit Says
PALERO MEAT: Faces "Zapata" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PETROBRAS: Must Face Investor Class Action, Judge Rules
PETROBRAS: International Investors Mull Class Action Over Losses

PGA TOUR: Professional Caddies Lose Bib Class Action
PRINCE GEORGE, WA: School Board Sued Over Child Pornography
PENNANTPARK FLOATING: Settlement Reached in MCG Merger Case
PETROLVALVES: "Foy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Chides Lawyers Over Litigation Strategy

PLATINUM LIMOUSINE: "Arakaki" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
QLOGIC CORP: Still Faces "Hull" Lawsuit in California
QUIKSILVER INC: Bankruptcy Filing Stays Class Suits
RAMS: Faces Class Action Over PSL Contract Reimbursement
RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schacher" Suit Says

RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reizman" Suit Says
RMCN CREDIT: "Biller" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
SCHLUMBERGER N.V.: Defending Suits Related to Cameron Merger
SOLARWINDS INC: Sued in Tex. Over Misleading Financial Reports
SPOTIFY USA: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Completed in Clearwire Case
STATE FARM: Court Issues Opinion on Labor Depreciation Suit
SUMMIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Koroman" Suit Says
SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SUPERIOR COOLING: "Duran" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Reimbursements

SWEETWATER POOLS: Faces "Tucker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Suit Says
SYMANTEC CORP: Awaits Final Class Action Settlement Approval
SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces "Mintz" Suit in N.Y. Over Automated Calls
TALK OF THE TOWN: Faces "Romanofsky" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

TD AMERITRADE: Order Routing Plaintiffs Object to Recommendations
TD AMERITRADE: March 4 Final Approval Hearing Set
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Agrawal" Class Suit Dismissed
TF FOODS: Recalls Fried Bean Snack Products Due to Peanuts
TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: June 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lainer" Suit Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles "Safe Ride Fee" Suit for $28.5MM
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 25 Drivers' Class Actions
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Labor Suits Pile Up

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: MDL Panel Refuses to Coordinate Drivers' Suits
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Appeal over Case Dismissal Ongoing
VICAL INC: 9th Circuit Dismissed Class Action Appeal
VOSGES LTD: Recalls Bacon Chocolate Products Due to Misbranding
VOYAGER PIPELINE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Ballard" Suit Claims

WILSHIRE CREDIT: Suit Seeks Damages for Breach of Contract
YAHOO INC: Faces Suit Over Ranking System-Related Discrimination

* Class Actions Over Website Accessibility on the Rise
* Partial Class Action Settlements Not Covered Under PSLRA
* Securities Class Action Filings in Canada Plummet in 2015


                            *********


AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 11
disclosed it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. securities (NYSE:
AJRD) from October 15, 2013 through February 1, 2016, all dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Aerojet investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Aerojet class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-827.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the purchase accounting for contracts
acquired as part of the acquisition of the Pratt & Whitney
Rocketdyne division from United Technologies Corporation in the
quarter ended August 31, 2013 was erroneous; (2) the accounting
for changes or modifications to one of the acquired Rocketdyne
Business contracts beginning in the quarter ended February 28,
2014 was erroneous; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements
about Aerojet's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times.  When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 11, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-827.htmlfor more information.  You
may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


ANTHEM INC: "Hunter" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract, Negligence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Hunter, Carrie Ramos, Randy Polacsek, and all others
similarly-situated v. Anthem, Inc. and Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of Massachusetts, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-10046 (D. Mass., January
12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for negligence and
breach of contract.

In 2014 and 2015, Anthem, Inc. experienced one of the largest data
security breaches in history. Cyberattackers stole the personal
information of approximately 80 million Americans ("Affected
Individuals").

The Plaintiffs alleged that despite the fact that it was storing
sensitive personal information that it knew was valuable to, and
vulnerable to, cyberattackers, Anthem and Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. failed to take even the most basic
security precautions that could have protected Affected
Individuals' data.

Anthem is one of the largest health benefits and health insurance
companies in the United States. Anthem serves its medical members
through its fourteen Blue Cross Blue Shield licensee affiliates,
as well as its non-Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates, such as
Amerigroup Corporation, CareMore Health Group, Inc., HealthLink,
and UniCare.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Lisa Lee, Esq.
      JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
      31 St. James Avenue, Suite 365
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 933-1265
      Fax: (410) 653-9030
      E-mail: LLee@myadvocates.com

         - and -

      Andrew Friedman, Esq.
      Eric Kafka, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue, NW
      Suite 500 East
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 408-4600
      Fax: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: AFriedman@cohenmilstein.com
              EKafka@cohenmilstein.com


APPLE INC: PCVA to Proceed with iPhone "Error 53" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that
Seattle-based law firm PCVA has decided to move forward with a
class action lawsuit related to Apple's hardware repair practices,
specifically targeting the "Error 53" code issue that renders
iPhone unusable following an unauthorized Touch ID fingerprint
sensor install.

Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, the pending suit alleges Apple has "gone too far" in
its attempts to control the iPhone hardware platform, saying the
"Error 53" message some users are seeing as a result of
unauthorized repairs warrants redress.

Error 53 codes affect iPhone 6 and 6s handsets that have undergone
Touch ID module -- or in some cases screen, flex cable and water-
damaged component -- replacement by a repair firm operating
outside of Apple's Authorized Service Provider network. Most users
see the message after restoring a saved backup or updating to the
latest iOS version.

In addition to being rendered unusable, iPhones showing Error 53
messages repaired through an unofficial dealer are no longer
covered under Apple's warranty as they were, in effect, tampered
with by an outside party.

Users have reported Error 53 codes from at least early 2015, but
it wasn't until recently that the issue gained public notoriety. A
media report suggested Apple was not only aware of the error
message, but had software safeguards in place that "bricked"
affected units to satisfy standard iOS security measures.

"We protect fingerprint data using a secure enclave, which is
uniquely paired to the Touch ID sensor," an Apple representative
said.  "When iOS detects that the pairing fails, Touch ID,
including Apple Pay, is disabled so the device remains secure."

For its part, Apple is attempting to protect highly sensitive
biometric user data gathered by Touch ID and its supporting
circuitry.  By distributing certified parts through authorized
repair agents Apple can control against potential security
breaches built into unchecked parts.

The lawsuit rekindles an ongoing "right to repair" argument that
has long plagued Apple.  The company has in may cases made it
nearly impossible for users to open, let alone repair, a device on
their own.  From generous application of adhesives to the
introduction of proprietary pentalobe screws, Apple engineers its
devices to thwart unauthorized repair efforts.  Apple claims such
steps are required to ensure its devices work as designed,
allowing for a consistent user experience.

On behalf of its clients, PCVA seeks at least $5 million in
damages and restitution for users affected by Error 53 codes, as
well as the release of a software update that removes the imposed
repair restriction from iOS.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: May 2016 Final Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has set a final
approval hearing for May 2016, on the settlement in a securities
class action lawsuit.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-945, on behalf of a
putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and
its former officers and directors. The complaint asserted claims
under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of all stockholders that purchased Epocrates stock in its
initial public offering ("IPO") and claims under sections 10(b)
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all
stockholders that purchased shares between February 2, 2011 (the
day after the IPO) and August 9, 2011.

On October 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging only claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
voluntarily dismissing a number of the individual defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that Epocrates made false or misleading
statements with respect to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical
clients were awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug
Administration on the use of advertising and social media, which
caused the clients to delay marketing and negatively impacted the
timing of Epocrates' sales and revenue growth. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, plaintiffs' costs, attorneys' fees, and such
other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On December 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On June 4, 2014, the court issued an order
dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to amend
their complaint. On June 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which asserts substantially similar claims as
those set forth in the first amended complaint. On July 14, 2014,
we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On
October 2, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file a
third amended complaint by October 23, 2014, and denied the motion
to dismiss as moot. Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint
on October 23, 2014, which asserts substantially similar claims on
behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares between February
1, 2011, and August 9, 2011.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on
November 10, 2014, and the court denied the motion on March 13,
2015," the Company said. "On April 27, 2015, we filed our answer
to the third amended complaint denying the allegations in the
third amended complaint."

On September 22, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in
principle on a comprehensive settlement of all claims asserted in
the lawsuit with no admission of liability by any defendants and
with any settlement amounts being funded by insurance. The court
preliminarily approved the settlement on December 16, 2015 and set
a final approval hearing for May 2016.

athenahealth is a provider of cloud-based services and mobile
applications for medical groups and health systems.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces Suit by St. Louis Heart Center
------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. will vigorously defend against the lawsuit by
the St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

On May 21, 2015, a class action petition was filed by St. Louis
Heart Center, Inc. in the State Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri, against athenahealth. The petition alleges the Company
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). The
Company was served on July 11, 2015.

On August 10, 2015, the case was removed to federal court in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01215.

The Company served a Rule 68 offer of judgment, offering the
plaintiff relief for its individual claims on August 11, 2015.  On
November 2, 2015, the court entered an order staying the case
pending the United States Supreme Court's (the "Supreme Court")
decision in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, No. 14-857 ("Campbell-
Ewald"). On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its
decision in Campbell-Ewald.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action," the Company said.

athenahealth is a provider of cloud-based services and mobile
applications for medical groups and health systems.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces Suit by Michigan Urgent & Primary Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. will vigorously defend against the lawsuit by
the Michigan Urgent & Primary Care Physicians, P.C., the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

On September 4, 2015, a class action petition was filed by
Michigan Urgent & Primary Care Physicians, P.C., in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case
No. 2:15-cv-13156, against athenahealth. The petition alleges we
violated the TCPA. The Company was served on September 9, 2015.

"We served a Rule 68 offer of judgment, offering the plaintiff
relief for its individual claims on October 16, 2015," the Company
said.

On December 2, 2015, the court continued the matter for 60 days
pending the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald. On January
20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Campbell-Ewald.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action," the Company said.

athenahealth is a provider of cloud-based services and mobile
applications for medical groups and health systems.


AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Posted $12.8MM Gain from Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amerisourcebergen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that during the
three months ended December 31, 2015, the Company recognized gains
of $12.8 million relating to class action lawsuits.

Amerisourcebergen disclosed that numerous class action lawsuits
have been filed against certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers
alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with
others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs
from entering the market.  The Company has not been named a
plaintiff in any of these class actions, but has been a member of
the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase
directly from these pharmaceutical manufacturers).  None of the
class actions have gone to trial, but some have settled in the
past with the Company receiving proceeds from the settlement
funds.

According to the Company, during the three months ended December
31, 2015, it recognized gains of $12.8 million relating to the
class action lawsuits.  During the three months ended December 31,
2014, the Company recognized no gains relating to the class action
lawsuits.  These gains, which are net of attorney fees and
estimated payments due to other parties, were recorded as
reductions to cost of goods sold in the Company's consolidated
statements of operations.

Amerisourcebergen is one of the largest global pharmaceutical
sourcing and distribution services companies, helping both
healthcare providers and pharmaceutical and biotech manufacturers
improve patient access to products and enhance patient care.


BAYER: Judge Refuses to Consolidate Drug Claims Into Mass Tort
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
Philadelphia judge has struck down the bid to establish a mass
tort program for numerous cases claiming the antibiotics Levaquin,
Avelox and Cipro led to nerve damage.

Administrative Judge Jacqueline F. Allen denied a motion from 32
plaintiffs who had sought to consolidate their claims into a mass
tort.  She issued her decision in Whitters v. Bayer in a one-
paragraph order siding with the drugmakers Bayer Corp. and Johnson
& Johnson.  The order did not explain Allen's reasoning.

A spokesman for Bayer said in an emailed statement that the
company was pleased with the decision.

"We are gratified that the court agreed with this argument and
ruled that these cases can proceed in a more efficient and orderly
manner individually, without the need for inefficient and
unnecessarily complicated consolidation," spokesman Christopher
Loder said.  "We believe that these drugs are important medicines
and that the benefits continue to outweigh the risks.  Bayer
believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself
vigorously against plaintiffs' claims."

Although the plaintiffs all alleged the broad-spectrum
fluoroquinolone antibiotics had caused peripheral neuropathy, the
drugmakers had argued that the mass tort status would
unnecessarily complicate the litigation, as the three antibiotics
have different uses, chemical makeups, warnings and development
and approval histories.

In opposition papers filed in December, attorneys for Bayer said
the differences would require particularized drug-specific
discovery.

"Individualized legal issues, such as --innovator liability in the
setting of generic versions of these drugs, will also require drug
and manufacturing-specific analysis," Bayer said in its response
to the plaintiffs, which was filed by A. Elizabeth Balakhani --
ebalakhani@gdldlaw.com -- of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann.

In November, attorneys representing the 32 plaintiffs with
existing claims sent a petition to then-Philadelphia
Administrative Judge Kevin M. Dougherty, seeking to have the
pending cases designated as a mass tort.  The petition said the
attorneys anticipate filing at least 30 more cases in the near
future.

The petition alleged that warnings on the drug failed to properly
demonstrate the association between the drugs and the nerve
damage.

The plaintiffs' petition said the drugs are all used to treat
bacterial infections in the lungs, sinus, skin and urinary tract.
The petition also claimed evidence of an association between
fluoroquinolone drugs and peripheral neuropathy dates back as far
as 1992.

The cases involve negligence, strict liability, breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims, and the
litigation is expected to deal with whether the defendants knew
and failed to disclose the risks, or misrepresented the risks
through marketing campaigns, the plaintiffs' petition said.

In its opposition filings, J&J highlighted the differences between
the medications, warning labels and uses, and said creating a mass
tort will not promote efficiency.

J&J also noted that discovery has already taken place in the
federal multidistrict litigation that was created in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota in August, and argued
that any new discovery will be on a plaintiff-specific basis.

The company further said that all but two of the pending cases
involve plaintiffs from Philadelphia, and so creating a mass tort
would attract numerous claims that do not belong in the
Philadelphia court system.


BIONDILLO'S BAKERY: "Mercado" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Teodulo Mercado, Salvador Sanchez, Arnulfo Saucedo, Ruben
Hinojosa, Leonel Alfaro, Marcelino Esteban, Alvaro Hinojosa,
Rigoberto Hinojosa, Arturo Hinojosa-Villa, Adan Gamino, and all
others similarly-situated v. Biondillo's Bakery, LLC, and Al
Filin, Case No. 1:16-cv-00375 (N.D. Ill., January 12, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

The Defendants operate a wholesale bakery.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Recalls Mortadella and Deli Meat Products
---------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., is voluntarily issuing a recall of
Cittero Mortadella and deli meats sold from January 20 through
February 3, 2016 due to a possible exposure to a tree nut allergen
(pistachio). People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
pistachios run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.
The Citterio Mortadella is being recalled because it may contain
undeclared pistachios. Deli meats that may have come in contact
with the same equipment as the Citterio Mortadella are also being
recalled. See attached list of affected deli meats. These sliced
deli meats are sold in individual service bags.

The recalled deli meats were sold at BJ's locations in Delaware,
Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania
and Virginia.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall is being conducted because during the January 20, 2016
- February 3, 2016 timeframe, BJ's mistakenly received Citterio
Mortadella containing pistachios. BJ's deli labels did not list
pistachios as an ingredient. Since the Mortadella with pistachios
may have been sliced on equipment where other deli meats were
sliced, BJ's is conducting a voluntary recall of all deli meats
purchased during the dates shown above. Deli cheeses are sliced on
separate equipment and, as such, are not subject to this voluntary
recall.

BJ's is coordinating closely with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and has taken precautionary steps, including
removing all potentially-impacted products from its delis and
disinfecting the deli equipment and surfaces.

Members that purchased the recalled products and have an allergy
to pistachio nuts, are asked to please throw away the Citterio
Mortadella and any other deli meats purchased during January 20,
2016 - February 3, 2016. If you do not have an allergy to
pistachio nuts, then you do not need to throw out the Citterio
Mordatella or other deli meats as they are safe to eat.

Members can visit their local BJ's with their receipt for a
refund. If a Member does not have their receipt, a BJ's Team
Member at their local Club can look it up.

If Members have any additional questions, please contact BJ's
Member Care Department at 800-896-0847 during the hours of 9 AM to
7 PM EST Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 6 PM EST Saturday, and 12 PM to
6 PM EST Sunday.

Product List:

  Article Number       Article Description
  -------------        -------------------
  983523               WELLSLEY FARMS HONEY HAM HONEY HAM
  983561               KRAKUS IMPORT POL HAM-SELL
  982441               WELLSLEY BLACK FOREST HAM
  984419               HORMEL COOKED HAM
  984097               D+W VA BAKED HAM
  984473               DAK HAM
  984432               D+W GOURMET LT HAM
  984513               D+W SMOKED HAM ALL NATURAL
  984098               D+W PEPPERED HAM
  984628               APPLEGATE HAM BLACK FOREST
  984630               APPLEGATE SLOW COOKED HAM
  984463               ESSKAY LS FF HAM
  982591               WELLSLEY FARM OVEN ROASTED TURKEY
  982443               WELLSLEY FARM HONEY TURKEY
  984480               D+W HOME TURKEY BREAST
  984823               WELLSLEY FARM LS TURKEY
  984148               D+W MAPLE HONEY TURKEY
  984481               D+W BUFFALO CHICKEN
  984116               D+W BLACK PEPPER TURKEY
  982589               WELLSLEY FARM SMOKED TURKEY
  984105               D+W GMRT LITE TURKEY
  984511               HARVESTLAND ROASTED TURKEY
  982592               WELLSLEY FARM BUFFALO CHICKEN
  982590               WELLSLEY FARM OVEN HONEY CHICKEN
  984118               D+W BLACK FOREST TURKEY
  984159               D+W BBQ CHICKEN
  984627               APPLEGATE ROASTED TURKEY
  984629               APPLEGATE HONEY MAPLE TURKEY
  984142               D+W ROTIS CHICKEN BREAST
  984586               HARVESTLAND HONEY ROASTED TURKEY
  980643               D + W SRIRACHA CHICKEN
  983188               WELLSLEY FARMS ROAST BEEF
  984149               D+W LONDON BROIL ROAST BEEF
  982437               WF PASTRAMI
  982439               WF CORNED BEEF
  984158               D+W BEEF BOLOGNA
  984160               D+W BRAUNSCHWEIGER
  983506               WUNDERBAR BOLOGNA
  984478               ARMOUR MEAT BOLOGNA
  984143               D+W OLIVE LOAF
  984564               KUNZLER SWEET BOLOGNA
  984496               KUNZLER LEBANON BOLOGNA
  984462               ESSKAY MEAT BOLOGNA
  980496               D+W LOW SALT BOLOGNA
  984467               CITTERIO GENOA SALAMI
  984487               CITTERIO PROSCIUTTO
  984472               CITTERIO HARD SALAMI
  984470               CITTERIO MORTADELLA
  984469               CITTERIO PEPPERONI
  984471               CITTERIO HOT CAPICOLLA
  984495               CITTERIO CHORIZO
  984466               CITTERIO SWT CACPICOLLA
  984619               EL TORO CUBAN PORK
  983200               SAUGY NATURAL CASING FRANKS
  984464               ESSKAY BBQ LOAF
  983621               3 FOOT HERO
  983403               DELI SANDWICH
  983623               THE C PREP ENTERTAINER
  984615               3 FOOT HERO ITALIAN
  984477               CROISSANT SANDWICH PLATTER
  984476               ITALIAN MEAT PLATTER
  984439               D+W SIGNATURE PLATTER
  984552               D+W SANDWICH RING
  984509               WELLSLEY FARM LIGHT PLATTER
  980384               ITALIAN SANDWICH RING
  983620               3FT HERO BREAD ONLY
  984580               WELLSLEY FARM DELI RING BREAD ONLY
  980412               WELLSLEY FARM SANDWICH RING SUBSTITUTE
                       TURKEY
  980393               3FT AMERICAN SUBSTITUTE ROAST BEEF
  980395               3FT AMERICAN SUBSTITUTE TURKEY
  980391               WELLSLEY FARM SANDWICH RING SUBSTITUTE
                       ROAST BEEF
  980402               WELLSLEY FARM ENTERTAINMENT PLATTER
                       SUBSTITUTE ROAST BEEF
  980394               D + W SANDWICH RING SUBSTITUTE ROAST BEEF
  980413               WF LIGHTFARE SUBSTITUTE TURKEY
  980392               DW Signaure Platter SUBSTITUTE ROAST BEEF
  980404               WF Crois Platter SUBSTITUTE ROAST BEEF


BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: "Dixson" Suit Seeks Damages Under Unruh Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Dixson, Jr., and all others similarly-situated v.
Bridgestone Retail Operations LLC t/a Firestone Complete Auto
Care, Case No. CIV536727 (Cal. Super., December 28, 2015), seeks
statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the
California Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code Sections 54
and 55.

Both the CDPA, which was enacted in 1968, and the Unruh Act, which
was amended in 1987 to cover persons with disabilities, prohibit
discrimination on the basis of disability and require full and
equal access to services, facilities and advantages of public
accommodations.

The Defendant operates over 100 stores in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 534-2590
      Fax: (310) 247-0160


CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court Ruling to Impact Class Action Strategy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- and
Daniel Werb, Esq. -- dwerb@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP,
in an article for The National Law Review, report that recently,
the U.S. Supreme Court held in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, a
putative class action case, that an unaccepted pre-certification
settlement offer to the named plaintiff does not moot either the
plaintiff's claim or that of the supposed class.  The case
involved a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") and was decided on basic principles of contract law, but
it raises important implications for class action plaintiffs and
defendants in all manner of cases, including in particular class
actions alleging false labeling and other advertising.  In short,
Campbell-Ewald begins to, but does not fully, answer the question
of whether, short of a settlement agreement with the named
plaintiff, a defendant can moot a purported class action suit
prior to class certification, therefore forcing plaintiff's
counsel to find a new  lead plaintiff (a task sometimes more
difficult than one might suppose).

In the underlying dispute, the plaintiff, Jose Gomez, filed a
complaint on behalf of a supposed nationwide class alleging that
defendant Campbell-Ewald sent him and others unwanted text
messages in violation of the TCPA, which prohibits using an
auto-dialer to send a text message absent the recipient's express
consent.  Campbell-Ewald, under a contract with the U.S. Navy,
sent recruitment messages to over 100,000 recipients, including
Gomez, but Gomez alleged that he did not consent to receive the
messages (and indeed was too old to be in the Navy's targeted age
group).

Before Mr. Gomez moved for class certification, Campbell proposed
to settle Gomez's individual claim in full and filed an offer of
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.  The
Supreme Court majority did not dispute the lower court's finding
that the relief offered, if accepted, would have fully compensated
Gomez for the largest individual amount to which he could have
been entitled under the TCPA assuming the jury found in his favor
on liability.

Mr. Gomez, however, did not accept Campbell's offer and allowed
the Rule 68 submission to lapse.  Campbell-Ewald then moved to
dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing
that its offer of complete relief mooted Gomez's individual claim
and that Mr. Gomez's failure to move for class certification
before his individual claim became moot caused the putative class
claims to become moot as well.  The District Court for the Central
District of California denied the motion, determining that Gomez
was not dilatory in filing his certification request and thus the
class claims would "relate back" to the date
Mr. Gomez filed the complaint.  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit agreed that Mr. Gomez's case remained live but on a
different ground, holding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer for
full relief of the named plaintiff's individual claim made before
class certification does not moot either the individual claim or
the class action.  Campbell-Ewald petitioned for certiorari, which
the Supreme Court granted in order to resolve an inter-circuit
split over whether an unaccepted offer can moot a plaintiff's
claim, thereby depriving federal courts of Article III
jurisdiction.

On the merits, the Justices were split as to whether an unaccepted
settlement offer moots the plaintiff's case under Article III's
"cases" and "controversies" requirement.  The majority, in an
opinion by Justice Ginsburg, held that under basic principles of
contract law, Campbell-Ewald's settlement offer, once rejected,
became a nullity, and the parties thereafter retained the same
stakes they had at the outset.  Chief Justice Roberts' dissent
argued that "Article III does not require the parties to
affirmatively agree on a settlement before the case becomes moot,"
and  "when a defendant unilaterally remedies the injuries of the
plaintiff, the case is moot -- even if the plaintiff disagrees and
refuses to settle the dispute, and even if the defendant continues
to deny liability."

The majority and dissent agreed, however, that the case is limited
to its facts.  The majority expressly refrained from deciding
whether its holding would be different if Campbell-Ewald had
actually deposited the full amount of the plaintiff's individual
claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the lower court
then entered judgment for the plaintiff in that amount, a point
the dissent also emphasized.

The implications are significant for class action strategy going
forward.  While Chief Justice Roberts' dissent laments that the
decision transfers power over standing from the federal courts to
the plaintiff, Justice Ginsberg counters that "the dissent's
approach would place the defendant in the driver's seat." Justice
Ginsburg saw Campbell-Ewald's attempt at settlement prior to class
certification as a "gambit" to avoid any holding of classwide
liability later, but Chief Justice Roberts argued in a footnote
that "Gomez does not have standing to seek relief based solely on
the alleged injuries of others, and Gomez's interest in sharing
attorney's fees among class members or in obtaining a class
incentive award does not create Article III standing."

Clearly, the Justices are aware of the complicated issues at play
when a defendant tries to moot a class action suit prior to class
certification without a settlement offer affirmatively accepted by
the named plaintiff, and Campbell-Ewald's holding, rooted in
principles of contract law, does not fully resolve this issue.
Watch this space for further developments.


CITIBANK NA: Seeks Approval of $23M Libor Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Siegel, Esq. -- rsiegel@bilzin.com -- and Stacia A. Wells,
Esq. -- swells@bilzin.com -- of Bilzin Sumberg, in an article for
JDSupra Business Advisor, report that Citibank, N.A. has asked a
federal district court to bless its $23 million settlement in a
class action lawsuit alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy among
banks to fix yen-denominated London Interbank Offered Rates
(LIBOR) interest rates between 2006 and 2010.  The settlement is
the first of its kind in the case.  The lead plaintiff in the
litigation, Jeffrey Laydon, urged the court to approve the
settlement, with his counsel describing it as an "ice breaker"
that could serve as a "potential catalyst" for other banks to
settle.

In 2012, Mr. Laydon sued more than twenty financial institutions,
alleging violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and Sherman Act,
among others.  In a 300 page complaint, he detailed an alleged
conspiracy among banks that sit on LIBOR and Tokyo Interbank
Offered Rate (TIBOR) panels of conspiring to fix these rates by
submitting agreed-upon estimates. As a result of the defendants'
actions, Mr. Laydon claims that he suffered thousands of dollars
of damages in connection with his shorting derivatives of Euroyen
TIBOR futures contracts.

In 2014, the federal judge presiding over the case dismissed
Mr. Laydon's antitrust and unjust enrichment claims, finding that
he did not allege sufficient facts to support those causes of
action.  The judge ruled that "plaintiff alleges only that he
'initiated short positions in CME Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts
during the class period and suffered net losses on such contracts
due to the presence of artificial Euroyen TIBOR future prices
proximately caused by defendants' unlawful manipulation  and
restraint of trade.'"  However, Laydon "fail[ed] to plead facts to
establish that this [was] or might [have been] anticompetitive."

While the dismissal of the antitrust claims was a boon to the
defendants, the judge also ruled that the plaintiff had pled
sufficient facts to support his price manipulation and aiding and
abetting causes of action.  The judge found that Mr. Laydon
sufficiently pled that "the banks stood to gain profits from the
manipulations of yen-LIBOR and TIBOR rates, in the form of
hundreds of millions in ill-gotten trading profits from Euroyen
derivatives positions" and through his pleadings, the plaintiff
presented "overwhelming factual content" from which a court could
infer manipulative intent.

Fast forward two years, following countless hours of discovery and
legal schisms, to the first of what promises to be multiple
settlements between the lead plaintiff and defendants.
Mr. Laydon's counsel noted that the Citibank settlement "give[s]
class members a bird in the hand and the opportunity to obtain the
same bird in the bush through settlements or verdicts against the
remaining defendants." Only time will tell if the Citibank
settlement truly breaks the ice in this litigation.

The case is Laydon v. Mizuho Bank Ltd., et al., Case Number 1:12-
cv-03419, United States District Court, Southern District of New
York.


CNT TRAY: Recalls Pistachio Products Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------
Braga Organic Farms announces the voluntary recall of pistachios
due to potential contamination with Salmonella, an organism that
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella can experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

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

The recalled nuts were distributed in retail stores in California,
Oregon and Washington, and it was distributed through online sales
nationwide.

The product comes in a clear or green standup bag, with the date
code stamped on the bottom of the bag.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the FDA revealed the presence of Salmonella in a one-pound package
of raw pistachio kernels purchased online.

A list of affected products and code dates is listed below; no
other Braga Organic Farms products are associated with this
voluntary recall.

  Product                 Size     UPC            BEST BY OR
  -------                 ----     ---            PURCHASE DATE
                                                  -------------
  Raw Pistachio Kernels   8 oz     896547002047   JUN 29 2016,
                                                  JUL 04 2016,
                                                  JUL 18 2016,
                                                  JUL 25 2016,
                                                  JUL 26 2016
                          1 lb     810126020215   Purchased
                                                  12/28/15 to
                                                  1/27/16
                          2 lbs    896547002306   JUN 28 2016,
                                                  JUL 13 2016,
                                                  JUL 27 2016
                          5 lbs    896547002641   Purchased
                                                  12/28/15 to
                                                  1/27/16
  Trail Mix               8 oz     896547002139   JUN 29 2016,
                                                  JUL 7 2016,
                                                  JUL 11 2016,
                                                  JUL 26 2016
                          1 lb     810126020451   Purchased
                                                  12/28/15 to
                                                  1/29/16
                          2 lbs    896547002320   JUL 01 2016,
                                                  Purchased
                                                  12/28/15 to
                                                  1/29/16
                          5 lbs    896547002603   Purchased
                                                  12/28/15 to
                                                  1/29/16
                          25 lbs   896547002492   Purchased
                                                  12/28/15 to
                                                  1/29/16
  Nut Mix                 8 oz     896547002177   JUL 06 2016,
                                                  JUL 07 2016,
                                                  JUL 11 2016,
                                                  JUL 18 2016
                          1 lb     810126020192   Purchased
                                                  12/28/15 to
                                                  1/27/16
                          2 lbs    896547002351   JUL 01 2016,
                                                  Purchased
                                                  12/28/15 to
                                                  1/27/16
                          5 lbs    810126020208   Purchased
                                                  12/28/15 to
                                                  1/27/16
                          25 lbs   896547002412   Purchased
                                                  12/28/15 to
                                                  1/27/16

Consumers who have purchased this recalled product should not
consume it. They should destroy it or return it to the point of
purchase. Consumers with questions should call 855-661-2101, 8:15
am - 4:30 pm, PST, Monday through Friday.

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


COOK MEDICAL: Recalls Venous Catheters & Pressure Monitoring Sets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 2016, Cook Medical initiated a voluntary recall of
360 specific lots of Single Lumen Central Venous Catheters and
Pressure Monitoring Sets and Trays due to catheter tip fracture
and/or separation. Globally, 17,827 devices are subject to this
recall. The recalled products are specific versions and lot
numbers of the Single Lumen Central Venous Catheter Sets and
Trays, Single Lumen Pressure Monitoring Sets, Femoral Artery
Pressure Monitoring Catheter Sets and Trays, and Radial Artery
Pressure Monitoring Catheter Sets and Trays. These products are
intended for use in venous or arterial pressure monitoring, blood
sampling, and administration of drugs and fluids.

During an internal inspection, a catheter exhibited the potential
for catheter tip fracture and/or separation. Further investigation
revealed that the technique used by the product assembler while
tipping the catheter likely contributed to this nonconformance. No
reports of illness or injury have been associated with this issue
to date. Potential adverse events that may occur as a result of
catheter tip fracture and/or separation include loss of device
function, the need for medical intervention to retrieve a
separated segment, and complications resulting from a separated
tip occluding blood flow to end organs. Examples of such
complications include stroke, kidney injury, or damage to the
intestines or limbs.

The Single Lumen Central Venous Catheters and Pressure Monitoring
Sets and Trays in this recall were distributed globally between
April 24, 2015, and October 23, 2015. Product can be identified by
the part number and lot number that are provided on the outer
package product label. The lot numbers for products that are
subject to this recall can be found below:

  Name of Device    Reference Part    Global Product   Lot Number
  --------------    Number            Number           ----------
                    --------------    --------------
  Femoral Artery    C-NPMSY-501J-15   G13531           NS6054841,
  Pressure                                             NS6054842,
  Monitoring                                           NS6075552,
  Catheter Tray                                        NS6082372,
                                                       NS6082373
                    C-PMSY-300-FA     G02962           NS5833887,
                                                       NS5866959,
                                                       NS5881272,
                                                       NS5881334,
                                                       NS5881335,
                                                       NS5919925,
                                                       NS6047449,
                                                       NS6054847,
                                                       NS6054848,
                                                       NS6072526,
                                                       NS6072555,
                                                       NS6082379,
                                                       NS6090277,
                                                       NS6105921,
                                                       NS6124989,
                                                       NS6130501,
                                                       NS6148639
                    C-PMSY-300J-FA     G02795          NS5866961,
                                                       NS5866962,
                                                       NS5892115,
                                                       NS5922709,
                                                       NS5932844,
                                                       NS5974256,
                                                       NS6031988,
                                                       NS6031990,
                                                       NS6042578,
                                                       NS6050052,
                                                       NS6050053
                    C-PMSY-400J-FA      G01925         NS6031992,
                                                       NS6031993,
                                                       NS6130504,
                                                       NS6137424
                    C-PMSY-401-FA       G02253         NS6054849
  Femoral Artery    C-NPMS-501J-15      G13332         6054830,
  Pressure                                             6054831,
  Monitoring                                           6072436,
  Catheter Set                                         6078670,
                                                       6081720,
                                                       6083977
                    C-PMS-300-FA        G02250         NS5833881,
                                                       NS5881267,
                                                       NS5881268,
                                                       NS5892106,
                                                       NS5892107,
                                                       NS5892108,
                                                       NS5914766,
                                                       NS5922706,
                                                       NS5928596,
                                                       NS5932820,
                                                       NS5932821,
                                                       NS5967447,
                                                       NS5967448,
                                                       NS5967449,
                                                       NS6014474,
                                                       NS6014475,
                                                       NS6014484,
                                                       NS6014485,
                                                       NS6042778,
                                                       NS6042795,
                                                       NS6042796,
                                                       NS6050046,
                                                       NS6063330,
                                                       NS6063354,
                                                       NS6075555,
                                                       NS6100599,
                                                       NS6100600,
                                                       NS6108225,
                                                       NS6124985
                   C-PMS-300J-FA        G04021         NS5888542,
                                                       NS5928597,
                                                       NS6028553,
                                                       NS6042797,
                                                       NS6090273,
                                                       NS6090274,
                                                       NS6100601,
                                                       NS6130149
                   C-PMS-301-FA         G02598         5800570,
                                                       5860387,
                                                       5891906,
                                                       5980254,
                                                       6003160,
                                                       6062725,
                                                       6143835,
                                                       NS5830771,
                                                       NS5866956,
                                                       NS5866957,
                                                       NS5881269,
                                                       NS6014460,
                                                       NS6042798,
                                                       NS6050047,
                                                       NS6075534,
                                                       NS6075556
                   C-PMS-301J-FA         G02755        5895598,
                                                       6129058,
                                                       6148613,
                                                       NS5932822,
                                                       NS5932837,
                                                       NS5994907,
                                                       NS6130498
                   C-PMS-400-FA          G01909        6067782,
                                                       6139280,
                                                       NS6042805,
                                                       NS6130500
                   C-PMS-401-FA          G02058        6049951,
                                                       6137353,
                                                       6139281
                   C-PMS-401J-FA         G02089        6034986,
                                                       6049957,
                                                       6067784
  Radial Artery    C-PMSY-250-RA         G04528        6124812
  Pressure
  Monitoring
  Catheter Tray
                   C-PMSY-300-RA         G01923        5793192,
                                                       5824526,
                                                       5884647,
                                                       5892068,
                                                       5942090,
                                                       5967410,
                                                       6003167,
                                                       6059765,
                                                       6134128,
                                                       6153124,
                                                       6168137,
                                                       6254068
                    C-PMSY-301-RA        G02052        5793193,
                                                       5866995,
                                                       5892069,
                                                       5942092,
                                                       6003168,
                                                       6025099,
                                                       6067664,
                                                       6168138
  Radial Artery     C-PMS-250-RA         G02926        6049998,
  Pressure                                             6160195,
  Monitoring                                           6160212,
  Catheter Set                                         NS5898558,
                                                       NS6063328,
                                                       NS6178204,
                                                       NS6178206
                    C-PMS-251-RA         G02930        5895605,
                                                       6191185
                    C-PMS-300-RA         G01908        5793196,
                                                       5800313,
                                                       5800443,
                                                       5800569,
                                                       5806981,
                                                       5810905,
                                                       5810917,
                                                       5824484,
                                                       5824546,
                                                       5824547,
                                                       5824548,
                                                       NS6108226,
                                                       NS6170739,
                                                       NS6170767
                   C-PMS-300-RA-CHOP     G50148        5905252,
                                                       6003109
                   C-PMS-301-RA          G02054        5793197,
                                                       5800571,
                                                       5800572,
                                                       5824485,
                                                       5824551,
                                                       5845063,
                   C-PMS-400-RA          G02092        6059759,
                                                       NS6047396,
                                                       NS6047397,
                                                       NS6047398,
                                                       NS6047399,
                                                       NS6047440,
                                                       NS6047442
                   C-PMS-301J-RA         G02133        NS6072553
  Single Lumen     C-PMS-250-PED         G04889        NS6168054,
  Central                                              NS6178118
  Venous
  Catheter Set
                   C-PMS-251J-PED        G05345        NS6063352
                   C-PMS-300-            G02805        NS5855441
                   CHILDRENS-032285
                   C-PMS-301J-PED        G03117        5824486,
                                                       5898058,
                                                       5967405,
                                                       6079119,
                                                       NS5932737,
                                                       NS6028554,
                                                       NS6042799
  Single Lumen     C-PMSY-250            G02854        5987014
  Central Venous
  Catheter Tray
                   C-PMSY-251            G03241        NS6178099
                   C-PMSY-251J           G05434        NS6028540
                   C-PMSY-300            G01926        NS5830758,
                                                       NS5866960,
                                                       NS5918174,
                   C-PMSY-300J           G01927        NS5881337,
                                                       NS5892116,
                                                       NS6031991
  Single Lumen     C-PMS-250            G02838         6028502,
  Pressure                                             6034979,
  Monitoring Set                                       6083984,
                                                       6194848,
                                                       NS6014456,
                                                       NS6014457
                   C-PMS-2502-15-3.5    G07943         6148788,
                                                       6254047
                   C-PMS-2502-15-5.0    G03425         5906417,
                                                       6160213

Shipments were made globally to the following regions: Australia,
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Dominican Republic,
Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait,
Netherland, New Zealand, Panama, Puerto Rico, Spain, Switzerland,
United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and United States of
America.
Cook Medical notified its customers and distributors by recall
notification letters in January. All customers and distributors
should quarantine and discontinue use of all affected units and
return the affected product to the company as soon as possible for
credit.

Cook Medical notified the FDA and other global regulatory agencies
of this action.

Consumers with questions may contact Cook Medical Customer
Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339-2235, Monday through
Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time or via email
at FieldActionsNA@cookmedical.com.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, via regular mail or via fax.
Complete and submit the report online at
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm or via regular mail or fax.
Download the form at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-
800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, and then complete and
return to the address on the preaddressed form, or submit via fax
to 1-800-FDA-0178.

Adverse events may also be reported to Cook Medical Customer
Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339-2235, Monday through
Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time or via email
at CustomerRelationsNA@cookmedical.com.


COTY INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit remains pending.

During fiscal 2014, two putative class action complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, its directors and
certain of its executive officers, and the underwriters of the
initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO.
Those lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Coty Inc.
Securities Litigation, and following the court's appointment of
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, a consolidated and amended
complaint (the "Securities Complaint") was filed on July 7, 2014.
The Securities Complaint asserts claims against the Company, its
directors, and certain of its executive officers, under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased
the Company's Class A Common Stock in the IPO, damages of an
unspecified amount and equitable or injunctive relief.

On September 9, 2014, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against the underwriter defendants without prejudice. The
Securities Complaint was further amended on October 18, 2014.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Securities
Complaint, which has been fully briefed since December 2014. The
motion to dismiss is currently pending.

The Company believes the Securities Complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend it.

Coty is a global beauty company.  It manufactures and markets
beauty products in the Fragrances, Color Cosmetics and Skin & Body
Care segments with distribution in over 130 countries and
territories across both prestige and mass markets.


CTI BIOPHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Feb. 11
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges that officers and directors of CTI Biopharma
Corp. violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the company's September
24, 2015 public offering (the "Offering") and/or between March 4,
2014 and February 9, 2016, by making materially false and
misleading statements about CTI's business prospects.  CTI
Biopharma is a biopharmaceutical company that acquires, develops,
and markets novel targeted therapies for blood-related cancers in
the United States and internationally. One of its most advanced
products was pacritinib, a treatment for myleofibrosis.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/cti-biopharma-corp

CTI Biopharma Accused of Misleading Investors About the
Effectiveness of its Drug

According to the complaint, CTI Biopharma failed to disclose that:
(i) pacritinib was attributed as a potential cause in the death
and injuries of several patients; (ii) its clinical trials showed
the dangers of pacritinib usage; (iii) the company's new drug
application would likely be withdrawn; and (iv) this would affect
the company's future revenues. During 2014 through 2015, the
company filed several Form 10-Q's and Form 10-K's with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") touting the
effectiveness of pacritinib.  On September 24, 2015, CTI Biopharma
filed with the SEC its Prospectus Supplement to complete the
offering of 10 million shares of common stock offered with a
previously filed Registration Statement, which was required to
disclose known trends or uncertainties likely to have an impact on
the company's operations.

Then, on February 8, 2016, the company issued a press release
announcing that a partial clinical hold had been placed on
pacritinib by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").  The
company further disclosed that the FDA had identified several
fatal and life-threatening safety issues in pacritinib-treated
patients, including: heart failure; hemorrhage, including
intracranial hemorrhage; and arrhythmias, including sudden death.
On this news, CTI Biopharma stock fell $0.68 per share, or over
60%, to close at $0.44 per share on February 8, 2016.  On February
9, 2016, the company announced that the FDA had placed a full
clinical hold on pacritinib.  Under the full clinical hold, all
patients must discontinue pacritinib immediately, and the company
may not enroll any new patients or start pacritinib as initial or
crossover treatment.  The clinical hold led the company to
withdraw its previously submitted new drug application for
pacritinib. On this news, CTI Biopharma stock fell over 40% during
intraday trading, to close at $0.30 per share on February 10,
2016.

CTI Biopharma Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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


CUBIC CORPORATION: Consumer Cases Settled for Nominal Amount
------------------------------------------------------------
Cubic Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company settled
consumer lawsuits for a nominal amount in January 2016.

"In October and December of 2013, and January of 2014, lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division against us and one of our
transit customers alleging variously, among other things, breach
of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, unjust
enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Act," the Company
said.  "In January 2014, these cases were consolidated into a
single case and the plaintiffs were seeking to have the case
certified as a class action."

"Plaintiffs variously claimed, among other things, that: (i) they
were wrongly charged for calling the call center that we operate
for patrons of our transit customer, (ii) they were wrongly
charged for a transfer and a second fare, (iii) they were not
credited the cost of a transit card even after registration of the
card, as is required under the terms of the cardholder agreement,
and (iv) they were double charged for rides taken. We settled
these lawsuits for a nominal amount in January 2016."


DAVE & BUSTER'S: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
U.S. District Court judge has refused to dismiss a putative class
action lawsuit filed by a former restaurant worker who claims her
employer cut her hours to part time from full time in order to
avoid Affordable Care Act costs, in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Maria De Lourdes Parra Marin said in a lawsuit filed in May 2015
that in response to enactment of the ACA, managers at a New York
restaurant operated by Dallas-based Dave & Buster's Inc. told
workers that to avoid costs totaling as much as $2 million, it
would reduce its full-time employees to about 40 from more than
100, according to the Feb. 9 ruling by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York in Maria De Lourdes
Parra Marin v. Dave & Busters Inc. et al.

She was then reduced from full-time to part-time status, causing a
reduction in pay to a range of $150 to $375 per week from a range
of $450 to $600 per week, along with the loss of eligibility for
medical and vision benefits, according to the ruling.

Ms. Marin then filed suit, charging discrimination under ERISA.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Dave & Buster's
motion to dismiss the case in the ruling.

"Plaintiff has put forward factual allegations supporting her
claim that the employer had the specific intent to interfere with
her right to health insurance," said the ruling.  "The reduction
in plaintiff's hours affected her employment status, her pay, and
the benefits she had and to which she would be entitled."

Commenting on the ruling, Kevin LaCroix, attorney and executive
vice president of RT ProExec, a division of R-T Specialty L.L.C.
in Beachwood, Ohio, said the ruling illustrates "how employers
that try to restructure to find a way to evade the mandates of the
ACA could wind up, potentially at least, facing litigation" under
ERISA.


DRAFTKINGS INC: More Than 80 Fraud Suits Coordinated into MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that more than 80 class actions against online daily fantasy
sports sites DraftKings Inc. and FanDuel Inc. have been
transferred to a federal judge in Boston.

In an order on Feb. 4, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation found that all the cases, which included claims of
consumer fraud and insider trading, should be coordinated for
pretrial purposes before U.S. District Judge George O'Toole.  That
district was the favored venue of both companies, which supported
coordination. DraftKings is based in Boston.

"This is fantastic news for the company and validates our legal
position," wrote DraftKings attorney James Fogelman, a partner at
Los Angeles-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, in an emailed
statement.  "While we believe that the cases are without merit and
should be arbitrated, we are grateful that our arguments can now
be presented in front of one court in Massachusetts."

Emily Bass, a spokeswoman for New York's FanDuel, declined to
comment.  FanDuel, represented by Rebekah Kaufman, co-chairwoman
of the litigation department at Morrison & Foerster, had supported
Boston as an MDL venue but suggested the Southern District of New
York as an alternative.

Both sites allow players to create their own fantasy teams and win
prize money on a daily or weekly basis based on the performances
of real athletes in professional and college sports.

The lawsuits, filed in 21 states, allege a broad scope of claims.
According to the order, 42 of them alleged that the companies
participated in "insider trading" by allowing their employees to
participate in contests using nonpublic information.  The scandal
over fantasy sports sites erupted after a DraftKings employee
inadvertently released internal data about a contest before the
National Football League games had started -- and then went on to
win $350,000 on FanDuel.

Another 36 cases allege that the sites fraudulently enticed
customers into participating in illegal gambling based on various
state laws.  And eight suits asserted that DraftKings failed to
follow through on a promotional bonus program that was based on
customer deposits.

Most plaintiffs lawyers had pushed for cases to be transferred to
the Southern District of New York or to Massachusetts, but several
opposed coordination of all the litigation or sought to exclude
the illegal-gambling and bonus cases.  DraftKings and FanDuel
countered that they planned to enforce arbitration clauses that
all customers signed regardless of their legal claims.

Although the arguments against including the bonus and illegal-
gambling cases "have some logic," the MDL panel found the benefits
of coordinating all the cases were "significant."

"Here, regardless of the theories asserted, the actions will
involve common discovery regarding the nature of the DFS
defendants' online daily fantasy sports contests, their
advertising and promotions, and their internal policies and
practices," wrote MDL panel chairwoman Sarah Vance.

Apart from the class actions, New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman has sued both companies for illegally promoting
gambling in violation of New York law, and both sites have been
banned or face new regulations restricting their business in
several other states.

On Dec. 14, a Manhattan Supreme Court judge granted
Mr. Schneiderman's motion to enjoin DraftKings and FanDuel from
operating in the state, but the intermediate-level Appellate
Division on Jan. 11 granted a temporary stay of that ruling.
FanDuel and DraftKings have insisted that their services are games
of skill exempted from the U.S. Unlawful Internet Gambling
Enforcement Act of 2006.


E. I. DU PONT: 2017 Trial Set for 40 Drinking Water Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a West
Virginia court has determined that 40 cases, most of which are
expected to involve allegations that exposure to PFOA
(perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium
salt) in drinking water caused cancer, would be scheduled for
trial in 2017, beginning in April of that year.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were
conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available
scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as
defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235
million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class
members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the
program, including class counsel fees.

In January 2012, the company put $1 million in an escrow account
to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement
agreement.  The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has
established the program to implement the medical panel's
recommendations and the registration process, as well as
eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and
testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are
being disbursed from the escrow account.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little
Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists.

At December 31, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits
filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West
Virginia, an increase of about 600 over year end 2014. These
lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio
federal court (MDL).

Based on the information currently available to the company, the
majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury claims associated
with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in
drinking water.  There are 37 lawsuits alleging wrongful death.

In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for the
individual trial. The jury awarded $1.6 million in compensatory
damages in the first individual trial, captioned Bartlett v
DuPont, which was tried to a verdict in October 2015. The
plaintiff alleged that exposure to PFOA in drinking water had
caused kidney cancer. DuPont, through Chemours, is appealing the
decision. The second trial, captioned Wolf v DuPont, was scheduled
to begin in March 2016 and involves allegations that exposure to
PFOA in drinking water caused ulcerative colitis. A confidential
settlement for an inconsequential amount was reached in January
2016.

In January 2016, the court determined that 40 cases, most of which
are expected to involve allegations that exposure to PFOA in
drinking water caused cancer, would be scheduled for trial in
2017, beginning in April of that year. DuPont, through Chemours,
denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself
vigorously.


EMCORE CORPORATION: Faces "Mirasol" Class Action
------------------------------------------------
EMCORE Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that Plaintiff Christina
Mirasol ("Mirasol"), on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative
class of similarly situated individuals composed of current and
former non-exempt employees of the Company working in California
since December 15, 2011, filed on December 15, 2015, a complaint
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County. The complaint alleges six causes of action related
to: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to provide meal
periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wages; (4) failure to timely
pay wages upon termination; (5) failure to provide compliant wage
statements; and (6) unfair competition under the California
Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. The claims are
premised primarily on the allegation that Mirasol and the putative
class members were not provided with their legally required meal
periods. Mirasol seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of
the putative class in an unspecified amount for compensatory and
liquidated damages as well as for declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.

At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the
outcome of this proceeding or the range of loss, should a loss
occur. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
allegations and the Company intends to vigorously defend against
the litigation.


EROS INT'L: "Popi" Suit Seeks Damages Under Securities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Savva Popi, and all others similarly-situated v. Eros
International PLC, Jyoti Deshpande, Andrew Heffernan, Prem
Parameswaran, Kishore Lulla, Vijay Ahuja, Naresh Chandra, Dilip
Thakkar, Sunil Lulla, Michael Kirkwood, Ken Naz, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC, Jefferies LLC, Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, and EM Securities LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00223 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.

This is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Eros securities: (1) pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering on the New York Stock Exchange on or about November 12,
2013; and/or (2) between November 12, 2013 and November 12, 2015,
inclusive.

The Plaintiff alleged that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Eros is in the Indian film entertainment industry. The Company
coproduces, acquires and distributes Indian language films in
multiple formats worldwide. The Company has created an online
video streaming service, whereby users pay a fee to stream content
through various web-connected devices, and touted the new
streaming service as having huge growth potential.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Defendant Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. served as an underwriter
and joint book-running manager of the Company's IPO.

Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
served as an underwriter and joint book-running manager of the
Company's IPO.

Defendant UBS Securities LLC served as an underwriter and joint
book-running manager of the Company's IPO.

Defendant Jefferies LLC served as an underwriter and joint book-
running manager of the Company's IPO.

Defendant Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC served as an
underwriter and joint book-running manager of the Company's IPO.

Defendant EM Securities LLC served as an underwriter of the
Company's IPO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
              lrosen@rosenlegal.com



EUROPEAN NATURAL: Recalls Brian's Cauliflower Due to Sulfites
-------------------------------------------------------------
European Natural Food & Trading Co, Inc. of Paterson, NJ is
recalling Brian's Cauliflower 83 oz. due to undeclared sulfites.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to sulfites run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

Brian's Cauliflower 83 oz. was distributed in NY, MA, CT and NJ
where it reached consumers through retail stores. The product is
pickled cauliflower and was sold in large clear, glass jars with
the brand name Brian's and UPC 858567002421. The expiration date
is 28/11/2016. The product was shipped during 2013 and 2014.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered by NYSDAM
Laboratory sampling and analysis that product containing sulfites
were distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of
sulfites. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was
caused by temporary breakdown in the company's production and
packaging processes.

Consumers who have purchased Brian's Cauliflower 83 oz. are urged
to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at (973) 553-1896, Monday -
Friday from 9am - 5pm (Eastern Time Zone).


FIRST RESOLUTION: Ohio Supreme Court Keeps Jarvis Counterclaims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the motion of First Resolution
Investment Corp. and First Resolution Management Corp. to dismiss
counts IV and V of Sandra Jarvis's first amended class action
counterclaim.

A copy of the High Court's February 10, 2016 order is available at
http://is.gd/0lMzLqfrom Leagle.com.

First Resolution filed a complaint in the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas, in Ohio, against Sandra Jarvis in an attempt to
collect the charged off sum plus interest accrued to date on
credit card debt, the interest in which it purchased from Chase
Bank.  First Resolution also sought future interest at a rate of
24%.  After Jarvis failed to file a timely answer, First
Resolution moved for default judgment.  The trial court granted
default judgment in the amount of $16,832.88 plus 24% future
interest.  Six weeks later, Jarvis moved to vacate the default
judgment.  The parties and the trial court judge signed a
stipulated entry granting the motion to vacate.

Ms. Jarvis then filed an answer in which she raised several
affirmative defenses.  She also filed counterclaims premised on
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Ohio Consumer sales
Practices Act, and common law abuse of process.  She alleged these
claims on her own behalf and as class action claims.

The trial court later granted summary judgment to the defendants.
Jarvis appealed to the Court of Appeals, Ninth Judicial District,
which reversed and remanded.  First Resolution elevated the matter
to the state Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, and Justices Terrence O'Donnell
and Judith Ann Lanzinger dissented.

The appellate case is, JARVIS v. FIRST RESOLUTION INVEST. CORP.,
No. 2013-0118 (Ohio).


FLEETMATICS USA: "Gillard" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
David Gillard, Jaclyn Stramiello, and all others similarly-
situated v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-00081 (M.D.
Fla., January 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of federal wage and hour laws pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant is a provider of mobile workforce solutions for
service-based businesses of all sizes delivered as software-as-a-
service.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
      1715 N. Westshore Blvd. Ste 400
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Tel: (813) 639-9366
      Fax: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: 4 Securities Class Suits Filed in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that four putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in November 2015 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas against the Company and certain of its officers. The
lawsuits claim in part that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
prospects. The complaint seeks an award of damages in an
unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October
23, 2014 and November 9, 2015, inclusive.


FORDHAM FINANCIAL: Judge Decertifies FLSA Collective Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew S. Disbrow, Esq. -- mdisbrow@honigman.com -- of Honigman
Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, in an article for The National Law
Review, reports that wage and hour class and collective actions
have sky-rocketed in recent years.  This increase in "bet the
business" litigation has been facilitated, in part, by the unique
process courts must follow under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) to certify an FLSA collective action (versus a typical
class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure).  Citing the "modest" showing necessary to
conditionally certify an FLSA collective action, plaintiffs'
attorneys regularly obtain employee lists without establishing
that a case actually can proceed on a class basis.  Employers
should know, however, that the fight is not over once a court
conditionally certifies a collective action.

A recent opinion in the case of Griffith v. Fordham Financial
Management, Inc., Case No. 12 Civ. 1117, decided by the Federal
District Court for the Southern District of New York, illustrates
that careful discovery, and a proactive defense strategy, can lead
to the decertification of an FLSA collective action -- reducing a
potentially devastating class action into a much smaller lawsuit
relating to a few named plaintiffs.

In Griffith, as in many cases, the plaintiffs claimed their former
employer violated the FLSA and state law by misclassifying them as
independent contractors and failing to pay overtime compensation.
The named plaintiffs also sought to represent over 100 other
"similarly situated" individuals and asserted class claims under
Rule 23 and collective claims under the FLSA.  Prior to discovery,
the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification under the FLSA.  Thereafter, notice was sent to
potential plaintiffs informing them of their right to join the
lawsuit.  But the fight did not end there.

Following class discovery, in June 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify their state law claims under Rule 23.  Clearly,
the plaintiffs hoped the court would follow its prior ruling
regarding conditional certification of the federal FLSA claims and
permit them to pursue class claims under state law as well.
However, on March 12, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification under Rule 23, finding that the
plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the misclassification
dispute was "capable of resolution by class-wide proof."

After their victory over the Rule 23 class, the defendants filed a
motion to decertify the FLSA collective action. In response, the
plaintiffs argued that a different standard applied to FLSA
collective actions and the court should continue to permit them to
pursue FLSA claims on a representative basis.  The court disagreed
with the plaintiffs, granted the defendants' motion, and
decertified the FLSA collective action -- requiring the plaintiffs
to proceed on an individual basis only.

In doing so, the court reviewed the two-stage certification
process under the FLSA.  The court noted that, at the first
(notice) stage, the plaintiffs need only make a modest showing
that they are similarly situated with others to proceed as a
group.  However, at the second stage (generally occurring after
discovery) the court will determine based on a fuller record
whether the plaintiffs are in fact similarly situated.  Although
the court recognized that the commonality test under Rule 23 is
not technically the same as the FLSA's "similarly situated" test,
it found that in practice there is "little difference" between the
two tests, as "both allow for consideration of the same or similar
factors, and generally provide a district court with discretion to
deny certification for trial management reasons."

Accordingly, the court similarly decertified the FLSA collective
action.  Among other things, the court found that the FLSA claims
"were not capable of resolution by class-wide proof, and required
highly individualized inquiries."  In particular, the record
established that the putative plaintiffs worked for the employer
over different, non-overlapping periods and under different
policies.  Likewise, deposition testimony proved that the putative
class worked under different agreements and on varying work
schedules.  Furthermore, there was disagreement over the level of
control the employer exercised over the group's day-to-day
responsibilities.  Because of these variations, the court
determined that the case would degenerate into individual
inquiries and could not be maintained on a representative basis.
The court also found that the low opt-in rate weighed against
certification.

The Griffith case should encourage employers embroiled in costly
class wage and hour litigation to carefully review the facts of
their case before throwing in the towel after conditional
certification.  In many circumstances, a case that was
conditionally certified may be decertified after discovery.
Griffith should also serve to caution would-be plaintiffs and
their counsel.  Not every wage and hour case can proceed as a
class.  The hopes of large class settlements should be tempered by
the particular facts of each case. Moreover, courts are becoming
increasingly skeptical about maintaining large collective actions.
If there are significant factual differences among employees, or
no global policy at issue, courts will not hesitate to decertify
an FLSA collective action and require the named plaintiffs to
proceed with their claims on an individual basis only.


FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Chopped Romaine Products Due to Allergens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Express Incorporated is announcing a precautionary recall of
a limited quantity of 32-ounce Fresh Express Chopped Romaine with
a Product Code of G034A06A and Use-By Date of February 19 due to a
possible exposure to undeclared allergens. Fresh Express
representatives are already coordinating with stores to remove the
recalled product from retail stores where distributed, primarily
in Eastern and Southeastern states. No other Fresh Express
products are included in this recall.

No illnesses are reported.

The recall was necessitated when it was learned that sealed
condiment packets containing individual packets of dressing,
croutons and parmesan cheese used in the brand's Caesar salads
were mistakenly placed in a limited quantity of the chopped
romaine product. Ingredients in the individual packets include
milk, eggs, wheat and fish and even though the individual packets
are enclosed in another sealed package, Fresh Express issued a
recall out of an abundance of caution to protect the health and
well-being of consumers who may be at risk from exposure to
undeclared allergens.

Fresh Express takes all matters of food safety very seriously.
Company procedures and programs stringently follow all mandated
regulations and focus on preventive measures designed to minimize
potential risks. Fresh Express products with condiments that may
contain allergens are properly labeled in accordance with the law.
Fresh Express is coordinating with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, has conducted an investigation into this isolated
event and is implementing corrective steps to prevent future
occurrences.

Consumers in possession of the recalled product should discard it.
A refund is available where purchased or by contacting the Fresh
Express Consumer Response Center toll-free at (800) 242-5472
during the hours of 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Time.

Recalled Product Details:

Fresh Express Chopped Romaine - 32-ounce bag

* Product Code of G034A06A and Use-By Date of February 19 located
in the upper right hand corner on the front of the bag

* UPC Code of 0 7127926100 3 located on the reverse side of the
bag by the bar code

Recalled Product Distribution:

Fresh Express Precautionary Recall, Chopped Romaine - 2/06/16
(No other Fresh Express Salads are included in this recall)
BRAND  PRODUCT NAME  SIZE  UPC  PRODUCTION CODE  BEST IF USED BY
DATE  POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION STATES
Fresh Express  Chopped Romaine  32 oz.  071279261003  G034A06A
19-Feb  CT, DE, FL, GA, MA, ME, MD, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VA

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


GARDEN OF LIFE: Recalls Organic Shake Products Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garden of Life LLC is voluntarily withdrawing a limited quantity
of its Raw Meal Organic Shake & Meal Chocolate, Original, Vanilla
and Vanilla Chai because they have the potential to contain
Salmonella Virchow. Even though Garden of Life routinely performs
pathogen testing on every finished good lot to ensure safety and
no product has ever tested positive for the presence of
Salmonella, the company felt it was in the public's best interest
to take this voluntary action. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis. FDA is investigating illnesses.
Every lot tested negative for the presence of Salmonella prior to
release to the market. Raw Meal products are distributed
throughout the United States and sold at better health food stores
and natural grocers.

Consumers who believe they may have a Raw Meal product affected by
this recall, should look for the following lot codes prominently
stamped on the underside of the plastic container.

The following is the list of lots affected:

  PRODUCT NAME                             Lot Number    Exp Date
  ------------                             ----------    --------
  RAW Organic Meal 10 CNT Tray             47214800      9/1/2017
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size     47198800      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Full Size               47214600      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full Size  47215500      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full Size  47215501      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size       47216100      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size       47225500      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size     47225900      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size     47249200      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai 10         47183201      9/30/17
  CNT Tray
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size       47198601      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Half Size  47206000      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size       47225600      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Half Size               47225800      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size     47226200      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Half Size       47226400      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Full Size               47236000      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla 10 CNT Tray     47248000      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Full Size               47248901      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size       47253900      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Half Size       47257401      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size     47226000      10/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size       47216200      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size       47225601      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size     47226100      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size     47226201      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full Size  47226300      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Full Size               47246500      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full Size  47247600      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size     47247800      10/31/17

"In an overabundance of caution we are taking this extreme measure
because we want to ensure that you never have to wonder about the
purity of any Raw Meal product." said Brian Ray, President of
Garden of Life.

Any Raw Meal product from a lot code not listed above is entirely
safe and not affected by this recall. All Garden of Life, LLC's
products are manufactured in the United States at FDA and NSF
audited facilities, in accordance with current Good Manufacturing
Practices. No Garden of Life product has ever tested positive for
salmonella.

If, however, a consumer has purchased a product from any of the
lot codes listed above and wishes to return it, they should return
the unused portion of the product to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Questions may be directed to the company at 1-866-
465-0051, Monday-Friday between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM
EST.

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Two Ignition Switch MDL Plaintiffs Lawyers at War
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the plaintiffs lawyer who accused three attorneys of
mismanaging the ignition-switch litigation against General Motors
Co. has backed off his demands that a judge remove all of them.
Still, the lawyer, Lance Cooper, is calling for the resignation of
one of the lawyers, Bob Hilliard, claiming that his actions have
imperiled the multidistrict litigation.

Cooper in January asked U.S. District Judge Furman of the Southern
District of New York to remove lead counsel from their posts after
the first bellwether trial fell apart over allegations that the
plaintiff, Robert Scheuer, might have committed perjury and fraud.
Lead counsel defend their handling of the multidistrict
litigation.

On Feb. 5, Cooper fired back with a revised request to remove just
Hilliard, of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas, and
replace him with two lawyers in charge of the personal injury and
wrongful death litigation -- one for federal cases, one for state
court.

"The co-leads are getting ready to try a case in approximately a
month that's worse than the case they just tried," Mr. Cooper told
The National Law Journal on Feb. 8.  "This process is broken --
this bellwether process -- and it's the most important process in
helping the parties evaluate the case, which affects all the
clients. Because it was broken in this way, the person leading the
charge for the plaintiffs needs to be removed."

Mr. Cooper, a former member of the MDL's executive committee,
dropped his call to remove the other lead attorneys, Elizabeth
Cabraser and Steve Berman.  Both lawyers "are primarily
responsible for the economic loss claims and their removal could
potentially harm the plaintiffs who have an interest in these
claims," Mr. Cooper wrote in a footnote in the papers filed on
Feb. 5 in New York.

Mr. Cooper's latest filing included emails and other documents
that showed his disagreements with Hilliard may have started as
early as fall 2014, when conflicts arose over discovery requests
he was making in his own Georgia state court case.  Mr. Cooper, in
the Georgia case, first uncovered the ignition-switch defect.

In a letter to Judge Furman on Feb. 7, Hilliard, Berman and
Cabraser moved to strike many of Mr. Cooper's documents as
protected under the work-product doctrine.  On Feb. 8, Judge
Furman ordered Mr. Cooper, who resigned from the MDL committee a
year ago, to return all copies of documents that might be
privileged. The judge temporarily sealed the material.

Lead counsel also alleged Mr. Cooper had violated New York's rules
of professional conduct by investigating a settlement Hilliard
reached with GM on Sept. 17 on behalf of 1,380 of his own clients.
Mr. Cooper has accused Hilliard of breaching his fiduciary duty to
all the plaintiffs in the MDL by cutting a sweetheart deal with GM
as part of that settlement in which he would put his own remaining
cases as bellwether trials.  Five of the six bellwether trials
slated for this year are Hilliard's clients, including those that
GM selected.

In an email to the NLJ, Mr. Hilliard said Mr. Cooper's actions
"are far ranging and professionally consequential."

"There were a hundred other attorneys who sought and would have
gladly accepted this appointment offered to Mr. Cooper," he wrote.
"The myopic arrogance required to thumb his nose at the entirety
of the process, from appointment to now, is mind numbing in its
level of unprecedented and unprofessional behavior."
Mr. Cooper replied: "People can read the briefs and determine
who's behaved properly and who has not."

The dispute has involved some of the most prominent mass tort
professors in the country.  In Mr. Cooper's reply, professor
Charles Silver of the University of Texas School of Law wrote that
a lead attorney in an MDL who strikes a settlement on behalf of
his own clients has a conflict because he owes a fiduciary duty to
all the claimants.

Mr. Silver's declaration aims to rebut a Feb. 1 response by GM
that included a declaration by New York University School of Law
professor Geoffrey Miller.  Mr. Miller argued that lead MDL
attorneys still owe a duty to their own clients.


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets Due to Soy
------------------------------------------------------------
All lot codes up to and including February 8, 2016 of Giant Eagle
brand Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets, prepared and sold from the
Seafood department inside Giant Eagle and Market District
supermarkets through February 4, 2016 have been voluntarily
recalled by Giant Eagle due to an undeclared soy allergen. People
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products. The product is safe for consumption by those who
do not have soy allergies.

Approximately 420 packages of Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets were
purchased by customers in Giant Eagle and Market District
supermarkets in Pennsylvania and Ohio. There are no reported
illnesses to date associated with this recall.

The fillets were sold from the Seafood department with a UPC
beginning with 268106.

Giant Eagle became aware of the issue during ongoing ingredient
declaration monitoring. The product label for the fillets, which
contain soy, omitted soy as an allergen.

Customers with a soy allergy who have purchased the affected
product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant
Eagle or Market District store for a refund. Customers with
questions may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324
Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.

In addition to this public communication regarding this recall,
Giant Eagle initiated its consumer recall telephone notification
process. The consumer recall process uses purchase data and
consumer telephone numbers housed in the Giant Eagle Advantage
Card(R) database to alert those households that purchased the
affected product and have updated telephone contact information in
the database.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/YOpP7b


GOOGLE INC: Taps Cooley to Defend E-mail Scanning Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Google Inc. has
brought on lawyers from Cooley to defend the company from claims
that it violated a federal privacy statute by intercepting and
scanning emails sent by students using its Apps for Education
service.

The suit puts Cooley in the familiar position of defending
Google's scanning of emails to serve targeted ads.  The firm
helped defeat a bid for class certification in 2014 in In re
Google Gmail Litigation, 13-2430, a prior suit that accused the
company's ad-matching program of violating various federal and
state privacy laws.

Lawyers at Gallo LLP sued Google in January on behalf of four
former UC-Berkeley students.  According to the complaint, the
students used a version of the company's email service that it
offers for free to universities.  Although Google said that users'
messages wouldn't be scanned for advertising purposes, they were,
the suit alleges.

"Google's interception, reading, and interpreting of educational
users' email for advertising purposes was not a necessary or
instrumental component of Google's operation of a functioning
email system, nor was it an incidental effect of providing this
service," wrote Gallo's Ray Gallo in the complaint.  The suit
claims that Google violated the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act which carries statutory damages of $10,000 for each plaintiff
or $100 for each day depending on which is higher.

The prior round of Gmail privacy suits survived a defense motion
to dismiss before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in 2013 who ruled
that Google's practice did not fall under an exemption in federal
anti-surveillance laws for activities conducted by communications
service providers in the "ordinary course of business."

However, plaintiffs' claims fizzled after the judge denied class
certification the following year, finding that she would have to
determine how much each Gmail user knew about the company's
practices to determine whether they consented to the scanning.

Judge Koh also declined to certify a class of Google Apps for
Education email users since disclosure at schools ranged from
specific to vague, making the consent issue too murky for class
treatment.

Although the new complaint isn't styled as a class action,
Mr. Gallo identifies 10 schools in addition to UC-Berkeley that
the firm says made explicit assurances that Google would not scan
users' emails for advertising purposes.  In an email message
Feb. 5, Mr. Gallo said that he anticipates bringing claims on
behalf at other individuals at other schools, but that he likely
won't seek class certification.

Cooley's Michael Rhodes declined to comment.  A spokesperson for
Google didn't immediately respond to an email message.


GOPRO INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that GoPro Inc., the maker
of wearable cameras popular with skiers, surfers and other outdoor
sports enthusiasts, has been hit with a string of securities class
actions after a sharp dive in the company's share price.  Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd joined the fray on Feb. 4 with a suit
alleging that the company failed to disclose declining sales
trends, price pressure and rising inventories that indicated weak
demand.

San Mateo-based GoPro has missed its earnings targets the past two
quarters due to weaker than expected sales for its new HERO
Session line of cameras.  The price of the latest camera in the
line was cut from $399 to $299 in July, then again to $199 in
December.  The company announced in January that it would take a
$30 million charge to account for its excess inventory and that it
would lay off about 7 percent of its workforce.

GoPro's stock price, which topped $64 in August, fell below $13 on
January 14, the day after it released its preliminary fourth
quarter results.  GoPro shares closed at $9.78 on Feb. 4, and the
company announced that chief financial officer Jack Lazar will be
leaving the company in March.

The Feb. 4 suit from Robbins Geller alleges that the company and
executives, including Lazar, made false or misleading statements
about the GoPro's financial health, causing its stock to be
overvalued.  The suit follows two similar complaints filed in
January in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by lawyers at Glancy Prongay & Murray and Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer.  The earlier suits have both been assigned to U.S.
District Judge Jon Tigar.

A company representative didn't immediately respond to an email
message.  No lawyer has yet entered an appearance as defense
counsel for GoPro.



H-E-B: Recalls Caramel Pecan Turtle Ice Cream Due to Wood Pieces
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the abundance of caution, H-E-B is issuing a voluntary recall
for H-E-B Creamy Creations Caramel Pecan Turtle Ice Cream due to
the possible presence of wood pieces in the product.

H-E-B is committed to the quality of its products. There have been
no reports of illness.

The voluntary recall impacts the following products:

  Description              UPC             Sell By Date
  -----------              ---             ------------
  H-E-B Creamy Creations  0 4122051877 7   SELL BY: 20 APR(APR)16
  Caramel Pecan Turtle
  Ice Cream
                                           SELL BY: 10 MAY(MAY)16
                                           SELL BY: 07 JUN(JUN)16
                                           SELL BY: 18 JUL(JUL)16

Customers who purchased the product can return the product to the
store for a full refund. Customers with any questions or concerns
may contact H-E-B Customer Service at 1-855-432-4438.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xL6Sfs


HORMEL FOODS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------
Hormel Foods Corporation, a Tucker, Ga. establishment, is
recalling approximately 450 pounds of beef products that may be
contaminated with extraneous materials, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The Dinty Moore Beef Stew items were produced on Jan. 26, 2016.

The following product is subject to recall:

  --- 15-oz. cans of "Dinty Moore Hearty Meals No Preservatives
      Beef Stew" with Best By date Feb. 2019 and production date
      T01266.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
199G" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped
to Kroger locations in Texas and Louisiana. Product was available
for sale after Feb. 1, 2016.

The problem was discovered during the plant's routine inspection
activities. After discovering and recovering parts of a flashlight
from the production area, the company placed all product produced
during this timeframe on hold. However, 40 cases had already been
shipped into commerce.

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

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


HSBC: Reaches $470MM Mortgage Settlement with Gov't, 49 States
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that banking giant HSBC has reached a $470 million settlement with
the federal government and 49 states including Connecticut over
mortgage lending and foreclosure abuses that officials say
contributed to the country's economic meltdown.

According to the Connecticut Attorney General's Office, the
agreement requires the bank to pay $100 million and to provide an
additional $370 million in consumer relief to borrowers and
homeowners, including reducing mortgage interest rates as well as
the principal on mortgages for homeowners who are at risk of
default.

The deal also requires the bank to improve standards for how it
services loans and handles foreclosures.  Officials say those
changes are intended to discourage past banking practices, such as
robosigning and poor-quality loans, that played a part in the
financial crisis starting in 2007 in which millions of Americans
lost their homes to foreclosure.

"This settlement holds HSBC accountable for past abusive practices
while also providing relief to borrowers here in Connecticut at a
time when they can still use that help to save their homes," state
Attorney General George Jepsen said, in a statement.  "Through
tough servicing standards, this agreement compels HSBC to treat
its borrowers fairly in the future."

Roughly 643 Connecticut borrowers whose loans were serviced by
HSBC and who lost their home to foreclosure from January 1, 2008
through December 31, 2012 will be eligible.

A spokesperson for Mr. Jepsen explained that those Connecticut
borrowers will be eligible for a payment from a portion of the
settlement designated specifically for that.  The borrower payment
amount will depend on how many borrowers file claims. Eligible
borrowers will be contacted about how to qualify for payments.

The HSBC agreement also requires the company to provide certain
borrowers in Connecticut with loan modifications or other relief.
The modifications include principal reductions and refinancing for
underwater mortgages.

The $100 million payment will go to the federal government and to
an escrow fund administered by the states to make payments to
borrowers who lost their homes.  The other $370 million is part of
the customer relief portion of the settlement.

The settlement's consumer protections and standards include:
making foreclosure a last resort by first requiring HSBC to
evaluate homeowners for other loss mitigation options; restricting
foreclosure while the homeowner is being considered for a loan
modification; procedures and timelines for reviewing loan
modification applications; giving homeowners the right to appeal
denials; and requiring a single point of contact for borrowers
seeking information about their loans, and maintaining adequate
staff to handle calls.

An independent monitor will also be appointed to oversee the
bank's compliance with the settlement terms.  That person will
issue a report after a year of monitoring to identify whether HSBC
complied or fell short of the standards imposed by the settlement.

The civil settlement includes no criminal penalties, though
officials said the state and federal government still have the
option of pursuing criminal enforcement.

"We are pleased to have reached this settlement and believe it is
a positive result that benefits American homeowners and the U.S.
housing industry," Kathy Madison, CEO, HSBC Finance Corp., said in
a statement.  "Throughout the housing market downturn, HSBC stayed
focused on home preservation and approached foreclosure as a last
resort option, and this agreement affirms our commitment to
assisting customers who are facing financial difficulties."
The agreement will be filed as a consent judgment in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The settlement involves the departments of Justice and Housing and
Urban Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Attorneys general from 49 states plus the District of Columbia
signed on.

In Connecticut, Assistant Attorneys General Joseph Chambers and
Matthew Budzik, head of the Finance Department, assisted
Mr. Jepsen in the settlement negotiations.


ILLINOIS: Faces Suit Over Appropriated Private Property
-------------------------------------------------------
Naper Comer TRP, LLC, as successor in interest to North Star Trust
Company, as Trustee under Trust Agreement dated January 12, 2005,
and all others similarly-situated v. State of Illinois; Bruce
Rauner, Governor of the State Of Illinois; Leslie Geissler Munger,
Comptroller of the State Of Illinois; The Department of
Transportation of the State of Illinois, Case No. 2015CH18640
(Ill. Cir., December 28, 2015), seeks compensatory damages,
interests and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Amendment V of
the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 section 15 of the Illinois
Constitution.

The Plaintiff alleged that the State of Illinois, including the
Illinois Department of Transportation, has undisputedly
appropriated private property for its own use. In the case of real
property, such an appropriation is a per se taking that requires
just compensation. However, since at least on or about July 1,
2015, the State of Illinois has failed to pay any compensation for
its takings of private property from Plaintiff and the Class it
seeks to represent.

Defendant Bruce Rauner is the Governor of the State of Illinois.

Defendant Leslie Geissler Munger is the Comptroller of the State
of Illinois.

Defendant State of Illinois is a sovereign.

Defendant Illinois Department of Transportation is a department of
the State government of the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Tel: (708) 628-4949
      E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Appellate Briefing to Be Held
--------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that briefing on a
class action appeal is expected to occur during the first half of
2016.

In April 2014, the first of four purported class action lawsuits
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, or the Southern District, by the City of Providence,
Rhode Island, against more than 40 defendants, including "Exchange
Defendants", "Brokerage Defendants" and "HFT (High Frequency
Trading) Defendants", which we refer to as the City of Providence
lawsuit. New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two of
our subsidiaries, were among the named Exchange Defendants.

On July 2, 2014, the court ordered the cases consolidated for all
purposes, and appointed lead plaintiffs. On September 3, 2014, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims
against only a subset of the original Exchange Defendants,
including New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., and
also asserting claims against Barclays PLC, or Barclays, a
subsidiary of which operates an alternative trading system known
as Barclays LX. The lead plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a class
of "all public investors" who bought or sold stock from April 18,
2009 to the present on the U.S.-based equity exchanges operated by
the remaining Exchange Defendants or on Barclays LX. The amended
complaint asserts violations by all remaining Exchange Defendants
of Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
or the Exchange Act, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages
against all defendants, jointly and severally, as well as various
forms of equitable relief.

The defendants filed a motion on November 3, 2014 to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint asserting the same legal claims and
substantially the same factual allegations.

On January 23, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  On August 26, 2015, the court issued an
opinion and order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and
dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with
prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to
sufficiently state a claim against the defendants under Sections
10(b) and 6(b) of the Exchange Act, and additionally that some of
the claims against the exchanges were barred by the doctrine of
self-regulatory organization immunity.

On September 24, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal of the lawsuit. Briefing in the appeal is expected
to occur during the first half of 2016.

Intercontinental Exchange is a global operator of regulated
exchanges, clearing houses and listings venues, and a provider of
data services for commodity and financial markets.


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Oral Argument in "Lanier" Appeal Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral argument is
scheduled to occur on March 3, 2016, on the appeal in the class
actions by Harold Lanier.

In May 2014, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the Southern District by Harold Lanier against the securities
exchanges that are participants in each of the three national
market system data distribution plans -- the Consolidated Tape
Association/Consolidated Quotation Plan, the Nasdaq UTP Plan, and
the Options Price Reporting Authority, or the Plans, -- which are
established under the Exchange Act and regulated by the SEC.

On August 15, 2014, Lanier filed amended complaints in each of the
three lawsuits but did not alter the named defendants. New York
Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC, which are
our subsidiaries, are among the defendants named in one or more of
the suits. Lanier is claiming to sue on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated subscribers to the market data
disseminated by the Plans. Lanier's allegations include that the
exchange participants in the Plans breached agreements with
subscribers by disseminating market data in a discriminatory
manner in that other "preferred" customers allegedly received
their data faster than the proposed class. The complaints seek,
among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution
of the putative class's subscription fees paid to the defendants,
disgorgement of the fees paid by the so-called preferred
customers, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

On September 29, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On April 28, 2015, the court issued an opinion and
order granting the motion and dismissing the three lawsuits with
prejudice. The court determined that the claims were preempted by
a "comprehensive federal regulatory scheme", and that in any event
Lanier had failed to state a claim for breach of contract.

On May 20, 2015, Lanier filed notices of appeal of the dismissal
of the lawsuits. Briefing in the appeals is complete and oral
argument is scheduled to occur on March 3, 2016.

Intercontinental Exchange is a global operator of regulated
exchanges, clearing houses and listings venues, and a provider of
data services for commodity and financial markets.


INTERNATIONAL FOODSOURCE: Recalls Raw Pistachios Products
---------------------------------------------------------
International Foodsource, LLC Issues a Voluntary Recall of Various
Raw Pistachios Products due to Possible Salmonella Risk.
Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella can experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The products were distributed to food service and retail stores
nationally.

The affected products can be identified by:

  Product      IFS Lot        Weight     Best by    UPC
  -------      Number         ------     Date       ---
               -------                   -------
  Bulk Raw     76114 (Sam     30 LBS     4/29/16    N/A
  Whole        International  Boxes
  Pistachio    Lot# 102914)
  80% VP
  Valued
  Naturals     79249          5 oz Bags  08/10/16   790429241428
  Raw
  Pistachio
  Kernels
  IFS Club     78634          3 LBS Bags 7/16/16    790429243026
  Bag
  Pistachio    78998          30 LBS     07/30/16   790429239630
  Raw Shelled                 Boxes
  80% Wholes
  IFS Web
  Bulk
  Pistachio-
  Shelled 80%
  Whole

There are no reported illnesses in connection with this product.
This was brought to our attention by FDA after their contract
testing laboratory analysis revealed the presence of Salmonella in
one of the 19 retail 5oz bags of Valued Naturals Raw Pistachio
Kernels, Lot 79249. As a precaution, additional products are being
recalled as they may be contaminated since they were packed from
the master lot that came to our facility. We are working closely
with FDA to determine the cause of this situation.

Consumers who have purchased this recalled product should not
consume it. They should return it to the point of purchase.
Consumers with questions should call Customer Service at 973-361-
7044, 8:15 am - 4:30 pm, EST, Monday through Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/lRWr6f


JEL SERT: Recalls Banana Cream Pie Filling Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------------
The Jel Sert Company of West Chicago, Illinois, is issuing a
voluntary recall notice for 52 cases of Margaritaville Banana
Cream Pie Filling, 4.16 ounce carton that was used for sales
samples and gift packages distributed nationwide, because it has
the possibility to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illness such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses related to this product to
date. The product was not available to consumers on store shelves,
only through directly provided sales samples and gift packages.

The product can be identified with the following information:

Margaritaville Banana Cream Pie Filling 4.16 ounce carton
Lot number on cartons: WC5257
UPC Code 7239202925
Best before date: September 2017

The recall was issued in an abundance of caution after the
supplier of the banana chips used in the filling notified Jel Sert
of possible contamination.

If you have the recalled product, please dispose of the product
and if you have questions contact Jel Sert at the toll free
number: 866-853-1969 at any time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Xeu9zl


KING SOOPERS: Recalls Gourmet Bread Pudding Due to Walnuts
----------------------------------------------------------
King Soopers of Denver, CO, has recalled its Gourmet Bread Pudding
that is sold in their Deli, either as a part of their cold meal
solutions, or pre-packaged in the self-service deli case. The
product may contain walnuts not listed on the label.

People who are allergic to walnuts could have a severe reaction if
they consume this product. For consumers who are not allergic to
walnuts, there is no safety issue with the product. One King
Soopers customer has reported a possible allergic reaction in
connection with this product.

All stores operating under King Soopers or City Market are
included. King Soopers has removed this item from store shelves
and initiated its customer recall notification system that alerts
customers who may have purchased recalled Class 1 products through
register receipt tape messages and phone calls.

King Soopers is recalling the following item:

  Product                  UPC  Codes          Size
  -------                  ----------          ----
  Gourmet Bread Pudding    (Deli) PLU 670      Varies
                           247460-0XXXX

Customers allergic to walnuts who have purchased the above product
should not consume it and should return them to a store for a full
refund or replacement.
Customers who have questions may contact us at 1-800-KROGERS.

King Soopers, Colorado's own full-service retail grocery chain,
opened the doors of its first store in June of 1947 in Arvada, CO.
Today the company employs over 23,000 associates and has 145stores
and 73 fuel center locations. Recognized by Forbes as the most
generous company in America, King Soopers supports hunger relief,
breast cancer awareness, the military and their families, and more
than 30,000 schools and grassroots organizations. King Soopers
contributes food and funds equal to 25 million meals a year
through local Feeding America food bank partners.


KROGER: Former Call Center Workers File Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Alexander Coolidge, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that
Kroger is being sued by three former call center workers that
charge the supermarket giant with illegally classifying them as
exempt employees ineligible for overtime.

All three former workers, Joseph Hardesty, Derek Chipman and
Madeline Hickey, were employed as recruiters at Kroger's call
center in Blue Ash for five to seven months in 2015, according to
a lawsuit filed on Feb. 8 in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati.

Their duties were to call and screen job applicants around the
country, by asking three questions about applicants' interest in
the company, their highest employment or academic achievements and
how to show friendly service.  Applicants who answered the
questions well enough were assigned in-store job interviews, but
call center workers never made hiring decisions.

The lawsuit claims call center employees were required to show up
30 minutes before their shifts, return early from lunch breaks and
work up to one hour after a day's calling.  As a result, the
workers put in 45 to 50 hours a week, but were paid no overtime.

The lawsuit accuses Kroger of violating federal fair labor
standards and Ohio's wage and labor laws.  The suit also is
seeking class-action status for other workers in the plaintiff's
situation, back pay for the workers and attorney fees and
interest.

Kroger officials declined to comment on the suit.


LIFELOCK INC: Incurs Loss Following $113MM FTC Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Ringle, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reports that
LifeLock Inc. reported its 43rd consecutive quarter of growth in
revenue and members, but took a loss for the year after a $113
million settlement with the Federal Trade Commissio.

The Tempe-based identity theft protection provider reported net
income of $21.7 million, or 22 cents per share, on revenue of
$156.2 million, for the fourth quarter that ended Dec. 31.

This compares with net income of $2.8 million, or 3 cents per
share, on revenue of $129.7 million for the same quarter a year
ago.

For the full year, LifeLock also reported a net loss of $52
million, or 55 cents per share, on revenue of $587.5 million. This
included a pre-tax charge of $96 million related to the FTC
settlement, a nationwide consumer class action suit, and a
potential settlement with certain states' attorneys general.

This compares with net income of $2.5 million, or 3 cents per
share, on revenue of $476 million for 2014.  The 2014 net income
included $20 million related to a potential settlement with the
FTC, which was partially offset by a $5 million legal settlement
in LifeLock's favor resulting from indemnification claims the
company previously made with its Lemon acquisition.

LifeLock agreed to pay $113 million in December to settle
long-running litigation with the Federal Trade Commission over
complaints that the company made deceptive claims about its
services.  As part of the settlement, LifeLock neither confirmed
nor denied the allegations.

LifeLock CEO Todd Davis said the company expects the objection
hearings to be completed in the second quarter and payments to
class-action members to go out later this year.

Because of the joint settlement, both sides need to approve the
deal, said LifeLock Chief Financial Officer Chris Power.

"The judge on the class action lawsuit approved it on a
preliminary basis, but there are still a few steps needed until we
get final approval," Mr. Power said on Feb. 10.

Mr. Davis said despite the challenges, he is proud of LifeLock's
employees.



LIVING TREE: Recalls Macadamia Nuts and Organic Macadamia Butter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Living Tree Community Foods of Berkeley, California is recalling
Organic Macadamia Nuts and Organic Macadamia Butter, because it
has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

Organic Macadamia Nuts and Organic Macadamia Butter were
distributed throughout the US via retail stores (California,
Connecticut) and to mail order customers.

Living Tree Community Foods Organic Macadamia Nuts come in a 4 oz,
clear plastic pouch marked with lot #153442 on the top. Living
Tree Community Foods Organic Macadamia Butter comes in an 8 oz
glass jar, with a Living Tree Community label on it. Affected lot
#s were 134415, 136215, 101716. The UPC Code is: 641432000987.
These items shipped from our facility between 12/11/2015 and
2/03/2016.

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

The potential for contamination was noted after FDA testing done
with our supplier, Mahina Mele, based in Captain Cook, Hawaii,
revealed the presence of Salmonella in organic macadamia nuts.

Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the
company continue their investigation as to the source of the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased 4 oz pouch of Organic Macadamia Nuts
and 8 oz jars of Organic Macadamia Butter are urged to not consume
and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-510-526-
7106. Our hours are from 8:30-4:30 PST, Monday thru Thursday and
8:30-3:00pm PST on Friday.

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


M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: "Alvarez" Case Scheduled for Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------
M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2016,
that mediation is scheduled to occur in the Company's second
fiscal quarter of 2016 in the lawsuit filed by Philip Alvarez
against Mindspeed Technologies, Inc.

On March 10, 2015, Philip Alvarez, a former employee of Mindspeed
filed a putative class action lawsuit against Mindspeed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Orange.

On April 24, 2015, Alvarez filed a First Amended Complaint adding
the Company's subsidiary M/A-COM Technology Solutions Inc. as a
defendant.

The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Alvarez and certain
other employees who designed and manufactured hardware systems for
Mindspeed or M/A-COM Technology Solutions Inc. between March 10,
2011 and the present were misclassified as exempt employees under
California law. The lawsuit seeks recovery of alleged unpaid
overtime wages, meal and rest period premiums, penalties and
attorneys' fees. We dispute the allegations of the lawsuit.

On June 15, 2015, Mindspeed removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. On
July 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand, which Motion
was denied in an Order dated September 9, 2015.

The parties have reached an agreement for the dismissal of all
class action allegations and claims in the action, as well as
certain other claims against Mindspeed and M/A-COM Technology
Solutions Inc. and Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
effectuating this agreement. Accordingly, the matter will proceed
as an individual action by Alvarez seeking only his personal
claims, as well as claims under the Private Attorneys' General
Act. The parties have agreed to participate in a mediation in an
attempt to resolve the matter, which mediation is scheduled to
occur in the Company's second fiscal quarter of 2016.


MAHINA MELE: Recalls Macadamia Nut Products Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mahina Mele Farms, LLC is expanding a voluntary recall of its
macadamia nut products within expiry after FDA testing found
Salmonella in macadamia nuts. One sample from LOT 30 was found to
be positive for Salmonella Give.While we are not aware of any
further positive samples, Mahina Mele Farms feels it is in the
best interest of public health to voluntarily recall ALL lots
currently on the market, until the source of the contamination can
be identified.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

Mahina Mele Farms is working with retailers to pull products from
store shelves. To date no illnesses have been reported in
connection with these products.

Mahina Mele Farms, LLC produces macadamia nuts under the name
Izzie Macs! in plastic bags and macadamia nut butter under the
name Baby Bruddah's Mac Nut Buttah in plastic tubs. They were
distributed from Oct 21, 2015 - Jan 20, 2016 and involve all
products

  PRODUCT                         UPC              SIZE
  -------                         ---              ----
  Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts      689076792677     6 oz. (salted)
                                                   plastic bag
  Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts      689076793575     6 oz.
                                                   (unsalted)
                                                   plastic bag
  Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts      689076792776     16 oz.
                                                   (unsalted)
                                                   plastic bag
  Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts      689076792974     16 oz.
                                                   (salted)
                                                   plastic bag
  Bulk Macadamia Nuts                              5 lb. plastic
                                                   bag (salted
                                                   and unsalted;
                                                   wholes and
                                                   pieces)
  Baby Bruddah's Mac Nut Buttah   753182242019     12 oz. plastic
                                                   tub
  Baby Bruddah's Chocolate Mac    73518224204      12 oz.
  Nut Buttah                                       plastic tub

In the interest of public health and safety, we are recalling all
products. We are working closely with the FDA to find the source
of this contamination.
Customers who have purchased the above products should not consume
them and should return them to the store where they were purchased
for a full refund or replacement. Mahina Mele Farms, LLC will
reimburse the wholesaler for any returned product.

If you have any questions, call Mahina Mele Farms at 808 328 8987,
Monday-Friday, 8-4 HST.

Original Release: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm482670.htm


MARIN PASTA: Recalls Pork Ravioli Products Due to Noncompliance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marin Pasta Works, a San Rafael, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 491 pounds of pork ravioli products that
were produced without the benefit of federal inspection, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The sausage, parmesan and spinach ravioli items were produced
between Jan. 4, 2016 to Feb. 4, 2016. The following products are
subject to recall:

  --- 12-oz.vacuum-packaged packages containing pieces of
      "Sausage, Parm and Spinach Ravioli" with Best By Dates of
      Feb. 4 to March 4, 2016.

These items were distributed to retail locations in California.

The problem was discovered during FSIS surveillance activities
conducted at a retail store in San Rafael, California.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/2FM3v5


MCKESSON CORP: Class Certification Bid in TCPA Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in a TCPA class action lawsuit is pending.

In May 2013, True Health Chiropractic, Inc. filed a class action
against McKesson Corporation, claiming that McKesson sent
unsolicited marketing faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax
Protection Act of 2005 or JFPA. The case is pending in the
Northern District of California. True Health Chiropractic Inc., et
al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., CV-13-02219 (HG).

In August 2015, McKesson was granted a waiver from the opt out
requirement from the Federal Communications Commission. Plaintiffs
have appealed that decision.

In September 2015, plaintiffs filed for class certification. The
Court's ruling on that motion is pending.


META FINANCIAL: 3 Class Actions Filed Against MetaBank(R)
---------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc. (R) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that 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.


MORGAN & MORGAN: Settles Ex-Employee's Unpaid OT Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Bultman, writing for Law360, reports that law firm Morgan
& Morgan PLLC has agreed to pay a former employee the wages she
alleged are owed because the firm misclassified case managers as
exempt from overtime pay, resolving a proposed collective action,
according to documents filed on Feb. 11 in Georgia federal court.

In a joint motion on Feb. 11, the law firm and the ex-worker,
Wanda Rosado, told U.S. District Judge Mark H. Cohen that the firm
had agreed to pay her claims in full.


MULTI-SHOT LLC: "Bradshaw" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Travis Bradshaw, Tommy McCulloch, Kort Smith, Stephen Williams,
Shawn Cooper, and all others similarly-situated v. Multi-Shot,
LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00085 (S.D. Tex., January 12, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendant is a nationwide oilfield services company with
significant completion and land drilling operations throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND
      BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      Fax: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

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


NATURAL HEALTH: March 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC on Feb. 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Natural Health Trends Corp. concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between March 6, 2015 and
January 12, 2016.  Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm in advance
of the March 14, 2016, lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, please click here, or
contact Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033,
or via e-mail at brian@lundinlawpc.com

According to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose that
the operations of Natural Health Trends' Chinese entity is not in
compliance with applicable Chinese laws.  When the truth was
revealed, shares dropped causing investors harm.

No class has been certified in the above action.  Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles.


NAVIENT CORP: April 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Navient Corporation and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Delaware, and docketed under 16-cv-00075, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Navient securities between May 9, 2014 and February 5,
2016 inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Navient securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 11, 2016 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Navient provides financial products and services in the United
States.  The company operates in four segments: Federal Family
Education Loan Program ("FFELP") Loans, Private Education Loans,
Business Services, and Other.  The Company provides FFELP loans
and servicing for FFELP loan portfolios; and servicing and asset
recovery services for loans on behalf of guarantors of FFELP
loans, guaranty agencies, higher education institutions, the
United States Department of Education, and other federal clients,
as well as states, courts, and municipalities.  Navient also
acquires, finances, and services private education loans.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's loan servicing
practices were not in compliance with applicable federal
regulations; (ii) the Company's non-compliance with federal
regulations could subject Navient and its subsidiaries to
restitution, civil monetary penalties, and corrective actions; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Navient's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 24, 2015, post-market, the Company reported that on
August 19, 2015, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary Navient
Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") had received a Notice and Opportunity to
Respond and Advise ("NORA") letter providing notice that the
CFPB's Office of Enforcement was considering recommending that
CFPB take legal action against NSI related to a previously
disclosed investigation regarding assessing late fees on student
loans and other related misconduct, and that the CFPB might seek
restitution, civil monetary penalties, and corrective action
against NSI.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.01, or nearly 7.73% to
close at $12.05 on August 25, 2015.

On February 6, 2016, U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
directed public attention to the subject of the CFPB's
investigation of Navient during a speech at New England College in
Henniker, New Hampshire, stating that Navient's "behavior is
outrageous" and that the Company has been "misleading people" and
"doing some really terrible things."

On this news, Navient stock fell $0.57, or 5.99%, to close at
$8.94 on the following trading day, February 8, 2016.

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


NET I: Securities Litigation Has Been Closed
--------------------------------------------
Net 1 Ueps Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that on
September 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed the purported securities class
action litigation originally filed on December 24, 2013, against
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer. In its opinion, the District Court provided plaintiff
with 30 days to file a second amended complaint. This deadline
passed without plaintiff taking any action. Accordingly, the case
has been closed. The plaintiff did not appeal and the Company
considers this litigation over.


NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY: Settles Family Leave Suit for $700K
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that New Mexico State University has
agreed to pay more than $700,000 to settle a lawsuit accusing the
university of denying or discouraging faculty members from taking
time off for family leave.

According to The Las Cruces Sun-News, about 50 current or former
nine-month faculty members who had a newborn, adopted a child or
had a foster child placed with them qualify for the settlement.

According to the class-action lawsuit, faculty members say they
were discouraged from taking or denied leave which violates
federal laws guaranteeing eligible employees up to 12 weeks of
unpaid job-protected leave.

University officials say a paid leave benefit for faculty was in
the works before the lawsuit, but the suit prompted them to roll
out the policy change ahead of schedule


NEXT MODEL: Fashion Models File Class Action Over Mistreatment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vittorio Hernandez, writing for International Business Times,
reports that several fashion models in New York have filed a
class-action lawsuit against modelling agencies in New York for
mistreating and cheating them. Among the accusations they hurled
is that they are not given any food during photo shoots that lasts
12 to 14 hours.

Body positivity is one of the issues that the fashion industry is
beginning to address.  Sports Illustrated, for instance, got a 56-
year-old, plus-size and British-Nigerian models for its 2016
swimsuit edition to highlight that models do not have to follow
the old standard of being young and wafer-thin to be included in a
fashion show or commercial shoot.

However, other agencies are not that enlightened and over the
years have "abused" their talents, accuses Vanessa Perron, a 31-
year-old model.  Ms. Perron is one of those who filed the class-
action lawsuit with the Manhattan Supreme Court, reports The New
York Post.

"When we asked [to eat], we were told, 'Oh, you're a model, you're
not supposed to eat," quotes Ms. Perron.  Besides not given food
during photo shoots, Ms. Perron recalls that even if she stands 5'
11" and she weighed only 110 pounds in 2002, Next Model
Management, where she was signed, often told her to change her
appearance, including the need to lose weight, whiten her teeth,
tan her skin and color her hair at her personal expense.

Ironically, Next Model Management has a contract with Tyra Banks'
"America's Next Top Model" (ANTM) search.  Banks is one of those
pushing for a change in attitude towards model looks by accepting
plus-size contestants and sending home anorexic-looking ones.

Fasting, or not eating food, for a single day could cause multiple
symptoms, according to Web MD.  It could cause a headache because
of hunger pangs, while an empty stomach could lead to heartburn
and nausea. It could be emotionally and physically stressful and
worsen existing stress.

Another model, 48-year-old Carina Wretman, complains that when she
was a model of Wilhelmina talent agency -- once linked also to
ANTM --  agencies bilked young models by charging them for hair
cosmetics, flights and pictures for their portfolios despite the
models giving 20 percent commission fee and charging the client
another 20 percent.

Ms. Perron points out that the world of modeling is not as glitzy
and glamorous as it appears because of these malpractices that the
class-action lawsuit seeks to address.


NOVARTIS AG: U.S. Unit Faces 21 Reclast Product Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's US
affiliate, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC), is a
defendant in 21 US product liability actions involving Reclast and
alleging atypical femur fracture injuries, most of which are in
New Jersey state or federal court coordinated with claims against
other bisphosphonate manufacturers. There are also three Canadian
putative class actions brought against numerous bisphosphonate
manufacturers including NPC, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.
and Novartis International AG in Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
All claims are being vigorously contested.


NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz Faces 395 Reglan Product Liability Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's
Sandoz division is a defendant, along with numerous manufacturers
of brand pharmaceuticals, in 395 product liability actions in the
state courts in Pennsylvania and California claiming that the use
of metoclopramide, the generic version of the brand name drug
Reglan(R), caused personal injuries including tardive dyskinesia.
Sandoz denies the allegations and is vigorously contesting the
claims.


NOVARTIS AG: NPC Faces 12 Cases Over Tekturna, Rasilez & Valturna
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's US
affiliate, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC), and certain
other Novartis affiliates are defendants in 12 individual lawsuits
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(DNJ), and one in Alberta, Canada, claiming that treatment with
Tekturna, Rasilez and/or Valturna caused renal failure, kidney
disease or stroke. The claims are being vigorously contested.


NOVARTIS AG: NPC Still Faces Private Payors' Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's US
affiliate, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC), remains a
defendant in a putative class action brought by private payors in
New Jersey.

Claims have been brought by various US state governmental entities
against various pharmaceutical companies, including certain Sandoz
entities and NPC, alleging that they fraudulently overstated the
Average Wholesale Price (AWP) that is or has been used by payors,
including state Medicaid agencies, to calculate reimbursements to
healthcare providers. NPC and Sandoz reached settlements in the
first, third, and fourth quarters of 2015 of the Wisconsin and
Utah claims against them for amounts that are not material to
Novartis. Sandoz has filed a motion for reconsideration against a
Mississippi Supreme Court decision which in the fourth quarter of
2015 upheld the $30 million Chancery Court verdict against it. NPC
remains a defendant in an action brought by the state of Illinois
and in a putative class action brought by private payors in New
Jersey. The claims are being vigorously contested.


NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz Still Faces Solodyn(R) Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that since the third
quarter of 2013, approximately 16 putative class action complaints
have been filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R)
and its generic equivalents, including Sandoz Inc. The cases have
been consolidated and transferred for pretrial purposes to a
federal district court in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs purport to
represent direct and indirect purchasers of Solodyn(R) branded
products and assert violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, including allegations in connection with separate
settlements by Medicis with each of the other defendants,
including Sandoz Inc., of patent litigation relating to generic
Solodyn(R). Sandoz is vigorously contesting the claims.


NOVARTIS AG: Alcon Still Faces Contact Lens Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that since March
2015, more than 50 putative class action complaints have been
filed in several courts across the US naming contact-lens
manufacturers, including Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (ALI), and
alleging violations of federal antitrust law as well as state
antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws of
various states in connection with the sale of contact lenses. The
cases have been consolidated in the Middle District of Florida by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the claims are
being vigorously contested.


NOVARTIS AG: NPC Still Faces Payors' Claims over Gleevec
--------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that since June 2015,
the Company's US affiliate, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
(NPC), Novartis Corporation (NC) and Novartis AG (NAG) have been
sued in five putative class action complaints brought in federal
district court in Massachusetts on behalf of proposed classes of
all direct and indirect purchasers, including end-payors, of
Gleevec. The complaints assert violations of federal antitrust law
and various state laws, and seek to prevent Novartis from
enforcing a previously reported 2014 agreement under which Sun
Pharmaceuticals agreed not to launch a generic version of Gleevec,
until February 1, 2016, as well as damages and other relief. The
claims are being vigorously contested.


NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz & Momenta Sued in Tenn. over Enoxaparin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Sandoz and
Momenta Pharmaceuticals were sued in October 2015 in a putative
antitrust class action in federal court in Tennessee alleging that
Momenta and Sandoz engaged in anticompetitive conduct with regard
to sales of enoxaparin, and the same allegations were made by
Amphastar in a lawsuit filed in federal court in California
(Sandoz, Momenta Pharmaceuticals and Amphastar are currently
engaged in litigation concerning certain enoxaparin patents in
federal court in Massachusetts). The claims are being vigorously
contested.


NOVARTIS AG: Continues to Defend Eye Drop Products Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend claims in eye drop products consumer class
actions.

Since November 2012, six putative consumer fraud class action
litigations were commenced against Alcon Labs (and in four cases
Sandoz) in federal courts in the Southern Districts of Illinois
(S.D. Ill.) and Florida and the Districts of Missouri,
Massachusetts and New Jersey. They claim that Alcon's, Sandoz's
and many other manufacturers defendants' eye drop products were
deceptively designed so that the drop dosage is more than
necessary to be absorbed in the eye or there is too much solution
in each bottle for the course of the treatment, leading to wastage
and higher costs to patient consumers. Three cases remain pending
in the S.D. Ill., D. Mass. and DNJ.  Novartis is vigorously
contesting the claims.


NOVARTIS AG: Gender Discrimination Claims Against Alcon Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Alcon
Laboratories and Novartis Corp. were sued in March 2015 in an
individual and collective action filed in the Southern District of
New York. The parties negotiated a class settlement and a
settlement for the individual plaintiffs (excluding one plaintiff)
for an amount that is not material to Novartis, which settlements
and amended complaint were filed with the court for approval in
December 2015. The claims assert inter alia gender discrimination,
pay discrimination and retaliation at Alcon. The one remaining
individual claim continues to be vigorously contested.


NOVARTIS AG: NPC Continues to Defend Zometa & Aredia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's US
affiliate, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC), continues
to defend claims related to the Zometa/Aredia product liability
litigation.

NPC had been a defendant in more than 880 cases brought in US
courts in which plaintiffs generally claimed to have experienced
osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femur fracture after
treatment with Zometa or Aredia, which are used to treat patients
whose cancer has spread to the bones.

Nearly all the cases have been resolved through voluntary
dismissals, pre-trial motion practice, trial, or settlements, the
payments of which were not material to Novartis.

Three cases where NPC prevailed at the trial level remain on
appeal, and one other case remains pending. The remaining claims
are being vigorously contested, but they are not material to
Novartis.


NOVARTIS AG: Excedrin Consumer Class Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that one Excedrin
consumer class action remains pending against Novartis.

Four putative class actions were brought in December 2013 and
January 2014 against Novartis and its consumer health unit. They
generally claim that it was a deceptive practice to sell Excedrin
Migraine at a higher price than Excedrin Extra Strength when the
two have the same active ingredients, even though the products
have different labels and clearly disclose their active
ingredients.

In 2014, three of the four putative class actions were dismissed;
the remaining one is not material to Novartis.


OUTERWALL INC: Appellate Court Upholds Trial Court's Rulings
------------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appellate court has
affirmed the trial court's rulings in a consumer class action
complaint.

"In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in
the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois," the Company said.  "The plaintiff alleged that,
among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive
late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms
violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages and other relief."

"In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the
District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May
2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class
certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court
denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012.

"The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and
an amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The
court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the
hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the
plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her
claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the
Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act.

"On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class
action motion. On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court
denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the trial court's
denial of class certification. Redbox has moved to dismiss all
remaining claims on mootness grounds, and the Court granted
Redbox's motion on December 11, 2014.

"The plaintiffs appealed on January 7, 2015. Oral argument was
held November 10, 2015. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial
court's rulings on January 11, 2016.

"We continue to believe that the claims against us are without
merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter
should plaintiff seek further appellate review. Currently, no
accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate."


PATIENT FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Tropper" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yaakov Tropper, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Patient Financial Services, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
08891-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., December 28, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Patient Financial Services is a department within Johns Hopkins
Health System Finance that assists uninsured and underinsured
individuals and families in paying for urgent and medically
necessary services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (347) 526-4093
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


PALERO MEAT: Faces "Zapata" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freddy Zapata, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Palero
Meat Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-10090 (S.D.N.Y., December 29,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Palero Meat Corp. operates a meat shop and fish market in Bronx,
NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


PETROBRAS: Must Face Investor Class Action, Judge Rules
-------------------------------------------------------
Petro Global News reports that a U.S. federal judge has ruled that
Brazil's Petrobras must face class action lawsuits filed by
investors looking to recover losses tied to the company's ongoing
corruption scandal.

In a decision released on Feb. 9, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff
of Manhattan granted class action status to two classes of
plaintiffs who brought suits against Petrobras, Reuters said.

One of plaintiff classes covers Petrobras securities purchased
from January 2010 to July 2015 and will be headed by UK-based
Universities Superannuation Scheme.

The second class covers securities that were purchased in 2013 and
2014 and will be led by North Carolina's treasurer and the
Employees' Retirement System of Hawaii, Reuters said.

Judge Rakoff appointed Pomerantz LLP to represent both classes.

An affiliate of PricewaterhouseCoopers, Petrobras's auditor, was
listed as a defendant in the suits along with over a dozen bank
underwriters, the news wire added.

Neither Petrobras nor PricewaterhouseCoopers have commented on the
ruling.

Brazilian prosecutors have alleged that several Petrobras
employees helped orchestrate a price-fixing and bribery scheme
tied to company contracts.

A corruption probe, known as Operation  Lava Jato, has already
landed some former executives in jail and ensnared high level
Brazilian politicians, including lower house speaker Eduardo
Cunha.

The scandal has dragged Petrobras shares down to $3.41 per share
around noon on Feb. 11 from a high of $41.48 per share in August
2011.

Earlier this month, Petrobras slashed its 2015 proven reserves on
by just over 3 billion barrels, citing revisions to reserve
estimates at its pre-salt wells.

The company announced in January that it will slash its management
headcount by at least 30 percent in an effort to cut costs.


PETROBRAS: International Investors Mull Class Action Over Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Maritime Executive reports that a group of international
investors and law firms are seeking compensation from Brazil's
state-led oil company Petrobras under European law for losses
allegedly suffered as the result of a giant price-fixing, bribery
and political kickback scandal.

Netherlands-based Stichting Petrobras Compensation Foundation
(SPCF) has informed Petrobras of its interest in negotiating a
settlement, the group said in a statement released on Feb. 10.

If Petrobras refuses talks or declines to respond, the SPCF plans
to file a class-action suit against the Rio de Janeiro-based
company in a Dutch court in Rotterdam, the statement said.

When the fraud and bribery schemes "orchestrated by the company's
administration and employees were finally uncovered in 2014,
investors lost billions of dollars, euros and reais resulting in
significant declines in the value of assets and breakneck drops in
the price of Petrobras shares," SPCF said.

Petrobras did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

SPCF believes it has a claim against Petrobras under European
securities law because the company's shares are traded through
Spain's Latibex on the Madrid Stock Exchange.  Trades are cleared
through Spain's Iberclear.

As a result, SPCF says, Petrobras is subject to the rules of
Comision Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV), Spain's stock
regulator.  When Petrobras sold securities in Europe it also made
it clear that it would be subject to Europe-wide securities rules
under European Securities and Markets Authority, the foundation
added.

Investors in the United States have already filed suit in a
New York federal court claiming that Petrobras' U.S.-traded shares
make the company subject to U.S. securities law. However, the
judge in the case has limited potential redress to those who
bought Petrobras securities registered in the United States.

The SPCF is seeking redress not only for losses on Petrobras stock
on the Latibex but for those who lost money on Brazil's
BM&FBovespa Exchange in Sao Paulo and for owners of Euro-
denominated bonds.

"The foundation provides a vehicle to litigate on behalf of
Petrobras investors and/or to establish a binding settlement that,
together with the U.S. class action provides for a truly global
settlement," the SPCF said.

Lemstra Van der Korst N.V., a Dutch litigation and class action
law firm, is cooperating with securities litigation firms Withers
LLP, Motley Rice and Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart to organize the
legal action.


PGA TOUR: Professional Caddies Lose Bib Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Irish Times reports that professional caddies were scheduled
to meet at Pebble Beach and discuss whether to continue fighting
the PGA Tour after losing a class action lawsuit contending they
were forced to wear bibs featuring corporate logos that made them
"human billboards".

One caddie said he had lost the stomach to appeal the ruling,
while the president of the caddies' association told Golf Channel
he was ready to put the matter behind him.

The lawsuit, filed just over a year ago in US federal court in
California, said the PGA Tour threatened to prevent the caddies
from working at tournaments organized and promoted by the
organization if they refused to wear the bibs.

The lawsuit also claimed that the PGA Tour reaps more than $50
million annually from the endorsements, but the caddies receive no
compensation.

Permanent injunction

However United States District Judge Vince Chhabria on Feb. 9
dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, saying: "The caddies'
overall complaint about poor treatment by the Tour has merit, but
this federal lawsuit about bibs does not."

The caddies were seeking a permanent injunction against the
practice of wearing bibs on the course.

Mike Hicks, the lead plaintiff, has been a caddie for nearly 35
years and has worked for leading golfers such as Greg Norman,
Payne Stewart, Steve Stricker and Justin Leonard.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 168 caddies in the US who wear or
have worn bibs with the logos of the PGA Tour's sponsors, claimed
the Tour interfered with the caddies' ability to compete in the
market, alleged antitrust violations, breach of contract and
violations of California state law.

Now that the judge has dismissed the lawsuit, each of the 168
caddies must decide individually whether to appeal.

The caddies had a previously-scheduled meeting planned at the PGA
Tour stop in Pebble Beach, California on Feb. 10.
The lawsuit ruling immediately went to the top of the unofficial
agenda.

"To be honest, I don't think I really want to continue," said one
caddie, who asked not to be named.  "The system has spoken."

Mentally draining

He added that the lawsuit had been mentally draining and that he
wanted to get back to focusing on his job.

James Edmondson, president of the Association of Professional Tour
Caddies, sounded a similar theme.

"I respect the court's decision and do not plan to go any further
with it," he told GolfChannel.com.

The PGA Tour said in a statement that they were "pleased by the
court's decision" in their favor.

"We look forward to putting this matter behind us and moving
forward in a positive direction with the caddies."

In his ruling, judge Chhabria said: "Caddies have been required to
wear the bibs for decades.  So caddies know, when they enter the
profession, that wearing a bib during tournaments is part of the
job.  In other words, the bib is the primary part of a caddie's
uniform."


PRINCE GEORGE, WA: School Board Sued Over Child Pornography
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Beth Hensley and Michelle Basch, writing for WTOP, report
that a class-action lawsuit, filed against a Prince George's
County school after a volunteer aide was accused of capturing
pornographic video of children there, claims the sex acts occurred
in a city municipal building as well.

The suit was filed on Feb. 11 against the Prince George's County
Board of Education, Judge Sylvania Woods Elementary School
Principal Michelle Williams, and Deonte Carraway -- the aide who
is charged with 10 felonies, including making child pornography,
soliciting children and child sexual abuse.  He was being held in
lieu of $1 million bail.

The suit seeks monetary damages of a minimum of $75,000 for each
victim.  Police say 12 victims have been identified and it has
received 30 calls to its tip line (301-772-4930).

The suit identifies "John Doe #2" -- an 11-year-old fifth grader
at the Glenarden, Maryland, school -- as a victim and that
Carraway "coerced [the 11-year-old] to engage in sexual acts with
him on school property during school hours."

Also, it alleges that the sexual acts occurred at Glenarden
Municipal Center where Carraway hosted the school's choir
practice.  "John Doe #2" participated in the choir, the suit says.

The two communicated through the Kik messaging app, according to
the suit.

In a separate lawsuit filed by the same attorneys, the guardian of
a 9-year-old student at the school sued the same parties after it
said the boy's uncle discovered images and messages
Mr. Carraway had sent the boy using Kik.

Both suits say "Carraway's abuse was common knowledge among
students at Sylvania Woods. Parents and teachers at Sylvania Woods
Elementary School had expressed concern and/or raised issues about
Carraway's predatory behavior to Principal Michelle Williams, but
she took no action."

Ms. Williams has been placed on administrative leave, school
officials said Feb. 10.

On Feb. 11, parents were invited to a closed-door meeting at Judge
Sylvania Woods Elementary in Glenarden to give them the latest on
the sex abuse case.   Members of the media were not allowed
inside, but WTOP spoke with someone who was.

Clinton, who declined to give his last name, says he has two
grandchildren who are current students at the school.  Both police
and school leaders were at the meeting.

"They answered quite a few questions, but they still left a lot of
unanswered questions," he said.

One of the questions he still wants answered? "How did he get
total access to the children.  Unimpeded."

One question he asked officials at the meeting was, "Did you get
everybody?"

Leaders told him they couldn't talk about whether other school
staffers were involved, because the investigation is ongoing.

"As far as who's involved and what's involved, we're not getting
past 'We've got people in place to help you and your child,'" he
said.

He calls that "somewhat understandable" and was glad to hear at
the meeting that the victims and families in the case were being
given the most information about the investigation.

Jackie Bensen, Meagan Fitzgerald and Andrea Swalec, writing for
NBC Washington, report PGCPS officials said in an update on
Feb. 11 that they will do to keep students safe:

"At the administrative level, PGCPS leaders met with the Judge
Sylvania Woods community to share information on the incident and
review policies and procedures for reporting abuse and suspicious
activity.  Counseling and psychological support will be provided
to students and families upon request, and those services will
remain in place as long as they are needed.  A second meeting will
take place at the school this evening."

"Dr. Maxwell will also convene a taskforce of internal and
external partners to review current policies and procedures and
identify areas of immediate improvement.  The district will also
consult with national experts in this field to ensure the
taskforce recommendations are aligned with best practices from
across the country.

"[This] week, staff from the PGCPS Office of General Counsel will
address principals during a systemic principals' meeting and
review all laws, policies, and procedures related to an employee's
obligation to report abuse and suspicious behavior.

"At the school level, principals will hold mandatory meetings with
staff to review the August 2015 training materials and October
2015 memorandum on procedures for reporting abuse and suspicious
activities.  Professional school counselors will reach out to
students and conduct lessons in the classroom that address the
differences between appropriate and inappropriate physical
contact; personal body safety rules and when to use them; and how
to identify trusted adults to whom they can report when they feel
unsafe.

"We will work closely with our community partners and use all
possible resources to foster a safe and supportive environment for
all students and families," added Dr. Maxwell.  "It goes without
saying that these type of acts are intolerable and unacceptable."

If parents or community members have any additional information
regarding this case, they should call 1-800-CALL-FBI.


PENNANTPARK FLOATING: Settlement Reached in MCG Merger Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pennantpark Floating Rate Capital Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit plan to file a
stipulation of settlement with the court, which provides for,
among other things, settlement of the complaint.

The Company said, "On August 18, 2015, we completed the
acquisition of MCG Capital Corporation, or MCG, pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, dated as of
April 28, 2015, by and among MCG, our Investment Adviser and the
Company. As a result of the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement, MCG was ultimately merged with and into PFLT
Funding II, LLC with PFLT Funding II, LLC as the surviving
company."

"Between May 6, 2015, and May 18, 2015, a number of putative class
action lawsuits were filed by former stockholders of MCG
challenging our acquisition of MCG in the Delaware Court of
Chancery. The consolidated complaint alleged that MCG's directors
violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, not
protecting against their supposed conflicts of interest and
failing to take steps to maximize the consideration to be received
by MCG's former stockholders in our acquisition of MCG. The
consolidated complaint also alleged that the Company and the
Investment Adviser aided and abetted the MCG directors' purported
breach of fiduciary duties. We believe that the consolidated
complaint is without merit.

"On July 30, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding setting forth an agreement in principle to settle
the class action complaint. The parties plan to file a stipulation
of settlement with the court, which provides for, among other
things, settlement of the class action complaint. There can be no
assurance that the settlement will be finalized or that the court
will approve the settlement.


PETROLVALVES: "Foy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Foy, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Petrolvalves, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-03727 (S.D. Tex.,
December 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Petrolvalves, LLC manufactures and services valves for the oil and
gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Chides Lawyers Over Litigation Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
U.S. tobacco companies on Feb. 8 drew the ire of a federal judge
in Washington, who accused them of trying to "stall" their
obligation to pay for public ads about the health risks of
smoking.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler wrote that the tobacco
companies -- represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Jones Day;
Stafford Rosenbaum; and Baker & Hostetler -- had attempted to re-
litigate issues related to the contents of the so-called
"corrective statements" ads.

"That is ridiculous -- a waste of precious time, energy, and money
for all concerned -- and a loss of information for the public,"
Judge Kessler wrote.  "The court has no intention of following
that path, although it is obvious that defendants are, once again,
attempting to stall any final outcome to this long-standing
litigation."

Judge Kessler in 2006 ordered tobacco companies to pay for
nationwide print, television and radio ads that listed the health
risks of smoking.  The case dates to 1999, when the U.S.
Department of Justice filed a civil racketeering suit that accused
tobacco companies of deceiving the public about their products.

In 2015, in one of several trips that the case has made to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, an appeals panel said
Kessler couldn't require that the ads highlight her conclusion
that the tobacco companies "deliberately deceived" consumers.  The
ads need to be forward-looking, the appeals court said.

Judge Kessler rejected the tobacco companies' proposal for a new
version of the ads, finding that they attempted to rewrite
language the D.C. Circuit approved.  She adopted the government's
proposed text, which states the tobacco companies were "ordered"
by a federal judge to make certain statements about their
products.

Gibson Dunn partner Miguel Estrada -- mestrada@gibsondunn.com --
lead counsel for Altria Group Inc. and Philip Morris USA Inc.,
referred a request for comment to his clients.  A representative
of Altria, which is Philip Morris' parent company, did not
immediately return a request for comment.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is represented by Jones Day and Stafford
Rosenbaum of Madison, Wisconsin.  Jones Day partner
Noel Francisco did not immediately return a request for comment.
Baker & Hostetler represents ITG Brands LLC, Commonwealth Brands
Inc. and Commonwealth-Altadis Inc., which were not defendants but
would be affected by Kessler's judgment.  Baker & Hostetler
partner Elizabeth McCallum was not immediately reached.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department called Kessler's decision
"the latest step in the Department of Justice's
long-standing racketeering case against the tobacco companies, in
which a federal court found that the tobacco companies
deliberately deceived the American public about the health
consequences of smoking."

Howard Crystal -- hcrystal@meyerglitz.com -- of counsel to Meyer
Glitzenstein & Eubanks in Washington, who represents public health
groups in the case, said that if history "is any guide, there is
certainly cause for concern" that the tobacco companies would
appeal Kessler's order.

"I think it's safe to say that [Kessler] believes that the
defendants are trying to delay the issuance of the corrective
statements and that's certainly the concern that my clients have
had for many, many years -- that the defendants have done and
continue to do whatever they can to delay the day of reckoning,"
Mr. Crystal said.


PLATINUM LIMOUSINE: "Arakaki" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Arakaki v. Platinum Limousine Services, Inc., Kurt
Tsuneyoshi, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 1:15-cv-00536 (D.
Hawaii, December 24, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chauffeured transportation
company located at 4192-A Huanui Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96816.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard L. Holcomb, Esq.
      HOLCOMB LAW, A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW CORPORATION
      1136 Union Mall, Suite #808
      Honolulu, HI 96813
      Telephone: (808) 545-4040
      Facsimile: (808) 356-1954
      E-mail: rholcomblaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Timothy Mac Master, Esq.
      Attorney at Law
      1088 Bishop Street, Suite 209
      Honolulu, HI 96813
      Telephone: (808) 591-8080


QLOGIC CORP: Still Faces "Hull" Lawsuit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
QLogic Corporation continues to face a class action lawsuit by
Phyllis Hull, the Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2015.

In September 2015, a purported class action was commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
asserting claims arising under federal securities laws against the
Company and certain individual defendants.  The plaintiff, Phyllis
Hull, purports to represent a class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between April 30, 2015 and July 30, 2015.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, including a former
officer and a current officer, engaged in a scheme to inflate the
Company's stock price by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's operations, financial results and future
business prospects in violation of federal securities laws.  The
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest and an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

QLogic designs and supplies high performance server and storage
networking connectivity products that provide, enhance and manage
computer data communication.


QUIKSILVER INC: Bankruptcy Filing Stays Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Quiksilver, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that securities class
action lawsuits against the Company remain stayed pending its
bankruptcy proceedings.

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

On June 26, 2015, the court consolidated these lawsuits and named
Babulal Parmar as the lead plaintiff. On August 25, 2015, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the consolidated action.
The amended complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class
period in this action is from June 6, 2014 through March 26, 2015.
The complaint seeks designation of this action as a class action,
an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and such
other relief as the court deems appropriate.

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

On September 9, 2015, Quiksilver and each of its wholly owned U.S.
subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware seeking relief under
the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.


RAMS: Faces Class Action Over PSL Contract Reimbursement
--------------------------------------------------------
Darren Rovell, writing for ESPN, reports that a Los Angeles Rams
season-ticket holder, who owned two tickets to the team's games in
St. Louis, has filed a class-action suit against the team in
district court in Missouri, seeking to be paid back for the years
of his personal seat license (PSL) that won't be honored.

Ronald McAllister bought one PSL in 1995 and another 10 years
later, both of which gave a fan the right to purchase a season
ticket through the 2024 season.  Mr. McAllister says he, and any
other fan who purchased a PSL, is entitled to get back a
percentage of what they paid. He is asking that PSL owners be
refunded a percentage of their money based on the number of years
left on the contract (nine) compared to the overall length of
their contract with the Rams.

Mr. McAllister, for example, says the Rams owe him, and others who
purchased a PSL in 1995, 9/30 or 30 percent of their money back.
For the second PSL he bought in 2005, McAllister says he's
entitled to get back 9/20, or 45 percent, of his purchase price.

While the PSL agreement says that the PSL owner can't sue the
team, including "should the team not play its home games in the
stadium or in St. Louis for any reason," lawyers for McAllister
argue that the contract is a sham because it allows the Rams to
default on their part of the deal without consequence and but
doesn't allow ticket holders the same luxury.  If PSL payments are
not made, the Rams have the unilateral right to no longer offer
that fan a ticket.

"To terminate the PSLs of plaintiff and other class members while
refusing to refund the amounts paid for the unusable portions is
unfair because it violates the duty of good faith, unilaterally
breaches unambiguous provisions of consumer contracts, and is
unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous," the lawsuit said.

The suit, which charges the Rams with unjust enrichment, breach of
contract and breach of the obligation of good faith and fair
dealing, says the team's conduct is in violation of the Missouri
Merchandise Practices Act and seeks more than $5 million in
refunds.

A message left for a Rams official was not returned.



RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schacher" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caryn Schacher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Retrieval Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. d/b/a AMCA
a/k/a American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 1:15-cv-07285-
DLI-RML (E.D.N.Y., December 28, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Retrieval Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. owns and operates a
collection agency located at 4 Westchester Plaza, Elmsford, NY
10523.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reizman" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yizhak Reizman and Heny Reizman, Husband and Wife, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Retrieval Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-
08853-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., December 25, 2015) seeks redress for the
Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. operates a collection
agency with its principal office located at 1247 Broadway, Sonoma,
California 95476-7503.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin G. Kelsen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN G. KELSEN, ESQ. LLC
      1415 Queen Anne Road, Suite 206
      Teaneck, NJ 07666
      Telephone: (201) 692-0073
      Facsimile: (201) 692-0151
      E-mail: info@kelsenlaw.com


RMCN CREDIT: "Biller" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------
Nathan Biller, and all others similarly-situated v. RMCN Credit
Services, Inc., Douglas Parker and Julie Parker, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00043 (E.D. Tex., January 12, 2016), seeks damages for Defendants'
failure to pay wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants operate a credit repair business in McKInney,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      J. Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010


SCHLUMBERGER N.V.: Defending Suits Related to Cameron Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Schlumberger N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is defending
multiple lawsuits related to its merger with Cameron International
Corporations.

On August 26, 2015, Schlumberger and Cameron jointly announced
that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement in which
Cameron will merge with an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Schlumberger in a stock and cash transaction.

"Multiple lawsuits have been filed against us and Cameron
challenging the proposed merger, and an adverse ruling in any such
lawsuit may prevent the merger from being completed," the Company
said.

"After the announcement of the proposed merger, four putative
class action lawsuits were commenced on behalf of stockholders of
Cameron against Cameron and its directors, as well as against us
and Schlumberger Holding Corporation and Rain Merger Sub (both of
which are indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries).   These lawsuits
were consolidated for all purposes and a consolidated amended
class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") was filed.
The Consolidated Complaint seeks various remedies, including
enjoining the merger from being consummated, rescission of the
merger to the extent already implemented and the plaintiffs' costs
and fees.  Additional lawsuits with similar allegations may be
filed.

"While we believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend
to vigorously defend against such claims, the outcome of any such
litigation is inherently uncertain.  One of the conditions to the
closing of the merger is that no law, order, injunction, judgment,
decree, ruling or other similar requirement shall be in effect
that prohibits the completion of the merger. Accordingly, if any
of the plaintiffs are successful in obtaining an injunction
prohibiting the completion of the merger, then that injunction may
prevent the merger from becoming effective, or delay its becoming
effective."


SOLARWINDS INC: Sued in Tex. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Thomas Moore Rollover Ira, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Solarwinds, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-01228 (W.D. Tex., December 28, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Headquartered at 7171 Southwest Parkway, Building 400, Austin,
Texas, Solarwinds, Inc. develops enterprise information technology
infrastructure management software for IT professionals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Marin
      BOULETTE GOLDEN & MARIN L.L.P.
      2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 530
      Austin, TX 78746
      Telephone: (512) 732-8900
      Facsimile: (512) 732-8905
      E-mail: mmarin@boulettegolden.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
      230 Old Lancaster Road, Suite B
      Merion Station, PA 19066
      Telephone: (610) 660-8000
      Facsimile: (610) 660-8080


SPOTIFY USA: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lowery, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Spotify USA Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09929-
BRO-RAO (C.D. Cal., December 28, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
the holders of mechanical rights in copyrighted musical works that
the Defendant has used without mechanical licenses in an
egregious, continuous and ongoing campaign of deliberate copyright
infringement.

Spotify USA Inc. operates an interactive commercial music
streaming service that operates an Internet website permitting
users to customize listening choices for recorded music and to
create Internet "radio stations."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sanford L. Michelman, Esq.
      Mona Z. Hanna, Esq.
      Melanie Natasha Howard, Esq.
      MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
      17901 Von Karman Avenue, 10th Floor
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (714) 557-7990
      Facsimile: (714) 557-7991
      E-mail: smichelman@mrllp.com
              mhanna@mrllp.com
              mhoward@mrllp.com

         - and -

      David C. Lee, Esq.
      Ilse C. Scott, Esq.
      MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
      One Post Street, Suite 2500
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 882-7770
      Facsimile: (415) 882-1570
      E-mail: dlee@mrllp.com
              iscott@mrllp.com


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Completed in Clearwire Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that discovery
is substantially complete in the lawsuit filed by Clearwire
Corporation stockholders.

Sprint is a defendant in a complaint filed by stockholders of
Clearwire asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty by Sprint
Communications, and related claims and otherwise challenging the
Clearwire Acquisition. ACP Master, LTD, et al. v. Sprint Nextel
Corp., et al., was filed April 26, 2013, in Chancery Court in
Delaware.  The Company's motion to dismiss the suit was denied,
and discovery is substantially complete.

Plaintiffs in the ACP Master, LTD suit have also filed suit
requesting an appraisal of the fair value of their Clearwire
stock. Discovery in that case was consolidated with the breach of
fiduciary duty case and is substantially complete.

Sprint intends to defend the ACP Master, LTD cases vigorously.

Sprint is one of the largest wireless communications companies in
the U.S., as well as a provider of wireline services.


STATE FARM: Court Issues Opinion on Labor Depreciation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that on Feb. 10 the Minnesota
Supreme Court issued its opinion in Wilcox v. State Farm Fire &
Casualty Company, a putative class action alleging that State
Farm, in estimating the "actual cash value" of property damage
under homeowners' insurance policies, improperly applied
depreciation to the labor component of the replacement cost of
damaged structures.  A question pertaining to whether depreciation
can properly be applied to labor costs was certified by
Minnesota's federal district court to the state supreme court.

On Feb. 11, the court held that "absent specific language in the
insurance policy that identifies a method of calculating actual
cash value, the trier of fact must determine whether depreciation
of embedded labor components 'logically tend[s] to the formation
of a correct estimate of the loss." (Slip op. at 3.) In other
words, the court concluded that determining the correct amount of
the "actual cash value," based on all applicable factors, is an
issue that should generally be decided by an appraisal panel or
the finder of fact at trial, typically based on expert testimony.
The court further concluded that this determination "depends on
the facts and circumstances of the particular case (id. at 10),
which means that class certification on this issue is unlikely.
This decision is more favorable to insurers' positions than some
of the other recent decisions on this issue (see my January 18
blog post for more on those).

Key points from this decision include:

The court ruled that "actual cash value" is not ambiguous because
it is "a legal term of art that refers to the 'actual loss'
sustained by the insured." (Slip op. at 7.) The term "actual cash
value" is well-defined by case law in most jurisdictions.
The court relied on its prior adoption of the "broad evidence
rule" for determining actual cash value.  It explained that the
"broad evidence rule" is "a flexible approach that allows the
trier of fact to consider 'every fact and circumstance which would
logically tend to the formation of a correct estimate of the
loss.'" (Slip op. at 7.) The court explained that "the broad
evidence rule does not dictate whether labor is depreciable or is
not depreciable." Rather, it is a factor to consider, and "certain
embedded labor costs may be depreciable, depending on the facts
and circumstances of the particular case." (Id. at 8.)
The court rejected the position that depreciation of embedded
labor costs is illogical, explaining that "arguments about whether
labor-cost depreciation is 'logical' according to accepted methods
of appraisal in a given case are best presented to an appraisal
panel or via expert testimony before a jury."
(Id. at 9.) The court noted that "[t]he appraisal of real estate
includes elements of both art and science," and "[i]t is not the
role of the judiciary to define best practices for appraisers
without regard for the facts and circumstances of the case
presented." (Id. at 9.)

The court also noted that insurers can revise their policy
language to specifically address this issue.

Overall, this is a significant victory for insurers who are
defending putative class actions on this issue across the country.
The court's ruling that the question of whether embedded labor
costs are appropriately depreciated is a case-by-case
determination means that class certification is likely to be
denied.  This is because any common issues of law and fact (if any
exist) likely will not predominate over individual issues
concerning the nature and extent of the damage to each individual
property, and the appropriate calculation of the actual cash value
of the damage at issue.


SUMMIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Koroman" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoran Koroman, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Summit Collection Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
08916-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., December 29, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Summit Collection Services, Inc. operates a debt collection agency
at 50 N Franklin Tpke, Ho Ho Kus, NJ.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Khristie Cabrera, individually and on behalf of those individuals
similarly situated v. Summit Entertainment Corporation d/b/a
Gentlemen's Quarters, and Phillip Tricolla, Case No. 1:15-cv-07372
(E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment bar located
at 2151 Grand Avenue, Baldwin, NY 11510, New York.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
      ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      One Corporate Drive, Suite 103
      Bohemia, NY 11716
      Telephone: (631) 589-7242
      Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
      E-mail: szabell@laborlawsny.com


SUPERIOR COOLING: "Duran" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mario Bautista Duran, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Superior Cooling LLC and
Mendy Israel, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
07243 (E.D.N.Y., December 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid or
underpaid overtime compensation and uniform maintenance pay,
statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Wage Theft
Prevention Act, New York Labor Laws and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Duran worked as a mechanic and installer and claims to have worked
approximately seven days per week without overtime compensation
and that he paid for his uniform in cash and was never reimbursed
for laundry services. Plaintiff also alleges the Defendant failed
to provide a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring, and
failed to maintain accurate and sufficient employment records.

Superior Cooling operates an HVAC service and installation
company, doing business as Superior Cooling and Heating, located
at 193 20th Street, Brooklyn, New York, and is owned by Mendy
Israel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SWEETWATER POOLS: Faces "Tucker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Alice Tucker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sweetwater Pools, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
03736 (S.D. Tex., December 29, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Sweetwater Pools, Inc. is a Texas corporation that operates a
swimming pool construction, maintenance, and management services
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Julian, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Swift Transportation, Inc. and Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01212-UNA (D.
Del., December 29, 2015) arises out of Swift's failure to
compensate its hourly, nonexempt trainee truck drivers.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of long-haul trucking,
logistics, and ground transportation in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary W. Aber, Esq.
      One Customs House, Suite 600
      704 N. King Street, P.O. Box 1675
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 472-4900
      E-mail: gaber@gablawde.com

         - and -

      Joshua Konecky, Esq.
      Nathan Piller, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
              npiller@schneiderwallace.com


SYMANTEC CORP: Awaits Final Class Action Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation is awaiting final approval of the settlement
of a class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2016.

On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and its previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.;
the lawsuit alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment
related to prior sales of Extended Download Service ("EDS") and
Norton Download Insurance ("NDI"). On March 31, 2014, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a class of
all people who purchased these products between January 24, 2005,
and March 10, 2011.

In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the Company would pay the plaintiffs $30
million, which we accrued. On October 8, 2015, the Court granted
approval of the settlement, which was subsequently paid by the
Company. A final approval hearing was held on January 19, 2016,
and the Company is awaiting the Court's order on final approval.


SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces "Mintz" Suit in N.Y. Over Automated Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mintz and Toni Marie Mintz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 2:15-cv-
07344-LDW-ARL (E.D.N.Y., December 28, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making a call to the Plaintiff's wireless
phone using an automated telephone dialing system or a prerecorded
voice.

Synchrony Bank operates banking & finance company located at 170
Election Road, Suite 125, Draper, Utah 84020.


TALK OF THE TOWN: Faces "Romanofsky" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Romanofsky v. Talk of The Town Diner I, Inc. d/b/a The Talk
Restaurant and Kazar Keuchkarian, Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-14224 (D.
Mass., December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work of over 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as "The Talk
Restaurant" located at 116 Main Street, Watertown, Middlesex
County, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William T. Harrington, Esq.
      171 Milk Street, 2nd Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 426-7400
      E-mail: wharringtonlaw@gmail.com


TD AMERITRADE: Order Routing Plaintiffs Object to Recommendations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that
plaintiffs in the Order Routing lawsuits have objected to the
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.

Five putative class action complaints have been filed regarding TD
Ameritrade's routing of client orders. The cases are pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et
al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc.; Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael
Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald
Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al. The complaints
in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to
provide clients with "best execution" and routed orders to the
market venue that paid the most for its order flow. The complaints
in Verdieck and Lerner allege that the defendant routed its
clients' non-marketable limit orders to the venue paying the
highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients did not receive
best execution on these kinds of orders. The complaints variously
include claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of the duty of best execution, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's Consumer
Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and
declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various kinds of relief
including damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
equitable relief and other relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
The Company moved to dismiss each of the five putative class
action complaints. The Magistrate Judge subsequently entered
Findings and Recommendations with respect to each of the five
actions, recommending that the District Judge dismiss each of the
five lawsuits. The Plaintiffs have objected to the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the
ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if
any, that may result.


TD AMERITRADE: March 4 Final Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the
court has set a final approval hearing date of March 4, 2016, on
the settlement in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund Litigation.

During September 2008, The Reserve, an independent mutual fund
company, announced that the net asset value of the Reserve Yield
Plus Fund declined below $1.00 per share. The Yield Plus Fund was
not a money market mutual fund, but its stated objective was to
maintain a net asset value of $1.00 per share. TD Ameritrade,
Inc.'s clients continue to hold shares in the Yield Plus Fund (now
known as "Yield Plus Fund -- In Liquidation"), which is being
liquidated.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund.

On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor, certain of its
affiliates and the Company and certain of its directors, officers
and shareholders as alleged control persons. The complaint alleges
claims of violations of the federal securities laws and other
claims based on allegations that false and misleading statements
and omissions were made in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund
prospectuses and in other statements regarding the fund.

On March 19, 2015, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with
Reserve Management Company, Inc. and related defendants to settle
the claims against them, subject to court approval.

On March 26, 2015, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the claims against the Company
and its directors, officers and shareholders named as defendants,
subject to definitive written terms that required court approval.
Under the agreement, the Company agreed to make a cash
contribution of $3.75 million toward a class settlement fund. On
November 23, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and notices to class members, as well as
setting a final approval hearing date of March 4, 2016.

The Company paid its $3.75 million contribution to the class
settlement fund on December 4, 2015. Notices to class members were
mailed by the claims administrator on December 8, 2015.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Agrawal" Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, Calif., gave her
stamp of approval on a stipulation dismissing a class action
lawsuit filed by Abhishek Agrawal against TerraForm Global, Inc.,
SunEdison, Inc., and other defendants.

Agrawal has not been offered and is not receiving any
consideration for dismissing the Action.

The Stipulation provides that: "[T]here are at least six other
class action suits based on substantially and materially identical
factual allegations, seeking substantially and materially the same
legal and equitable relief, against the same or similar group of
Defendants, currently pending before this Court. Accordingly,
dismissal of this Action without prejudice will not result in any
harm or prejudice to TerraForm shareholders."

The Stipulation, approved by the Judge on February 10, 2016, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Rk2Lwrfrom Leagle.com,
was entered into by counsel to the case parties.

Abhishek Agrawal commenced Case No. CIV 536045 on October 30, 2015
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

The other cases, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm
Global, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-06328-BLF; Badri v.
TerraForm Global Inc. et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-06323-BLF; Fraser
v. Wuebbels, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-06326-BLF; and Patel v.
TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00073-BLF, were
each filed in San Mateo County Superior Court between October 2015
and January 2016.

The Defendants on December 30, 2015, removed those cases, except
the Patel action, to Federal District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Patel case was removed on January 6,
2016.

The Plaintiffs have filed motions to remand those actions back to
the San Mateo Superior Court.  The Defendants have filed an
Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, and the Court granted
the administrative motion on January 20, 2016.  The Defendants
filed oppositions to the motions to remand in the other actions.

The cases are, ABHISHEK AGRAWAL, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 15-cv-06322-BLF, CIV 536045 (N.D.
Cal.).

The other defendants are Ahmad Chatila; Carlos Domenech Zornoza;
Jeremy Avenier; Martin Truong; Brian Wuebbels; J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC; Barclays Capital Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets
Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc.; BTG Pactual US Capital LLC; Ita£ BBA USA
Securities, Inc.; SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc.; SG Americas
Securities, LLC; and Kotak Mahindra, Inc.

Abhishek Agrawal is represented by:

     Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
     David Conrad Walton, Esq.
     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415) 288-4545
     Fax: (415) 288-4534
     E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Brian Edward Cochran, Esq.
     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 231-1058
     Fax: (619) 231-7423
     E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
             bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Frank James Johnson, Esq.
     Johnson & Weaver, LLP
     600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: 619-230-0063
     Fax: 619-255-1856
     E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com

TerraForm Global, Inc., and SunEdison, Inc., are represented by:

     Sara B. Brody, Esq.
     Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq.
     Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq.
     Sidley Austin LLP
     555 California Street, Suite 2000
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: 415 772 1279
     E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com
             jbartlett@sidley.com
             shemmendinger@sidley.com

          - and -

     Norman J. Blears, Esq.
     Sidley Austin LLP
     1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
     Palo Alto, CA 94304
     Tel: 650 565 7103
     E-mail: nblears@sidley.com

Sidley Austin also represents the individual defendants.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, et al. are represented by:

     Patrick David Robbins, Esq.
     Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq.
     Shearman & Sterling LLP
     4 Embarcadero Center # 3800
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: 415-616-1210
     E-mail: probbins@shearman.com


TF FOODS: Recalls Fried Bean Snack Products Due to Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------
TF Foods of Paramount, CA is recalling its 10.60 ounce packages of
"Fried Bean Snack (Na-Pia-Jo)" food treats because they may
contain undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The recalled "Fried Bean Snack (Na-Pia-Jo)" were distributed
nationally in retail stores between November of 2015 and beginning
of February of 2016.

The product comes in a 10.60 ounce, clear plastic bag.

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

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the peanut-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of peanuts. Subsequent investigation indicates
the problem was caused by a change in the company's recipe which
added peanuts but not to the labeling of the product.

Sale of the product has been suspended until the company is
certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased 10.60 ounce packages of "Fried Bean
Snack (Na-Pia-Jo)" are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact:
John Pantaya at TF Foods, Inc., (562)220-2666 Mon-Fri 10am-4pm
P.S.T.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Mx9URV


TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: June 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trimble Navigation Limited on Feb. 11 announced the notice of
hearing and proposed class action settlement below, giving notice
of a hearing to consider approval of a settlement and related
matters in connection with a class action complaint that
challenged the change of control provisions in Trimble's credit
agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank.  Under the proposed
settlement, there would be no payments to individual stockholders,
but Trimble and JPMorgan Chase Bank would be required to amend the
change of control provisions in the credit agreement.  The case is
captioned Rachel Thompson, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Trimble Navigation Limited, Steven W.
Berglund, John B. Goodrich, Merit E. Janow, Ulf Johansson, Mark S.
Peek, Nickolas W. Vande Steeg, Ron Nersesian, and JPMorgan Chase
Bank, Case No. 1-15-cv-27798.

KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Eric L. Zagar (Bar No. 260519)
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (267) 948-2512
ezagar@ktmc.com

   -- and --

Eli R. Greenstein (Bar No. 217945)
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 400-3000
Fax: (415) 400-3001
egreenstein@ktmc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Rachel Thompson

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

RACHEL THOMPSON, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED,

Plaintiff,

            v.

TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, STEVEN W.
BERGLUND, JOHN B. GOODRICH, MERIT E.
JANOW, ULF JOHANSSON, MARK S. PEEK,
NICKOLAS W. VANDE STEEG, RON
NERSESIAN, AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 1-15-CV-277983
CLASS ACTION


NOTICE OF HEARING AND PROPOSED
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Judge:            Hon. Peter H. Kirwan
Dept.:            1 (Complex Civil Litigation)

Complaint Filed:   March 12, 2015
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT HELD TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED
("TRIMBLE" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF NOVEMBER 24, 2014.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ACTION IS A NON-MONETARY SETTLEMENT AND NO
INDIVIDUAL STOCKHOLDER HAS THE RIGHT TO BE COMPENSATED AS A RESULT
OF THIS SETTLEMENT.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED. THIS NOTICE IS NOT ANY EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION
BY THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY CLAIMS OR DEFENSES IN THE
ABOVE-CAPTIONED LAWSUIT.  THE STATEMENTS IN THIS NOTICE ARE NOT
FINDINGS OF THE COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Superior
Court of the State of California for the City and County of Santa
Clara (the "Court"), that a proposed Settlement1 has been reached
as to claims asserted in a Class Action pending before the Court,
captioned Rachel Thompson, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Trimble Navigation Limited, Steven W.
Berglund, John B. Goodrich, Merit E. Janow, Ulf Johansson, Mark S.
Peek, Nickolas W. Vande Steeg, Ron Nersesian, and JPMorgan Chase
Bank, Case No. 1-15-cv-277983 (the "Action").  The terms of the
Settlement are summarized in this Notice and fully set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of October 6, 2015 (the
"Stipulation").

The Settlement will fully resolve the Action upon entry of an
Order and Final Judgment by the Court and forever release,
relinquish, and discharge the Released Claims against the Released
Defendant Parties and any and all claims (including Unknown
Claims) arising out of, relating to, or in connection with, the
defense, settlement or resolution of the Action against the
Released Defendant Parties.  The Order and Final Judgment shall
also fully, finally, and forever release, relinquish and discharge
Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel from all claims arising out of,
relating to, or in connection with, the institution, prosecution,
assertion, settlement or resolution of the Action or the Released
Claims (including Unknown Claims).  For a more detailed statement
of the matters involved in the Action, the Settlement and the
terms discussed in this Notice, the Stipulation may be inspected
at the Office of the Clerk, Superior Court of the State of
California for the City and County of Santa Clara, 191 North First
Street, San Jose, California 95113-1090, during regular business
hours of each business day. The Settlement will result in changes
to the Company's credit agreements, not in payment to individuals.

I. BACKGROUND OF THE ACTION

On November 24, 2014, Trimble entered into a credit agreement with
JPMorgan Chase Bank ("JPMorgan") that provided for a five-year,
$1.0 billion revolving loan facility (with a $50 million letter of
credit sub-facility) maturing on November 24, 2019 (the
"Agreement"). Under Section 1.01 of the Agreement, "Change of
Control" is defined as, inter alia, "an event or series of events
by which . . . during any period of 12 consecutive months, the
majority of the board of directors of the Company fails to consist
of Continuing Directors."  Under Section 1.01 of the Agreement,
"Continuing Directors" means:

with respect to any Person as of any date of determination, any
member of the board of directors of such Person who (a) was a
member of such board of directors on the Closing Date, or (b) was
nominated for election or elected to such board of directors with
the approval of a majority of the Continuing Directors who were
members of such board at the time of such nomination or election
(other than any person whose initial nomination or election
occurred as a result of an actual or threatened solicitation of
proxies or consents for the election or removal of one or more
members), in each case either by specific vote or by approval of a
proxy statement issued by the Company on behalf of its entire
board of directors in which such individual is named as a nominee
for director.

(Emphasis added).

Under subsection (k) of Section 8.01 of the Agreement, a "Change
of Control" constitutes a "Default", and under Section 8.02 if a
"Default" occurs:

the Administrative Agent may, and at the request of the Required
Lenders shall, terminate or suspend the obligations of the Lenders
to make Loans hereunder and the obligation of the Issuing Banks to
issue Letters of Credit hereunder, or declare the Obligations to
be due and payable, or both, whereupon the Obligations shall
become immediately due and payable, without presentment, demand,
protest or notice of any kind, all of which the Borrowers
expressly waive.

On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff Rachel Thompson ("Plaintiff") filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and
County of Santa Clara a Class Action Complaint that asserted
claims on behalf of herself and a putative class of Trimble
stockholders (the "Complaint").  The Complaint alleged, inter
alia, that (i) defendants Steven W. Berglund, John B. Goodrich,
Merit E. Janow, Ulf Johansson, Mark S. Peek, Nickolas W. Vande
Steeg, and Ron Nersesian (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants") wrongfully agreed to provisions in the Agreement that
trigger the lenders' right to accelerate the debt if there is an
election of a majority of directors whose initial nomination arose
from an actual or threatened proxy contest (the "Dead Hand Proxy
Put"); (ii) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty and care when they did not obtain
"extraordinarily valuable economic benefits" in exchange for
agreeing to the Dead Hand Proxy Put provision as part of the
Agreement; and (iii) JPMorgan aided and abetted said breach of
fiduciary duties.  Plaintiff sought, among other things, a
permanent injunction barring enforcement of the Dead Hand Proxy
Put provision.

On April 21, 2015, the Court determined the case to be "complex"
within the meaning of California Rules of Court 3.400 and stayed
discovery.

Commencing in or about May 2015, counsel for the respective
parties began arm's length negotiations regarding a possible
resolution of the Action.  Thereafter, counsel for the parties
reached an agreement to resolve the Action on the terms set forth
herein.

II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AND BENEFITS OF THE SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff and her counsel have concluded that the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation are fair, reasonable and adequate to
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.  Based on
Plaintiff's direct oversight of the prosecution of this matter,
and with the advice of its counsel, Plaintiff has agreed to settle
and release all of the claims raised in the Action pursuant to the
terms and provisions of the Stipulation, after considering (i) the
substantial benefits provided under the proposed Settlement; and
(ii) the uncertain outcome and risk of any litigation, especially
in complex actions such as the Action, as well as the difficulties
and delays inherent in such litigation.  Plaintiff and her counsel
are also mindful of the inherent problems of proof and possible
defenses to the claims asserted in the Action.  Based on their
evaluation, Plaintiff and her counsel have determined that the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is in the best interests
of the Class.  Plaintiff's Counsel believes that the Settlement
set forth in the Stipulation confers substantial benefits upon the
Class.  Plaintiff's Counsel bases this conclusion upon, inter
alia, their extensive investigation during the development,
prosecution and settlement of the Action, which included, inter
alia, inspecting, reviewing and analyzing information regarding
the Company, including, but not limited to, the Company's filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and
researching the applicable law with respect to the claims asserted
in the Action and the potential defenses thereto.

III. INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' DENIALS OF WRONGDOING AND LIABILITY

Each Defendant expressly denies any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to all claims asserted in the Action, including that they
have committed any violations of law, that they have acted
improperly in any way, or that they have any liability or owe any
damages or relief of any kind to Plaintiff or any other member or
the Class.  Defendants are entering into the Stipulation solely
because they consider it desirable that the Action be settled and
released, on the merits and with prejudice, in order to, among
other things, (a) eliminate the burden, inconvenience, expense,
risk and distraction of further litigation; and (b) terminate all
the claims that were or could have been asserted against the
Defendants in the Action.

IV. THE SETTLEMENT HEARING

The Settlement Hearing will be held before the Honorable Peter H.
Kirwan on June 10, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 1 of the Court,
located at 191 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113-
1090, to: (i) determine whether the provisional class action
certification should be made final; (ii) determine whether the
Settlement should be finally approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (iii) determine whether an Order and
Final Judgment should be entered pursuant to the Stipulation; (iv)
consider Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses; and (v) rule on such other matters
as the Court may deem appropriate.  The Settlement Hearing may be
continued by the Court at the Settlement Hearing or at any
adjourned session thereof without further notice.

V. THE SETTLEMENT

The terms and conditions of the Settlement are set forth in the
Stipulation described above.  The following is only a summary of
its terms.

The Settling Parties have conducted arms-length negotiations over
an extended period of time and have reached an agreement in good
faith to settle the Action.  In consideration of the full
settlement and the release of the Released Claims against
Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties, Defendants
agree to the following:

(a) Within 30 days of the Settlement becoming Final, Defendants
shall eliminate the Dead Hand Proxy Put provision by amending the
Agreement's definition of "Continuing Directors" to delete the
following language:

(other than any person whose initial nomination or election
occurred as a result of an actual or threatened solicitation of
proxies or consents for the election or removal of one or more
members)

(b) JPMorgan shall not charge Trimble a fee for amending the
Agreement as set forth in paragraph (a) above. Except as
explicitly set forth in paragraph (a) above, the Settlement shall
not alter or affect the Agreement in any way.

VI. RELEASE AND DISCHARGE

In connection with the Court's approval of the Settlement and upon
the Effective Date,  Plaintiff and each member of the Class shall
be deemed to have, and by operation of the Order and Final
Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released,
relinquished and discharged the Released Claims against the
Released Defendant Parties and any and all claims (including
Unknown Claims) arising out of, relating to, or in connection
with, the defense, settlement, or resolution of the Action against
the Released Defendant Parties.

Upon the Effective Date each of the Released Defendant Parties and
each member of the Class shall be deemed to have, and by operation
of the Order and Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and
forever released, relinquished and discharged Plaintiff and
Plaintiff's Counsel from all claims arising out of, relating to,
or in connection with, the institution, prosecution, assertion,
settlement, or resolution of the Action or the Released Claims
(including Unknown Claims).

"Released Claims" means any claims, demands, rights, actions,
causes of action, liabilities, damages, losses, obligations,
judgments, duties, suits, costs, expenses, matters, and issues
known or unknown, including Unknown Claims, contingent or
absolute, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed,
liquidated or unliquidated, matured or unmatured, accrued or
unaccrued, apparent or unapparent, whether state, federal, or
foreign, common law, statutory, or regulatory, including, without
limitation, claims under the federal securities laws, that have
been or could have been asserted in any court, tribunal or
proceeding by Plaintiff and/or any Trimble stockholder, either on
his, her or its own behalf or on behalf of Trimble, against any
Released Defendant Parties that are based upon, arise out of, or
relate to the allegations in the Complaint and/or the settlement
of the Action, except that Released Claims do not include claims
to enforce the Settlement.

"Unknown Claims" means any claims which any of the Settling
Parties do not know or suspect to exist in his, her or its favor
at the time of the release, and which, if known by him, her or it,
might have affected his, her or its decision (i) to enter into the
Stipulation, (ii) to agree to the releases contemplated therein or
(iii) not object to the Settlement.  With respect to any and all
Released Claims, the Settling Parties stipulate and agree that,
upon the Effective Date, each of the Settling Parties shall
expressly waive, and each member of the Class by operation of the
Judgment shall have expressly waived, the provisions, rights, and
benefits of California Civil Code section 1542, or any law of the
United States or any state of the United States or territory of
the United States, or principle of common law, which is similar,
comparable, or equivalent to California Civil Code section 1542,
which provides:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR
DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME
OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE
MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.

The Settling Parties acknowledge, and each member of the Class by
operation of the Order and Final Judgment shall be deemed to have
acknowledged, that they may hereafter discover facts in addition
to or different from those which they now know or believe to be
true with respect to the subject matter of the Released Claims,
but, upon the effective date of the Settlement, the Settling
Parties shall expressly settle and release, and each member of the
Class shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Order and
Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever settled and
released, any and all Released Claims, known or unknown, suspected
or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, whether or not
concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore have existed
upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into
existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct
which is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a
breach of any duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent
discovery or existence of such different or additional facts.  The
Settling Parties acknowledge, and each member of the Class shall
be deemed by operation of the Order and Final Judgment to have
acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver and the inclusion of
"Unknown Claims" in the definition of "Released Claims" was
separately bargained for and was a material element of the
Settlement of which this release is a part and was relied upon by
each and all of the Defendants in entering into the Stipulation.

The Court has not made (and will not make) any determination as to
the merits of any claims or defenses in the Action.  This notice
does not imply that any Individual Defendant would be found liable
or that relief would be awarded if the Action were not being
settled.  Nothing herein shall in any way impair or restrict the
rights of any Party to enforce the terms of the Stipulation.

VII. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S FEES AND EXPENSES

Plaintiff's Counsel intends to seek an award of fees and expenses,
in the aggregate, of not more than $250,000 (the "Fees and
Expenses").  Defendants agree not to oppose an award of fees and
expenses, in the aggregate, that does not exceed such amount,
which amount will be payable by the Company, its successors in
interest, and/or its insurers. Any order or proceeding relating to
the Fees and Expenses, or any appeal from any order relating
thereto or reversal or modification thereof, shall not operate to
terminate or cancel the Stipulation, or affect or delay the
finality of the Order and Final Judgment approving the Stipulation
and the Settlement as set forth herein.

VIII. THE RIGHT TO OBJECT AND/OR BE HEARD AT THE HEARING

Any person who objects to the Settlement, the Order and Final
Judgment to be entered in the Action, and/or Plaintiff's Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or who otherwise
wishes to be heard, may appear in person or by counsel at the
Settlement Hearing and present evidence or argument that may be
proper and relevant.

IX. CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT

The Settlement is conditioned upon the occurrence of certain
events described in the Stipulation.  Those events include the
occurrence of the Effective Date, which means the first date by
which all of the following events and conditions have been met and
have occurred:

(a) The conditional certification of the Action as a non-opt-out
class action on behalf of a Class;

(b) The approval by the Court of a release of the Released
Defendant Parties and the entry by the Court of the Order and
Final Judgment; and

(c) The Order and Final Judgment has become Final.

X. EXAMINATION OF PAPERS AND INQUIRIES

This notice contains only a summary of the terms of the
Settlement.  For a more detailed statement of the matters involved
in the Action, there is additional information concerning the
Settlement available in the Stipulation, which may be inspected at
the Office of the Clerk, Superior Court of the State of California
for the City and County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street,
San Jose, California 95113-1090, during regular business hours of
each business day.

Clerk of the Court
Superior Court of California
City and County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113-1090
Telephone: (408) 882-2100

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR TRIMBLE REGARDING THIS NOTICE

FTRMB

1 Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all capitalized
terms contained herein shall have the same meanings and/or
definitions as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lainer" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Lainer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09925 -BRO-
MRW (C.D. Cal., December 28, 2015) seeks to put an end to the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls to the Class
members' wireless telephones.

Uber Technologies Inc. operates a mobile ride hail company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
      324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Horace Lee and Imran Sandozi, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser,
LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-11756 (N.D. Ill., December 29, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a transportation company headquartered in
San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Jackstadt, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
      103 West Vandalia Street, Suite 125
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000

         - and -

      Brittany Weiner, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 736-0007
      Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
      E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com

         - and -

      John Ostojic, Esq.
      Donald Gallagher, Esq.
      OSTOJIC & SCUDDER, LLC
      332 South Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 913-0860
      Facsimile: (312) 913-0868


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles "Safe Ride Fee" Suit for $28.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Lien, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Uber has
agreed to pay $28.5 million to roughly 25 million customers to
settle two class-action lawsuits related to the way the company
represented its background checks and the fees it charged
passengers.

As part of the settlement, filed on Feb. 11 in the U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of California, the San Francisco
company will change the language of its safety-related advertising
and stop using the term "Safe Ride Fee."

If the settlement is approved by a judge, the class -- which
includes anyone who took an Uber ride in the U.S. between Jan. 1,
2013, and Jan. 31, 2016 -- will be notified via email and given
the option to be paid by credit card or receive a credit to their
rider account. The amount that individuals in the class will
receive is not yet known.

The company was sued in two separate cases by customers who
alleged it misled them by advertising that Uber rides are "safer
than a taxi" and that its background checks were "industry
leading."

The court filings said Uber made these claims in its marketing
materials, despite its background check process not including
fingerprints or requiring applicants to appear in person. In
comparison, taxi regulators use fingerprint technology in their
background checks.

The district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles filed
similar lawsuits against the ride-hailing company in late 2014.
Those cases are ongoing.

Uber has remained steadfast that its technology improves safety
before, during and after rides by enabling drivers and passengers
to know who they're riding with.  Rides booked through the Uber
app are also tracked via GPS, and all passengers receive a digital
record of the trip.

"However no means of transportation can ever be 100 percent safe,"
the company said in a blog post Feb. 11.  "We are glad to put
these cases behind us and we will continue to invest in new
technology and great customer services so that we can help improve
safety in the cities we serve."

Separately, Uber also announced on Feb. 11 a partnership with
American Airlines at 11 U.S. airports.  The partnership will offer
passengers of both services rider and mileage promotions.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 25 Drivers' Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kitzes, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that since it was
launched back in 2009, Uber Technologies, Inc. has been in the
national spotlight for developing and implementing its
revolutionary "ridesharing" mobile application.  Uber continues to
appear in headlines for a multitude of reasons, many of which are
desirable, and at least one of which is not: getting sued by its
workforce.  Despite being around for less than a decade, a
Bloomberg Law Docket search reveals Uber is a defendant in more
than 200 ongoing lawsuits, about 100 of which are being heard in
various California state and federal courts.  Approximately 25 of
the 200 lawsuits involve class action claims.

The theme behind the Uber actions asks the same essential
question: are Uber drivers independent contractors or employees?

In June 2015, the California Labor Commissioner determined that
Uber drivers were indeed employees -- who were entitled to certain
state law protections such as the payment of overtime -- because
Uber is "involved in every aspect of the operation."  This news
led to a flood of claims and litigation across various states,
including an Order in September 2015 from Judge Chen of the
Northern District for the District of California granting in part
and denying in part a group of Uber drivers' Motion for Class
Certification.  Uber class-actions continued to dominate headlines
as Judge Chen determined in the separate matter of Yucesoy v. Uber
Tehnologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-00262-EMC that a group of
Massachusetts drivers may proceed with claims under Massachusetts
law relating to tips and tortuous interference with advantageous
relations.  Meanwhile, Judge Chen's docket might be growing after
a separate group of plaintiffs sought class certification.

So, why are there so many cases and why don't they just get
consolidated? The simple answer is that, the laws in each
jurisdiction are just too different.  For example, the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation explained in its
February 3, 2016 Order Denying Transfer that "[a]lthough these
actions share certain factual issues regarding Uber . . .the
standards for determining whether independent contractors are
employees vary substantially from state to state and involve a
broad range of factors which require consideration of distinct
aspects of the alleged employer's relationship with [the]
plaintiffs."

This is important for employers to take note of. Generally, when a
court approves class certification, class members are given the
opportunity to "opt out" and pursue claims individually, or else
they remain part of the class and waive all rights to pursue the
same claims otherwise.  But because of the variations in
employment laws from state-to-state, class actions in California
may have little to no impact on class actions in New York or
Massachusetts or anywhere else.  This is a double-edged sword for
Uber, because it gives them the opportunity to defeat these claims
in some jurisdictions where they might lose in others, but it also
exposes the ridesharing giant to multiple punitive damages awards.
And when you are talking about 160,000 drivers in just one action
in one state, those numbers will add up quickly.

Investigating workers misclassified as independent contractors has
become an important agenda item for the Department of Labor (DOL).
The DOL issued guidance only six months ago explaining "most
workers are employees under the [FLSA's] broad definitions."  The
end result of the Uber saga may shape the future of employer-
employee relationships, and signal the boom or bust of the "on-
demand economy."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Labor Suits Pile Up
-----------------------------------------------
Cyrus Farivar, writing for Ars Technica, reports that back in
September 2015, a federal judge certified a class-action lawsuit
against Uber--if the plaintiffs are successful, former and current
California drivers would be declared as employees rather than
contractors.  If Uber loses, it would represent a sea change for
the company and for the entire so-called "sharing economy."
Uber's newfound employees would be entitled to a number of
benefits under federal law.  Those perks would include, among
others, unemployment benefits, workers' compensation, the right to
unionize, and most importantly, the right to seek reimbursement
for mileage and tips.  Those added expenses would certainly factor
into Uber's estimated valuation of $63 billion.

Since the case, O'Connor v. Uber, was certified, the startup has
been hit with an additional 13 federal proposed class-action
lawsuits nationwide -- most of which have been filed by one
New York-based firm.  One case in Philadelphia was filed as
recently as this month. These cases appear to be interested in
riding the coattails of one successful suit, which could mean big
bucks for attorneys and expanded benefits for Uber drivers.

"I think our general strategy is to mimic what's going on in
California," Paul Napoli told Ars.  "We think that there should be
a uniform approach throughout the country that applies federal law
to not just California."

Mr. Napoli has previously been best-known for being one of the top
attorneys in the September 11 first responders case.  His wife,
Marie Napoli, is the one of the signing attorneys on many of the
civil complaints.

"I think we are filed in about 11 states in total and we'll
continue to expand on it," Paul Napoli added.  "I think we want to
[start] with these states. O'Connor has certainly been
instrumental, and a lot of his rulings are going to help lead the
way in other jurisdictions."

Mr. Napoli recently tried to get their cases lumped together with
O'Connor in what's known as a "multidistrict litigation," but that
move was denied.  Neither Uber's attorneys nor the O'Connor
attorneys wanted that grouping to go forward.

Paul Napoli put a positive spin on that denial: "While we favor
consolidation, sometimes it's better to have 10 or 11
opportunities as opposed to one in front of a single judge--we
think it's actually going to be to our benefit."

Uber did not respond to Ars' request for comment.

From coast to coast

The 13 cases that Ars located have been filed in various states,
including New York, Ohio, Maryland, Florida, Arizona, and
Pennsylvania.

One of the cases brought by the Napoli firm involves a
Philadelphia UberX driver, Joseph DiNofa.  According to the
complaint in DiNofa v. Uber, the plaintiff only made $80 per week
after deducting gas, tolls, lease payments, and car repairs.

DiNofa and his attorneys allege:

Uber also unilaterally sets the fares for all rides, and drivers
are required to charge the cost determined solely by Uber.

In addition, all drivers for Uber must maintain an average
customer star evaluation of at least 4.5 out of a possible 5
stars.  Instructions on how to improve one's star rating are given
to drivers who fall below this average in any given week. If a
driver fails to maintain an average customer rating of 4.5, Uber
will deactivate his or her ability to use the application to pick
up customers, an action tantamount to terminating the driver "at
will," a hallmark of an employee-employer relationship.

As a result of its misclassification, Uber failed to provide
Plaintiffs and other similarly aggrieved employees with itemized
wage statements, minimum wages, lawful meal and rest periods, and
reimbursement for necessary employment related expenses.  Uber
also failed to keep accurate payroll records showing aggrieved
employees' hours worked and wages paid.

Uber also retained all gratuities owed to aggrieved employees
despite representing
to its customers and advertising that gratuity is included in the
total cost of the car service.

Uber specifically advertises to its customers that tips are
included in the cost of the fare.

Similarly, Illinois plaintiff Imran Sandozi claims that he only
made $100-$200 per week.  In yet another Napoli-brought case filed
in Ohio, Bruster v. Uber, the UberX driver claims that he only
made $5 per hour after expenses, or "significantly less than the
state minimum wage."

Michael LeRoy, a labor law professor at the University of
Illinois, told Ars that this scattershot approach suggests that
these cases are trying to use state labor law as a way to "lead a
very large class."

"The Bruster case is a case in point," he e-mailed. "Allegations
such as tortious interference with business, breach of contract,
promissory estoppel (implied contract; oral promises seeking
detrimental reliance), and the other counts all have a specific
meaning in Ohio.  Yes, most other states have similar laws, but
this complaint says to me that the filing attorney wants to corral
all the Ohio cases first--and perhaps expand beyond the class to
drivers outside of Ohio, once his class receives certification."

Mr. Napoli says that these suits are a means to obtain justice for
drivers.  "It's a new age -- 100 years ago you had labor unions
for factories and manufacturing," he said.

"Now it's a new wave because of the technology that's developed
and ensuring that the labor laws are complied with," he continued.
"The laws need to keep pace with the technology.  And I think that
that's what these cases are highlighting.  Just because these
people are communicating with iPhones and Androids doesn't change
the responsibility of the employers of these workers themselves."

In the meantime, O'Connor v. Uber's jury trial date has been set
for June 20, 2016 in federal court in San Francisco.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: MDL Panel Refuses to Coordinate Drivers' Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Uber has dodged a legal move that would have coordinated more than
a dozen lawsuits brought by its drivers over their employment
status.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided
against moving the cases into MDL and appeared persuaded by Uber's
arguments that classifications of independent contractors varied
too much state-to-state to make coordination feasible.

As of the panel's decision, 17 lawsuits had been filed against
Uber in 13 states.

Most of the suits allege that Uber Technologies Inc. has
misclassified drivers as independent contractors rather than
employees who are entitled to unpaid wages, tips and reimbursement
for gas and other expenses.  Uber, based in San Francisco, offers
a transportation service through a mobile application that
connects drivers with customers.

"Although these actions share certain factual issues regarding
Uber's classification of drivers as independent contractors and
its business practices concerning payment of gratuities and
business expenses to drivers, the standards for determining
whether independent contractors are employees vary substantially
from state to state and involve a broad range of factors which
require consideration of distinct aspects of the alleged
employer's relationship with plaintiffs," MDL Panel Chairwoman
Sarah Vance wrote.

Uber, represented by Andrew Spurchise, a shareholder in the New
York office of San Francisco's Littler Mendelson, made similar
arguments in a Dec. 29 motion opposing MDL.  An Uber spokeswoman
did not respond to a request for comment.

The panel's decision also found that the case brought in San
Francisco by Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan in
Boston, which is set to go to trial on June 20, was too far along
in discovery to be coordinated.

Hunter Shkolnik of New York's Napoli Shkolnik, who moved to
coordinate the litigation into an MDL, said in an email: "We
respect the panel's decision and look forward to taking Uber on in
every court across the country.  They made their bed and now must
live with it. Uber will be hard pressed to argue we should not
depose their witnesses in each state now."

Mr. Shkolnik represents a proposed class of Uber drivers from 2011
to the present. Ogunmokun v. Uber Technologies, 15-cv-06143, is
before Eastern District Judge Nicholas Garaufis.

In an amended complaint filed on Feb. 3, the plaintiffs say that
Uber exercises "significant control" over its "independent
transportation providers."

The lawsuit states claims of tortious interference with
prospective business relations, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, conversion, unfair competition, fraud and
misrepresentation, violations of state Labor Law and of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Appeal over Case Dismissal Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs'
appeal from the order dismissing shareholder class action lawsuits
is ongoing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws. On
January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.

On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a motion to
dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following the
plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April
16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the
other defendants, and against the plaintiffs.

On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment of the court. The appeal is ongoing before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

There can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the
appeal proceeding. The Company cannot currently estimate the
possible loss, if any, that it may experience in connection with
this litigation.


VICAL INC: 9th Circuit Dismissed Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
Vical Incorporated said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, that the
Ninth Circuit has granted the joint motion and dismissed the
appeal in a securities class action.

In late October and early November 2013, following Vical's
announcement of the results of its Phase 3 trial of Allovectin(R)
and the subsequent decline of the price of its common stock, two
putative securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Vical and certain of its current and former officers
("Defendants").

On February 26, 2014, the two cases were consolidated into one
action and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed
("Consolidation Order").  On May 12, 2014, the lead plaintiff
filed a first amended consolidated complaint alleging that the
Defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding Vical's business prospects and the prospects
for Allovectin(R), thereby artificially inflating the price of
Vical's common stock.

On June 9, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint and a motion to strike certain allegations
in the amended complaint.

On March 9, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint and terminated as moot defendants'
motion to strike, or Order. The lead plaintiff was granted leave
to amend his first amended complaint on or before March 25, 2015.
The lead plaintiff chose not to amend his complaint and instead
stipulated to an entry of judgment.

On April 28, 2015, the Court entered final judgment dismissing the
action, or Judgment. On May 28, 2015, the lead plaintiff appealed
the Judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

That same day, another group of the Company's stockholders, that
had previously moved for appointment as lead plaintiff, or the
Vical Investor Group, also appealed the Judgment, as well as the
Consolidation Order, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On August 3, 2015, the Vical Investor Group voluntarily
dismissed its appeal.

On October 8, 2015, the lead plaintiff-appellant filed an opening
brief in support of his appeal. Defendants' filed an answering
brief on December 9, 2015. On January 27, 2016, lead plaintiff-
appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeal with prejudice,
which was joined by Defendants.

On February 1, 2016, the Ninth Circuit granted the joint motion
and dismissed the appeal.


VOSGES LTD: Recalls Bacon Chocolate Products Due to Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vosges, LTD, a Chicago, Ill. establishment, is recalling
approximately 135 pounds of Uncured Bacon Ganache chocolate
products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced. The product contains coconut, a known allergen
which is not declared on the product label.

The Uncured Bacon Ganache chocolate products were packaged on Jan.
15, 2016 to Jan. 22, 2016 and are stamped with a BEST BY code 03
SEP 2016. The following product is subject to recall:

  --- 135-lb. (720 bars) individual paper carton containing 3oz.
      flow wrapped bars of "Trader Joe's Uncured Bacon Ganache
      Bar" (SKU 55001).

The product subject to recall bears establishment number "EST.
34647" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to retail locations in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina
and South Carolina.

The problem was discovered after the establishment received a
consumer complaint.

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

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


VOYAGER PIPELINE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Ballard" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beckie Lynn Ballard, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Voyager Pipeline Construction, LLC, a/k/a Voyager
Energy Services, LLC, and Voyager Construction, LLC, Case No.
5:15-cv-01157 (W.D. Tex., December 28, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are in the business of providing the oil and gas
industry with primary production services, including but not
limited to pipeline construction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
      BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 425-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
      E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


WILSHIRE CREDIT: Suit Seeks Damages for Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
James Bowles, Barbra Bowles, and all others similarly-situated v.
Wilshire Credit Corporation, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Bank of
America, N.A, International Business Machines Corporation,
Seterus, Inc. fka IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc., ZC
Sterling Insurance Agency, QBE First Insurance Agency Inc., and
QBE Insurance Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-00221 (D.N.J., January
15, 2016), seeks damages against the Defendants for breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, for violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the standard form mortgage agreements
for loans serviced by Wilshire include a provision requiring the
borrower to maintain hazard insurance coverage on the property
securing the loan. In the event that the hazard insurance lapses,
the standard form mortgage agreements permitted Wilshire to obtain
force-placed coverage to protect the lender's interest in the loan
and to charge the cost of the insurance to the borrower rather
than declare the borrower in default.

What was unknown to borrowers, and not disclosed in the standard
form mortgage agreements, is that Wilshire had exclusive
arrangements with ZC Sterling and its affiliates, including QBE
Holdings and defendant QBE FIRST, to manipulate the force-placed
insurance market and artificially inflate charges to Plaintiffs
and the class. The charges are inflated to provide Wilshire with
kickbacks, disguised as "commissions," and to provide other
financial benefits which are not attributable to the cost of
insuring the individual property.

Defendant Wilshire is a Nevada corporation with its headquarters
located at 14523 S.W. Millikan Way, Suite 200, Beaverton, Oregon.
Wilshire was established in 1987 as a residential mortgage loan
servicing company focusing on the sub-prime market.

Defendant BANA is a Delaware corporation and national banking
association insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
BANA has its principal place of business at 100 North Tryon
Street, in Charlotte, North Carolina. BANA is a direct wholly-
owned subsidiary of BAC.

Defendant BACHL a former subsidiary of BAC, was a Texas limited
partnership that serviced mortgage loans, including residential
mortgage loans originated or owned by BANA. IBM announced that it
had finalized its acquisition of the core operating assets of
Wilshire from BAC on March 1, 2010.

Defendant IBM is a multinational technology and consulting
corporation. IBM is incorporated in the State of New York and
maintains its corporate headquarters at 1 New Orchard Road in
Armonk, New York.

Defendant Seterus is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
at 14523 S.W. Millikan Way, Suite 200, Beaverton, Oregon 97005-
2352. Seterus services residential mortgage loans in New Jersey
and throughout the United States.

Defendant ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc. is a California
corporation formerly located at 210 Interstate North Parkway,
Suite 400, Atlanta, Georgia. In May 2010, ZC Sterling changed its
name to Sterling National Insurance Agency, Inc., which then
changed its name to QBE FIRST in May 2011.

Defendant QBE FIRST is a California corporation with its
headquarters located at 9800 Muirlands Boulevard, Irvine,
California 92618. QBE FIRST is a subsidiary of QBE Holdings Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and insurance holding company. QBE FIRST
acts as the program manager for QBE's force-placed insurance
programs and also provides outsourced services to mortgage
servicers.

Defendant QBE is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters at
88 Pine Street, New York, New York 10005. QBE writes force-placed
insurance for hazard coverage in the State of New Jersey and
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC
      363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C
      Montclair, NJ 07042
      Tel: (973) 259-6990
      Fax: (866) 848-1368
      E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com

         - and -

      Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
      GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
      11 Broadway, Suite 2150
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 847-8315
      Fax: (646) 520-3236
      E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com


YAHOO INC: Faces Suit Over Ranking System-Related Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Law.com, reports that Yahoo Inc., the
Sunnyvale, California-based tech giant, got slapped with a lawsuit
alleging gender discrimination, but not the kind one might
typically expect, especially in Silicon Valley.
Gregory Anderson, a former editorial director of several Yahoo
news verticals, claims he lost his job because of discrimination
against men in the company's media department.

The allegation of reverse discrimination in male-dominated Silicon
Valley has captured public attention.  But what's just as
noteworthy is the role a controversial employee performance rating
system, known as "stack ranking" or "forced ranking," played in
Mr. Anderson's allegations.  These systems may feed into existing
biases or create the appearance of biases in employment practices.

According to Anderson's complaint, Yahoo started using its
"Quarterly Performance Review" system to rate employees in 2012
when Marissa Mayer stepped in as CEO.  The complaint says that the
system, which closely resembles stack ranking, involves
supervisors assigning employees ratings based on their performance
and ranking them along a bell curve with five sections -- from
"greatly exceeds" down to "misses" -- on a quarterly basis.
Upper-level management would review these rankings, often without
consulting with employees.  Those who wound up at the bottom of
the bell curve, such as Anderson, were terminated, sometimes in
large numbers.

Mr. Anderson claims that Yahoo abused the QPR system, with
management adjusting ranking numbers in an opaque manner designed
to get rid of male employees, while keeping and promoting females.
He cites an instance where a man and woman were awarded the same
ranking score but the man was dismissed and not allowed to appeal
his score, as well as a disproportionate surge in the number of
female high-level employees in his department.

Yahoo's system has come under criticism before by complaints from
company insiders who feel they have to give capable employees a
low rating (and potentially the boot) in order to fit the bell
curve.

Putting aside what the system does to workplace morale, does it
invite legal liability for companies? "There's nothing inherently
wrong with the model," says David Sanford --
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- chairman at Sanford Heisler Kimpel,
a firm that represents individual plaintiffs in employment law
cases.  "But if it turns out that using the model wound up having
disparate impact on certain protected groups, then you have a
problem."

Mr. Sanford explains that while ranking employees may be perfectly
fine, if these rankings are bumping people in a certain protected
category into a lower group, that could be grounds for a suit such
as Mr. Anderson's.  And the more subjective the ranking system,
the more likely it is that a plaintiff could find reasons to sue.

Tamara Devitt, a partner at Haynes & Boone who represents
employers, says the problem isn't stack rankings, but how they are
applied.  "With any performance evaluation system, it's really
important for human resources personnel to be involved in ensuring
that the system is designed for consistency, that it's designed to
provide as much objective feedback as possible to the employees
that are being reviewed, and that there are checks in the process
to help employers avoid claims of discrimination."

Discrimination suits have arisen from ranking systems before. A
2015 suit against Microsoft Corp. alleged that its performance
ratings discriminated against women.  The named plaintiff claimed
that despite exceeding performance expectations and getting high
number rankings from her manager, the company lowered her numbers
so it could comply with ranking caps.

In years past, similar suits have been filed against such
companies as Ford Motor Co. and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. over
alleged discriminatory effects of their rankings systems.

As for Mr. Anderson, his suit may have to get around a couple of
issues.  Gary Hanna, a plaintiffs labor and employment attorney,
says that reverse discrimination claims can be more difficult to
litigate than more traditional discrimination claims. "I think
it's going to be harder," he says.  "There is no question that
juries and judges are going to be more skeptical of it."

Mr. Hanna notes another wrinkle in the Yahoo case.  Plaintiffs in
discrimination litigation often use performance reviews to prove
that they were performing well enough so that their termination
must have been caused by another factor such as bias.  But when
the complaints are in part about the performance review system
itself, a wrench is thrown into this argument.  "In this case,
it's like the evaluations work the opposite way," says Mr. Hanna.
"It's a reversal of the normal system, which is interesting."


* Class Actions Over Website Accessibility on the Rise
------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Forshee, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
there's been a wave of lawsuits alleging popular websites violate
the Americans with Disabilities Act, and more could be on the way.

Litigation over website accessibility isn't new.  The National
Federation of the Blind brought an important test case against
Target Corp. in 2008, which ended in a $6 million settlement.
What's changed is the sheer volume of class action litigation.  In
a recent client alert, attorneys at Vedder Price noted a "flurry"
of these lawsuits.  "The plaintiffs' bar is now flirting with a
new type of class action lawsuit which poses a threat to any
employer that operates a website," they wrote.

A legally blind man filed one such lawsuit against the National
Basketball Association in November, alleging the NBA's website is
a "facility" that must be readily accessible to the visually
impaired under the ADA.  A blind woman filed a similar suit
against Red Roof Inn Inc. in October.  And eHarmony Inc., a dating
website, got hit with a similar putative class action in August.

Making matters worse for companies, the U.S. Department of Justice
is also wielding the ADA against websites and mobile apps.  In
2014, the DOJ announced settlements with H&R Block Inc. and Peapod
Inc., both of which were accused of failing to accommodate
individuals who are blind or have low vision, who are deaf or hard
of hearing, or who have physical disabilities affecting manual
dexterity.

Disability rights advocates argue that websites should use so-
called screen reader technology.  Also, sites should be able to be
fully navigated through a keyboard interface instead of only by a
mouse, among other recommendations.

Despite bringing these enforcement actions, the DOJ has postponed
until 2018 plans to issue guidance on website accessibility.  For
guidance, companies can turn to the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, a set of guidelines issued by the Web
Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium.

Gonzalo Mon -- gmon@kelleydrye.com -- a partner with Kelley Drye &
Warren, predicts that the guidance the DOJ offers in 2018 will not
differ much from what the DOJ sought in its settlements with
Peapod and H&R Block. He says that what the DOJ demands is "fairly
similar" to what's in the WCAG 2.0 guidelines.

The one "grey area," Mr. Mon says, that the DOJ is likely to
define in 2018 is which websites are covered by the ADA.

Accessibility class actions have seen mixed results in court, as
companies try to gauge if they fall under the umbrella of a "place
of public accommodation," as outlined by the ADA.  There is no
formal guidance that says all websites fit into this category.

In April 2015, an appeals court ruled that the ADA doesn't apply
to Netflix Inc.'s video-streaming service because it's not
connected to any "actual physical place."  The digital library
Scribd Inc., on the other hand, lost a motion to dismiss an ADA
class action on these grounds. In refusing to dismiss the case, a
federal judge in Vermont wrote that "now that the Internet plays
such a critical role in the personal and professional lives of
Americans, excluding disabled persons from access to covered
entities that use it as their principal means of reaching the
public would defeat the purpose of this important civil rights
legislation."

Mr. Mon says that if and when the DOJ issues guidelines on website
accessibility, plaintiffs will still likely file class actions
against companies, especially if the guidance is as detailed as he
expects it will be.

"Assuming there are still companies left to pursue," Mr. Mon says,
"the guidelines aren't going to stop plaintiffs.  It would likely
bolster the arguments of these plaintiffs firms."

The only suits that could potentially go away, he says, are the
ones where the DOJ decides that companies without a brick-and-
mortar outfit are not subject to the website accessibility
requirements.


* Partial Class Action Settlements Not Covered Under PSLRA
----------------------------------------------------------
Israel David and Samuel P. Groner, writing for New York Law
Journal, report that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 (PSLRA) provides that a "covered person" who settles a
private action is discharged, through the issuance of an
appropriate bar order, from all potential claims for contribution
that might be brought in the future by other persons (such as by
non-settling defendants).  Non-settling defendants, in turn,
receive the benefit of the PSLRA's favorable judgment reduction
provisions.

However, the PSLRA appears to be silent concerning what settlement
discharge and judgment reduction provisions should apply in the
event of partial settlements by defendants who are not "covered
persons."  Although the PSLRA specifies that all defendants "in
any private action arising under [the Exchange Act]" are covered
persons, that is not the case with regard to defendants in actions
arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities
Act).  In the latter case, the only defendants who are expressly
"covered persons" are "outside director[s] of the issuer of the
securities that are the subject of the action."

What about a settlement in a Section 11 case with a defendant who
is not an expressly "covered person," such as a settlement with
some or all of the issuer's underwriters or accountants? Is the
settling defendant entitled to a bar order preventing future
contribution claims and, if so, what judgment reduction credit are
the non-settling defendants entitled to? Are they entitled to a
judgment reduction similar to the one provided in Exchange Act
cases?

Because of the multiplicity of defendants in many recent
securities class actions and the fact that factors counseling in
favor of an earlier settlement by an issuer or director may not
always counsel in favor of settlement by an underwriter or
accountant (and vice versa), partial settlements -- in which the
claims against some defendants are settled while the claims
against other defendants persist -- are becoming increasingly
common.  The answers to the questions above may play a significant
role in guiding parties to structure settlements capable of
withstanding objections from non-settling defendants, although
there is sparse case law exploring how those questions should be
answered.

New York Law Journal briefly explores the PSLRA's settlement
discharge and judgment reduction provisions and how they work in
the context of settlements by covered persons, and then discuss
the manner in which courts have taken those provisions into
account in the context of settlements by defendants who are not
covered persons.

Rationales for the Credit

The PSLRA's settlement discharge provisions encourage partial
settlements by mandating that with the settlement comes peace for
the settling defendants from potential contribution claims.  The
PSLRA's judgment reduction provisions, in turn, compensate the
non-settling defendants for their inability to bring contribution
claims against the settling defendants by providing the non-
settling defendants with the judgment reduction credit described
below.

By way of context, before the PSLRA was enacted, a number of
courts, faced with a situation where some defendants settled with
the plaintiff in a securities class action, determined that such a
judgment should be reduced by the amount actually paid by the
settling defendants (known as "pro tanto").  They explained that
the pro tanto method was consistent with the "one satisfaction
rule," a tort concept pursuant to which a non-settling defendant
is entitled to credit any settlement amount already paid by his
co-defendant against any judgment obtained against him, "as long
as both the settlement and judgment are derived from the same
loss," to prevent the plaintiff from receiving a double recovery.

In contrast, other courts determined that any future judgment
against the non-settling defendants should, as a matter of federal
common law, be reduced by an amount corresponding to the
percentage of responsibility of the settling defendant.  The PSLRA
combines these two approaches and provides the non-settling
defendant with a judgment reduction credit in an amount equal to
the greater of the amount actually paid by the settling defendant
and the amount representing the percentage of responsibility of
the settling defendant.

The Credit in Practice

To illustrate how these judgment reduction provisions work,
consider the following hypothetical.  Suppose the plaintiff
settles before trial with Defendant A, a "covered person" under
the PSLRA, for $10 million.  Defendant B takes the case to trial,
and the jury finds that the plaintiff is entitled to $60 million
in damages.  The jury assigns 10 percent of the fault to Defendant
A and 90 percent of the fault to Defendant B.  Pursuant to the
judgment reduction provisions of the PSLRA, the $60 million
verdict is reduced by the greater of the amount corresponding to
Defendant A's percentage of responsibility (10 percent of $60
million, or $6 million) or the amount paid to the plaintiff by
Defendant A ($10 million).  Insofar as the $10 million settlement
amount that Defendant A paid to the plaintiff is greater than the
$6 million amount corresponding to Defendant A's percentage of
responsibility, the $60 million verdict would be reduced by $10
million, not $6 million, and Defendant B's liability would be $50
million.

Alternatively, had the jury determined that Defendant A was 50
percent at fault and Defendant B was 50 percent at fault, then the
amount corresponding to Defendant A's percentage of responsibility
(50 percent of $60 million, or $30 million) would have been
greater than the amount paid to the plaintiff by Defendant A ($10
million).  In that scenario, the $60 million verdict would have
been reduced by $30 million and Defendant B's liability would be
$30 million.

Other Entities

Relatively few published decisions have analyzed the PSLRA's
settlement discharge and judgment reduction provisions in the 20
years since the PSLRA was enacted, and even fewer have analyzed
what provisions should be applied in cases involving settlements
by defendants who are not covered persons.  Those decisions
suggest that courts should permit bar orders as long as the
settlement between the plaintiff and the settling defendant
specifically mandates that any later judgment against the non-
settling defendants will be reduced pursuant to the PSLRA's
judgment reduction formula.  That is presumably because the
rationales behind the PSLRA's judgment reduction provisions apply
equally whether or not the settling defendants are covered
persons.

In Rieckborn v. Velti, 2015 WL 468329 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2015),
the court revised a proposed judgment that had been agreed upon by
the settling parties to ensure that any subsequent judgment
against the non-settling defendants would be reduced pursuant to
the PSLRA formula, independent of whether the settling defendants
were covered persons.  The plaintiff class consisted of investors
in Velti, which allegedly had "misrepresented its 'day sales
outstanding' -- a measure of the number of days it takes to
collect a receivable -- as significantly lower than it was."  The
plaintiff class brought claims pursuant to both the Exchange Act
and the Securities Act against Velti, several of its officers and
directors, its accounting firm, and its underwriters.

The plaintiff initially reached a settlement with Velti and a
number of its officers and directors, but not with the accounting
firm or the underwriters.  The partial settlement included a bar
order which, among other things, discharged any contribution
claims by non-settling defendants against Velti and the Velti
director and officer defendants.

The partial settlement also included a judgment reduction
provision, which provided that, as to the Exchange Act claims, "in
the event Plaintiffs . . .  shall obtain a verdict or judgment
against any of the Nonsettling Defendant . . ., the verdict or
judgment shall be reduced by the greater of (i) an amount that
corresponds to the percentage of responsibility of the Released
Persons, or (ii) the amount paid on behalf of the Released Persons
in this Partial Settlement," for example, language virtually
identical to the PSLRA's language.

However, Securities Act claims were to be treated differently. The
judgment reduction provision governing Securities Act claims
stated that persons subject to the bar order "shall be entitled to
appropriate judgment reduction in accordance with applicable
statutory or common law rule to the extent permitted under the
Securities Act for the claims alleged herein."

The accounting firm and the underwriters objected. Among their
objections was that the same judgment reduction methodology should
apply to both the Exchange Act and Securities Act claims,
including Securities Act claims against individuals who were not
"covered persons."  The court agreed and explained that "the PSLRA
did not by implication overrule all existing federal common law
regarding the 1933 and 1934 Acts" and that, as a matter of federal
common law, to be fair to the non-settling parties a partial
settlement of a securities class action that contains a bar order
extinguishing potential contribution claims must provide for
judgment reduction in the manner specified in the PSLRA.

The court went on to explain that pre-PSLRA cases had persuasively
demonstrated the problems with the pro tanto approach to judgment
reduction -- such as that it "encourages collusion" -- thereby
counseling in favor of some type of proportionate fault rule.  The
court further explained that "when the proportionate fault
approach is combined with the 'one satisfaction rule' -- i.e., the
basic principle that a plaintiff is only entitled to one
satisfaction for any given injury -- the result is the [PSLRA]
formula."


* Securities Class Action Filings in Canada Plummet in 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------
Securities class action case filings in 2015 plummeted to the
lowest levels seen since 2008, according to Trends in Canadian
Securities Class Actions: 2015 Update, published by NERA Economic
Consulting. Only four cases were filed during 2015, compared to
the 13 cases filed in 2014, and 11 in 2013.

Resolutions of Canadian securities class actions in 2015 far
outpaced new filings, with seven Canadian securities class actions
being settled or tentatively settled, and a record-high six cases
dismissed.  Defendants in the seven cases settled in 2015 agreed
to pay a total of approximately $107 million -- an average of
$15.3 million, with a median of $11 million.  These figures
compare to the average settlement of $71.9 million (which is
heavily influenced by a small number of very large settlements)
and $11.4 median settlement from the period 1997 to 2015.

"2015 was a surprising year for filing and resolution trends for
Canadian securities class actions," said NERA Vice President
Bradley A. Heys.  "There are several factors that may have
contributed to the notable decline in the pace of new filings in
2015.  Foremost among these may be the impact of several recent
court decisions regarding the evidentiary threshold for the leave
requirement under the secondary market civil liability provisions
of the provincial securities acts.  Other contributing factors may
include greater expected litigation costs for class counsel,
increased opportunity costs for already busy class counsel firms,
and the interplay of these factors with the statutory damage
limits."

Additional Key Trends

There are 52 unresolved Canadian securities class actions as of
December 31, 2015, representing more than $55 billion in total
claims.

Each of the four new filings in 2015 involves claims under the
secondary market civil liability provisions of the provincial
securities acts ("Statutory Secondary Market cases"), compared to
11 such filings in 2014 and 10 in 2013.

Over the last six years (2010-2015), a total of 46 class actions
have been filed in Canada against TSX-listed companies.

There have now been a total of 68 Statutory Secondary Market cases
filed since these new provisions came into force in Ontario at the
end of 2005.

In 2015, three of the four new securities class action cases were
filed in Ontario.  Historically, approximately 78% of new cases
involved a filing in Ontario and 25% in Quebec.

Two of the four new cases filed in 2015 also involve parallel
class actions filed in the US.

Of the 68 Statutory Secondary Market cases filed to date, five
(7.4%) have been dismissed as of the end of 2015.

Class Action Trends Series

NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for
more than 20 years.  In addition to this Canada Trends report, the
firm produces annual US and UK Trends studies.  This year-end
study was authored by NERA Economic Consulting Vice President
Bradley A. Heys and Affiliated Consultant Mark L. Berenblut.

Trends in Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2015 Update may be
downloaded from http://is.gd/81CvRm

                            About NERA

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com-- is a global
firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and
quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges.
For over half a century, NERA's economists have been creating
strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy
recommendations for government authorities and the world's leading
law firms and corporations.  With its main office in New York
City, NERA serves clients from more than 25 offices across North
America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.


                            *********

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  * * *