CAR_Public/160222.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, February 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 37


                            Headlines


50 EGGS: "Brock" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Faces Securities Class Action in California
AETNA LIFE: "Fisher" Sues over Denied Insurance Claim
AG DURHAM: "Edwards" Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages and Tips
AIR CANADA: Faces Collective Action Over Fuel Surcharge

ALICO INC: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Silver Nip Acquisition
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Blind Customers Sue Over Defective Headsets
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Buyers' Injunctive Relief Claim Nixed
AMTECH SYSTEMS: Proposed Order & Final Judgment Revised
ANTHEM INC: Judge Rejects Key Arguments in Data-Breach Suits

APPLE INC: Fights Bid to Revive Antitrust Suit Over Apps
APPLE INC: Suit Says Software Update Renders iPhones Inoperable
ARGENTINA: Reaches Settlement Deal in Bondholders' Class Action
ARKLATEX WIRELINE: "Wright" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Class Action Pending in California

BANK OF NEW YORK: 3 Class Actions Filed in New York
BASIC ENERGY: Faces "Holley" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
BLUE CROSS: "Oakes" Sues over Denied Coverage for Hep-C Treatment
BP PLC: Jury Selection Starts in Ex-Rig Supervisor's Trial
BREEZE-EASTERN CORP: Faces "Soueidan" Suit Over TransDigm Merger

BRO'S PAINTING: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
BUMBLE BEE: Fixed Price of Seafood Products, "Daniels" Suit Says
BURBERRY LTD: Faces "Belcastro" Suit for Deceptive Marketing
BURGER KING: Violated FCRA & ICRAA, "Robinson" Suit Claims
CAFE EL TAPATIO: Violated FLSA & IWPCA, "Ramirez" Suit Claims

CALBEE NORTH: Violated Consumer Protection, "Riedel" Suit Claims
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over 2012 Legionnaires' Outbreak
CAPITAN CORP: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA
CARNEGIE MANAGEMENT: "Ford" Suit Alleges Time-keeping Fraud
CELADON GROUP: Appeal in "Wilmoth" Case Still Pending

CELADON GROUP: Appeal in "Day" Case Still Pending
CELLCEUTIX CORP: To Defend Against "O'Connell" Action in New York
CLIFFS NATURAL: $84,000,000 Settlement Reached in Ohio Class Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: "Renx Group" Suit Challenges Filling Fees
CORAL TELL: Israel Class Suit over Phone Call Overages Pending

CUSTOM BY W: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
CVS HEALTH: Faces "Barchock" Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
D&D PAINTING: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
DAVE AND BUSTER'S: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action Denied
DEL-AIR ELECTRICAL: Faces "Kirton" Suit for FLSA Violation

DELTA APPAREL: Company, Soffe & Junkfood to Pay Up $200,000
DESIGNER SHOE: Wants "Compare At" Pricing Class Action Dismissed
DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Class Action by Rayter and Herendeen
DIRECTV: "Torres" Suit Seeks Actual, Statutory Damages Under EFTA
DIRECTV: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Clause Class Waivers

DIRT DOCTORS: Faces "Del Re" Wage-and-Hour Complaint
EDS HARDWOOD: "Corazzari" Files Sexual Discrimination Complaint
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Certiorari Petition in Madden NFL Case Pending
ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Faces $20MM Class Action Over 2013 Bushfires
ENERGY PRO: "Galvez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Pay Under FLSA

EOS PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Lip Balm, "Menz" Action Claims
ETHICON INC: Three Lawyers Leave MDL Team Following Fee Fight
EXPERIAN INFO: "Clark" Suit Seeks Statutory Damages Under FCRA
EXPRESS COURIER: Sued for FLSA, Ark. Minimum Wage Law Violations
EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss New York Action Remains Pending

EZCORP INC: Has Until Feb. 29 to Respond to Texas Action
FARMER BROS: "Hernandez" Class Action Claims Dismissed
FEDERAL INTERIORS: Faces "Harmon" Suit Over FLSA Violation
FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Fertility Drug
FIFTH STREET: Faces "Craig" Class Action in Delaware

FISCARDO INC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Hernandez" Suit Claims
FLINT, MI: Meeting Held Over Water Crisis Class Action
FLOYD COUNTY, NY:  Jail Strip-Search Class Action Can Proceed
GAONA LANDSCAPING: Faces "Vazquez" Suit for Alleged FLSA Breach
GEICO GENERAL: "Milligan" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages and Costs

GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violated Sherman Act, St. Cloud City Suit Says
GEORGIA: Dept. of Driver Services Faces Suit Over Denied License
GERDES WHOLESALE: "Cabrajal" Suit Asserts FLSA & IMWL Violations
GOLDEN STATE: "Parson" Sues Over Denied Breaks, Unpaid Wages
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces "Sain" Suit Over Deceptive Practices

H&O INVESTMENTS: "Molina" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
HAIN CELESTIAL: $9.35MM Settlement in False Ad Suit Wins Final OK
HALLIBURTON CO: 5th Cir. to Hear Appeal on Certification Ruling
HAWKINS INC: Dismissed as Defendant in Antitrust Class Actions
HEALTHPORT TECH: Removes Class Action Over Medical Record Fees

HF FINANCIAL: Defending "Stein" Class Suit in South Dakota
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces "Elder" Suit for Breach of Contract
II-VI INCORPORATED: To Defend Against Anadigics Merger Suit
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: April 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
ISORAY INC: April 21 Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss

JNP BUS: Violated FLSA, New York Labor Law, "Xu" Suit Claims
KELLOGG, BROWN: Veterans File Class Action over Toxic Burn Pits
KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN: "Restivo" Files Suit Over Acorn Merger
KLA-TENCOR CORP: MOU Reached to Settle Lam Research Merger Suits
KOENIG'S INC: Owners Face "Velasquez" Suit Over Unpaid Wages

LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: March 24 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
LEAR CORP: Settlement with End-Payor Purchasers Remains Pending
LET THERE BE BAGELS: "Amon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery
LIVANOVA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Heater-Cooler Device
LOS ANGELES, CA: LA Fire Dept Employees Files Wage and Hour Suit

MAG BUILDERS: "Chacon" Suit Asserts FLSA, NYLL Violation
MANASSEH JORDAN: Faces "Molitor" Suit Over Automated Calls
MANHATTAN NUVO: Violated FLSA AND NYLL, "Bonini" Suit Claims
MANNKIND CORPORATION: Faces "Ardolino" Securities Class Action
MCESSY INVESTMENT: "Amador" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

MCKEE FOODS: "Juan" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Cal. Labor Code
MID-ATLANTIC LUBE: "Hoover" Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
MODEL N: Mediated Settlement Reached in Consolidated Class Suit
MONSANTO CO: Brief in "Mirzaie" 9th Cir. Appeal Due July 25

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Status Sought for Antitrust Suit
NEWBRIDGE BANCORP: MOU Reached in Yadkin Merger Class Actions
NISKA GAS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Public Unitholders Litigation
NISSAN NA: "Jefferson" Suit Alleges Illegal Vehicle Reselling
NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss 5th Amended Complaint Pending

PEERLESS NETWORK: "Pacleb" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
PEPPERIDGE FARM: SDAs File Class Action Over Employment Status
PFIZER INC: Rejection of Plaintiffs' Zoloft Case Experts Upheld
PHILLIP MORRIS: Not Obliged to Offer CT Scans to Smokers
PREFERRED IMAGING: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

PRIMERO MINING: April 15 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
PROVIDENCE ST. JOHN'S: "Nemeth" Sues Over Illegal Termination
PULASKI FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Action
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Fober" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
RAYMOND JAMES: Class Action Pending Related to Open End Funds

REPUBLIC SCHOOLS NASHVILLE: Violated TCPA, "Skeete" Suit Claims
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 28 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q4 2015
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Served in 3,111 Engle Progeny Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 6 Engle Progeny Cases Removed to Federal Court
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $375-Mil. in Judgments Remain Outstanding

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 26 Cases Set for Trial Through Dec. 2016
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 16 Tobacco PI Class Suits Pending at Dec. 31
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: May 2 Fairness Hearing in Camel Cash Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Conditionally Approved "Feinman" Accord
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Diek" Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Imperial to Indemnify RAI in "Whitney" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Class Suit Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lights Cases Pending in Illinois & Missouri
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Recall Mandate Denied in "Price"
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 24 Status Conference in "Turner" Case

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Howard v. B&W Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference in "Collora" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference in "Black" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in "No Additive" Case in March or May
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Sproule" Stayed Pending Bid to Consolidate

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Brattain" Stayed Pending Bid to Consolidate
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Rothman" Case Request Stay
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Dunn" Case Request Stay
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Haksal" Case Request Stay
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Has Yet to Respond in "Cuebas" Case

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Has Yet to Respond in "Okstad" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Young v. American Tobacco Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. AC&S Remains Dormant
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jones v. American Tobacco Remains Dormant
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lorillard Faces 64 Filter Cases at Dec. 31

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Oral Argument Held in Lorillard Appeal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI Assumes Defense of 7 Canadian Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motions Pending in ERISA Litigation
RINCON PROGRESENO: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Castillo" Suit Says
RITE-AID: Does Not Provide Workers Rest Periods, Action Claims

ROTHMAN FOOD: Faces "Veronese" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SAN FRANCISCO: "Lofton" Suit Alleges Discrimination
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA: Violated FUTCL, "Jones" Suit Claims
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA: "Jones" Suit Seeks Damages Under FUTCL
SINGER FINANCIAL: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, KHS Says

SINGING RIVER: Sued Over Failure to Fund Workers Retirement Plan
SING SONG: "Tang" Suit Seek Overtime Pay Recovery
SKINDER-STRAUSS: 3rd Cir. Affirms Junk Fax Settlement Approval
SKULLCANDY INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah
SKULLCANDY INC: April 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

SOCAL GAS: Pleads Not Guilty to Criminal Charges Over Leak
SPOTIFY: Seeks Dismissal of $150MM Copyright Class Action
SUMMIT COLLECTION: Faces "McGeehan" Suit Over Debt Collection
SYNGENTA AG: 3,929 U.S. Suits Filed Over VIPTERA and DURACADE
SYNGENTA AG: Faces Ontario Class Action Over VIPTERA and DURACADE

SYNGENTA AG: Motion to File Class Suit in Montreal Pending
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Violated Securities Act, "Patel" Suit Claims
TRICAN WELL SERVICE: "Alawar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery
TWENTY-FIRST: Wilder Litigation Remains Pending
UGI CORP: Appeal by Direct Customers Remains Pending

UNITED CONTINENTAL: Sued in Ill. Over Alleged Breach of Contract
UNITED DEVELOPMENT: "Anderson" Sues over Share Price Drop
UNITED SERVICES: Judge Set to Decide on Attorney Sanctions
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Jacobs" Suit Seeks Relief Under ERISA
VICTORIA FINE FOODS: Violated CPL, "Shmidt" Suit Claims

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Martin" Files Suit Over Defeat Device
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Noggle" Suit in Id. Over Defeat Devices
WAL-MART: Supreme Court to Review "Stacked" Class Action Ruling
WEDGEWOOD VILLAGE: Violated JFPA, Noah's Ark Suit Claims
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued Over Misleading Proxy Statement

WORLD SECURITY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
XL FOODS: Court Approves E. Coli Class Action Settlement
ZIMMER INC: Faces "Gallagher" Suit in Cal. Over Durom Cup Design

* Justice Scalia's Death May Complicate Two Pending Class Actions


                            *********


50 EGGS: "Brock" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------
Keith Brock, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 50 Eggs, Inc., Asian Operations, LLC,
Swine Gables, LLC, and John Kunkel, an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-20294-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 25, 2016), asks the
Court to:

     -- issue a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' acts,
        policies, practices and procedures in violation of the
        Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201,
        et seq., 29 C.F.R. Section 531.35, and declaration of
        rights;

     -- enjoin the Defendants from further violations of the
        FLSA;

     -- award the Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- award such other and further relief as the Court may deem
        just and proper.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants forced Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to:

     -- share their tips with non-tipped employees.

     -- kick-back a portion of their tips to the Defendants
        directly  or indirectly, or to others for the Defendants'
        benefit.

     -- perform work-related duties without being compensated.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

50 Eggs owned and operated Asian Operations, LLC d/b/a Khong River
House restaurant located at 1661 Meridian Avenue in Miami Beach,
Miami-Dade County, Florida and Swine Gables, LLC d/b/a Swine
Southern Table & Bar, located at 2415 Ponce de Leon Boulevard,
Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
      17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 358-6800
      Fax: (305) 358-6808
      Email: robert@kuvinlaw.com
             legal@kuvinlaw.com


AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Faces Securities Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Sege, writing for Law360, reports that an investor in Aerojet
Rocketdyne Holdings Inc. has hit the company with a class action
in the wake of a federal filing that told regulators past earnings
statements have to be revised, claiming the aerospace products
manufacturer deceived investors and artificially inflated the
price of its shares.

The lawsuit, filed in California federal court on Feb. 11 by share
purchaser Juliann Travis, relates to a filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in which Aerojet Rocketdyne said that six
of its past consolidated financial statements "should no longer be
relied upon."

Aerojet Rocketdyne's disclosure to the SEC, submitted in a Form 8-
K filing on Feb. 1, followed an accounting review related to the
company's 2013 acquisition of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne from
United Technologies Corp., according the complaint.  It revealed
that the company had made misleading statements or had not
disclosed errors in its purchase accounting of contracts included
in the acquisition, including incorrect accounting of subsequent
changes to one such contract, according to the suit.

"[A]s a result, defendants' statements about the company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times," Mr. Travis claims.

Shares of Aerojet Rocketdyne, which designs and manufactures
aerospace products, fell more than 3.6 percent the day after the
company's Feb. 1 filing with the SEC, according to the suit.

In addition to Aerojet Rocketdyne, the complaint names the
company's current chief executive officer, Eileen P. Drake, and
chief financial officer, Kathleen E. Redd, as well as a previous
CEO, Scott J. Seymour.  It claims the company and the executives
either knew or should have known that the incorrect financial
statements were deficient.

"Defendants had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts set forth herein, or acted with
reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to ascertain
and to disclose such facts, even though such facts were available
to them," Mr. Travis claims.

The statements that need correction were related to fiscal years
2013, 2014 and 2015, according to the complaint.  Mr. Travis is
suing on behalf of himself and of others who purchased stock in
the company between Oct. 15, 2013 and Feb. 1, 2016.

Mr. Travis is asking for class certification and for damages, in
an amount determined at trial.

At least three law firms in addition to the one representing
Travis announced Feb. 2 that they were investigating possible
securities claims against Aerojet Rocketdyne.

A spokesman for Aerojet Rocketdyne, Glenn Mahone, told Law360 the
company does not comment on pending litigation.

An attorney for Travis did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

Mr. Travis is represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- of The Rosen Law Firm PA.

Counsel information for Aerojet Rocketdyne was not immediately
available.

The case is Juliann Travis v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et
al., case number 2:16-cv-00961, in U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


AETNA LIFE: "Fisher" Sues over Denied Insurance Claim
-----------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Fisher, Plaintiff, v. Aetna Life Insurance Company,
Defendant., Case No. 1:16-cv-00144-RJS (S.D.N.Y., January 8,
2016), seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and other and
further relief for breach of contract.

Fisher's doctor had prescribed the brand name prescription drug
EFFEXOR XR (R) EFFEXOR XR (R) to treat clinical depression. Aetna
refused to provide any insurance or co-insurance for the said
purchase.

Aetna is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Connecticut, with its principal place of business in
Hartford, Connecticut. Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC entered into a
contract with Aetna that provided health insurance coverage for
their attorneys and staff, as well as their families. Fisher is
the spouse of partner William Dunnegan, Plan participant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Dunnegan, Esq.
      Richard Weiss, Esq.
      DUNNEGAN & SCILEPPI LLC
      350 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 332-8300
      Email: wd@dunnegan.com
             rw@dunnegan.com


AG DURHAM: "Edwards" Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages and Tips
-------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Edwards, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AG of Durham, Inc., AG of Raleigh, Inc.,
AG of Wake Forrest, Inc., Defendant Casey A. Fox, Kent L. Hodges,
and Karen B. Halsey, Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-57 (M.D.
N.C., January 25, 2016), alleges that the Defendants failed to
satisfy the notice requirements of the tip credit provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act; failed to ensure that Tipped
Employees earn the mandated minimum wage when taking the tip
credit; required Tipped Employees to use their tips to reimburse
Defendants for uniforms and other ordinary business expenses; and
failed to pay Tipped Employees for hours worked, in violation of
the FLSA, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and North Carolina
common law.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all questions of fact
raised by the complaint.

The Defendants own and operate at least three Mellow Mushroom
restaurants in the State of North Carolina.

Each of these locations has employed waiters and waitresses who
have been subjected to the Defendants' unlawful practices, the
complaint says.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul E. Smith, Esq.
     PATTERSON HARKAVY, LLP
     100 Europa Drive, Suite 420
     Chapel Hill, NC 27517
     Tel: (919) 942-5200
     Fax: (866) 397-8671
     E-mail: psmith@pathlaw.com

           - and -

     Eric Rayz, Esq.
     KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
     1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
     Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
     Tel: (215) 792-2963
     Fax: (215) 364-5029
     E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com

           - and -

     Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
     Robert J. Gray, Esq.
     CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
     2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
     King of Prussia, PA 19406
     Tel: (610)822-3700
     Fax: (610)-822-3800
     Email: gwells@cwg-law.com
            rgray@cwg-law.com


AIR CANADA: Faces Collective Action Over Fuel Surcharge
-------------------------------------------------------
The Siver Times reports Air Canada and its carrier to Air Canada
Rouge discounts are covered by another demand collective action
related to the fuel surcharge charged to passengers.

Filed in Superior Court on January 29, this application requires a
total of 240 million -- 48 million in punitive damages -- to the
airline.

The representatives accuse the company of having charged its
passengers took international flights overloads that do not
reflect the definition presented on its website.

Led by lawyer Karim Renno, this application is for customers who,
between 15 April 2012 and 28 December 2014, have purchased tickets
from the company in person or by phone, through an agency travel
or intermediary websites.

However, flights to the United States, including Hawaii, Mexico
and the Caribbean are not affected by this process.

Demand recalls that on 15 April 2012, Air Canada had changed, on
its website, the description of the overload during international
flights.

"Carriers collect a fuel surcharge to mitigate volatility and
fluctuations in operating costs associated with fuel prices, it
said.  For international flights, the surcharge varies depending
on destination. "

Depending on demand, fuel prices paid by Air Canada rose 95%,
excluding inflation, between the end of 2004 -- when the company
has decided to impose a surcharge of $ 11 -- and November 29,
2014.

Considering this statistic, the supplement should have asked to
average $22 per ticket in 2014, it is argued.  But the overload
was more like $ 238 per passenger.

"The progress the additional amount for international flights on
average increased by 2063% between the first load to the end of
2004 and November 29, 2014," it is written.

In a more specific case taking into account inflation, officials
believe Air Canada illegally charged $ 151 to customers for a
flight to Frankfurt, Germany, asking them $ 238 in fuel surcharge.

In business class, the additional amount required rose to $438,
then it should have been, according to representatives, $160 per
passenger.

A similar class action claim was filed in fall 2014 for passengers
who purchased tickets on the carrier's websites and its discount
subsidiary.

In total, according to the document of 21 pages, 48 million
travelers -- half are Canadians -- have paid a fuel surcharge for
international flights between 2012 and 2014.

Some 3.1 million of them bought tickets without going through the
websites of Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge.

The airline refused to respond to the filing of this new demand
collective action.

"It would be inappropriate for us to comment outside of the
judicial process as the matter is before the courts," said an
email spokesperson Isabelle Arthur.


ALICO INC: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Silver Nip Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alico, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2015, that a settlement has been reached
by parties to the consolidated class action lawsuit related to the
Company's acquisition of Silver Nip.

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

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

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

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

Alico Inc. generates operating revenues primarily from the sale of
citrus products and cattle ranching operations.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Blind Customers Sue Over Defective Headsets
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Louie, writing for ABC7, reports that a national movie
theater chain is under fire by blind customers for not allowing
them to enjoy movies.  The suit was filed in San Francisco on
Feb. 16.

It used to be up to family members or friends to whisper into the
ears of blind people to describe scene changes or body language
that dialogue doesn't convey, but technology was supposed to
change all of that.  The nationwide class action lawsuit, however,
claims AMC's devices frequently don't work.

Moviegoers shelled out $11 billion at the box office last year,
not including money spent on popcorn, candy and drinks.

"We all want to have the same experience, the same escapism, the
same access to entertainment," class action lawsuit plaintiff
Scott Blanks said.

However, that hasn't happened at the AMC Theatres Scott Blanks has
patronized in San Francisco and the East Bay.

The special audio description headsets have failed consistently
for several years, leaving Mr. Blanks disappointed and frustrated
when he went to a movie with his sons.

"I wasn't able to communicate with my boys, Zachary and Elliott,
about what was happening for the remainder of the film or
afterwards so much because I missed out on a great deal of the
action in a film that is not exactly heavy on dialogue,"
Mr. Blanks said.

AMC promotes its audio description technology online.  And here's
an example of what a blind person hears during a scene with no
words: "Two scientists stand before a flask of orange liquid. One
tries to pour a test tube of green liquid in, but the liquid
doesn't move."

A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMC on behalf of
five individuals and two advocacy groups.  But only after attorney
Michael Nunez sent letters to the theater chain, urging it to get
staff to maintain the equipment.

"AMC by and large has the technology in many of its theaters and
needs to go that extra mile to take those last steps to insure
that it's actually effectively provided to blind movie-goers,"
Blanks' attorney Michael Nunez said.

ABC7 News reached out to AMC corporate offices, but did not get a
response.


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Buyers' Injunctive Relief Claim Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerigas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a district
court has dismissed the remaining injunctive relief claims in a
class action lawsuit by indirect purchasers of propane gas.

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

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

In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct
customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief
brought by indirect customers.  The direct customers filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, which is still pending.

The indirect customers filed an amended complaint claiming
injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and
Vermont law. In January 2016, the District Court dismissed the
remaining injunctive relief claims for the indirect purchasers. As
a result, the only claims remaining with respect to indirect
purchasers involve alleged violations of Wisconsin, Maine and
Vermont state antitrust laws.

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

AmeriGas Partners, L.P. ("AmeriGas Partners") is a publicly traded
limited partnership that conducts a national propane distribution
business through its principal operating subsidiary AmeriGas
Propane, L.P. ("AmeriGas OLP").


AMTECH SYSTEMS: Proposed Order & Final Judgment Revised
-------------------------------------------------------
Amtech Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the parties to the
class action lawsuits related to the Company's merger with BTU
International Inc. ("BTU") have modified the Order and Final
Judgment (the "Order") to be approved by the Delaware Chancery
court.

A copy of the proposed Order and Final Judgment is available at
http://is.gd/G4I3sg

The proposed Order, among other things, seeks to certify:

     -- Plaintiffs Peter Herman and Ying Yao as Class
        Representatives, and

     -- their counsel, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Levi & Korsinsky,
        LLP, Rigrodsky & Long P.A. and Andrews & Springer, LLC,
        as Class Counsel.

Shortly after the Company entered into the merger agreement with
BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action complaints
(together, the "Stockholder Actions") were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court"). The
first was filed on November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17,
2014, on behalf of BTU's public stockholders, against BTU, members
of the BTU board, Amtech and the special purpose merger
subsidiary. The Stockholder Actions were consolidated on December
4, 2014. The complaints generally alleged that, in connection with
entering into the merger agreement, the BTU board of directors
breached certain fiduciary duties owed to BTU's stockholders. The
complaints sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as compensatory damages.

On January 16, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other
defendants named therein, entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") to settle the Stockholder Actions.
Pursuant to the MOU, the parties to the Stockholder Actions agreed
to resolve the claims alleged and the Company and BTU agreed to
make certain additional disclosures regarding the merger.

On June 22, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other
defendants named therein, filed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise and Settlement with the Delaware Court to memorialize
the MOU.

On November 6, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other
defendants named therein, filed an Amended Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Amended Stipulation
of Settlement") with the Delaware Court. The Amended Stipulation
of Settlement provides for a release of all alleged claims against
the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named
therein, subject to an exception for certain securities law
claims. In addition, the Amended Stipulation of Settlement
provides that BTU, its insurer(s), or its successor(s) in interest
will be responsible for the payment of certain amounts in
plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses in connection with the
settlement, and that the defendants in the Stockholder Actions
agree not to oppose an application to the Delaware Court for fees
and expenses not to exceed $325,000.

In an effort to bring the Amended Stipulation of Settlement into
conformity with recent rulings by the Delaware Court, the parties
to the Stockholder Actions modified the Order and Final Judgment
(the "Order") to be approved by the Delaware Court. In amending
the Order, the parties modified the definition of "Released
Claims" by limiting the Released Claims solely to claims related
to any disclosures (or lack thereof) to BTU's stockholders
concerning the merger and any fiduciary claims concerning the
decision to enter into the merger. The modified Order further
narrowed the definition of Released Claims by removing the
inclusion of "Unknown Claims" from the definition of the Released
Claims.

The Amended Stipulation of Settlement and Order are subject to
court approval. The Company and BTU entered into the Amended
Stipulation of Settlement solely to avoid the costs, risks, and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing. There can be no assurance that the court
will approve the Amended Stipulation of Settlement or the Order,
as amended. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated
by the Amended Stipulation of Settlement may be terminated.

The case is, In re BTU International, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 10310-CB (Del. Ch.).

Amtech Systems, Inc. is a global manufacturer of capital
equipment, including thermal processing, silicon wafer handling
automation, and related consumables used in fabricating solar
cells, LED and semiconductor devices. The Company sells these
products to solar cell and semiconductor manufacturers worldwide,
particularly in Asia, United States and Europe.


ANTHEM INC: Judge Rejects Key Arguments in Data-Breach Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S. District
Judge Lucy Koh's first major ruling in data-breach lawsuits
against major health insurer Anthem Inc. didn't do much to clarify
how the litigation itself will ultimately play out.

The 82-page order handed down on Feb. 14 dismissed some state law
claims, upheld others and gives plaintiffs a chance to try again.
The ruling, however, found Judge Koh, a potential nominee for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, once again at the
forefront of data-breach litigation and once again on the opposite
side of corporate defendants who argue that the exposure of
customers' personal information, while regrettable, doesn't
necessarily amount to a legally recognizable injury.

In her decision, Judge Koh addressed for the first time the
question of whether the loss of personal information constitutes
harm under New York's General Business Law, a consumer protection
law similar to California's Unfair Competition Law.  It does, she
ruled, rejecting arguments from Anthem and its lawyers at Hogan
Lovells and expanding reasoning she has applied in at least one
earlier data-breach case.

In 2014, Judge Koh found that customers of Adobe Systems Inc.
faced a credible threat of injury from a 2013 breach of 38 million
customers' data, especially since some personal information from
the breach had already been published on the Internet.  "Indeed,
the threatened injury here could be more imminent only if
plaintiffs could allege that their stolen personal information had
already been misused," Judge Koh wrote in September in In re Adobe
Systems Privacy Litigation, 13-5226.

The ruling was a rare victory in a data-breach case for
plaintiffs, who generally struggle to show that they've suffered
an actual injury and have standing to sue.

Judge Koh's ruling in In Re Anthem Data Breach Litigation builds
on the Adobe decision.  Like in Adobe, Judge Koh recognized that
the theft of personal identification information is a harm to
consumers in itself separate from any subsequent misuse of it.

Judge Koh quoted her conclusion in Adobe that "allegations of a
concrete and imminent threat of future harm" are enough to
establish an injury and standing in the early stages of a breach
suit.

Anthem, the nation's second-largest health insurer, announced in
February 2015 that hackers had accessed a database containing as
many as 80 million customer records, including names, birthdays
and Social Security numbers.  The U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation routed more than 100 breach-related class
actions filed against the company to Judge Koh.

Eve Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- of Altshuler
Berzon and Andrew Friedman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll serve
as co-lead plaintiffs counsel.

Ms. Cervantez said on Feb. 16 that plaintiffs are "overall quite
pleased" with the decision.  "At 82 pages, it's obvious [the
judge] spent a lot of time and effort on each claim," she said.

In the Feb. 14 ruling, Judge Koh cleared a path for claims to
proceed under California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs
contend they overpaid for their insurance policies because the
company's data-protection practices weren't as strong as promised.
Judge Koh wrote that the California law allows plaintiffs to seek
restitution for profits Anthem allegedly gained by providing "lax
security measures."  The breach affected about 13.5 million
customers in California, more than in any other state.

Judge Koh also turned back Anthem's argument that the increasing
number of high-profile data breaches provides a viable defense for
companies fighting data-breach claims.  Anthem's lawyers at Hogan
Lovells cited recent cyberattacks affecting eBay, Target, Home
Depot and Neiman Marcus to support the notion that the plaintiffs'
personal information could have been leaked elsewhere.

But Judge Koh wrote that adopting Anthem's position would create a
"perverse incentive for companies: so long as enough data breaches
take place, individual companies will never be found liable."

"No part of the UCL, the relevant authority addressing causation,
or the specific facts of this case support such a legal theory,"
Judge Koh wrote.


APPLE INC: Fights Bid to Revive Antitrust Suit Over Apps
--------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a lawyer for
Apple Inc. faced pointed questions on Feb. 10 from a Ninth Circuit
panel considering whether to revive an antitrust lawsuit
challenging the company's model for selling apps.

Apple takes a 30 percent cut of all proceeds from iPhone
applications sold through its App Store.  Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz sued the company on behalf of a class of iPhone
buyers in 2011 claiming that Apple holds monopoly power over the
market for apps for the phones.

Daniel Wall and his colleagues at Latham & Watkins previously
convinced a federal judge in Oakland that app buyers lacked
standing to sue under the federal antitrust laws since the 30
percent fee is charged to app developers rather than to the
purchasers.

That distinction seemed less convincing to the three-judge panel
that heard an appeal of the dismissal on Feb. 10.

"In a normal pass-through case the purchaser is not dealing with
the alleged monopolist," Circuit Judge William Fletcher said. He
said that in the Apple case there is "zero ambiguity" that app
buyers are paying Apple, the alleged monopolist, directly.

Latham's Wall replied that Apple simply acts as an agent for
developers through the App Store. Wall said that allowing
developers to price their own apps was the "defining feature" of
Apple's model, and electronic-commerce companies commonly charge
similar distribution fees.

But Fletcher said that it was "undisputed" that Apple set the 30
percent fee and that consumers paid it directly to the company.
"Why is that a pass-through?" he asked.

Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima joined Fletcher's line of
questioning.  "You can argue in theory it's a pass-through,"
Tashima said.  "But, as a matter of fact, it is paid directly" by
consumers to Apple, he said.  Judge Tashima asked who would be
considered direct purchasers with standing to sue if the app
buyers are indirect purchasers in the App Store model.

Mr. Wall responded that the app developers are the direct
purchasers, and added that they haven't sued Apple "because they
love" the model.

"[This case is] not about what Apple sells," Mr. Wall continued.
"It's about what the developer sells.  How can it not be a pass-
through when Apple has no say in that?"

Mark Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz said his team doesn't know precisely what happens
between Apple and the developers because U.S. District Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers knocked the suit out on a motion to dismiss
in 2013, prior to "one drop of discovery."

But Mr. Rifkin called the notion that app developers are the
direct purchasers "ludicrous."

"In this case there can't be a pass-through," Mr. Rifkin said.
"There's but one transaction and there's but two parties: The
consumer and Apple."


APPLE INC: Suit Says Software Update Renders iPhones Inoperable
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samara Lynn, writing for Black Enterprise, reports that a class
action lawsuit was filed against Apple on Feb. 11 in
San Francisco. In Northern California District Court Docket 3:16-
cv-00705, plaintiffs Nicholas Lusson, Bryant Kushmick, Alexander
Saenz, John DeNoma, and Nora Penner cite the lawsuit's cause of
action as "Class action relating to iPhones rendered inoperable by
software update," under civil statute 28 U.S.C. 1332.

The docket indicates that a jury trial has been demanded. The
attorneys handling the action are from Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala
PLLC, in Tacoma, Washington, and the Law Offices of Timothy A.
Scott, in San Diego.

Fortune earlier reported of the possibility that Apple may face
lawsuits over a software update which did ruin some iPhones.  Some
users running iOS version 9, received an "Error 53" trying to
restore their phones through iTunes. The error prevents the usage
of the phone, and has been happening with the iPhone 6, iPhone 6
Plus, iPhone 6S, and iPhone 6S Plus after their Touch ID sensors
are repaired by unapproved retailers.

The error message bug has been reportedly happening in the UK, as
well.

This isn't the first time angry users brought a class action
lawsuit against Cupertino. Last year, Apple was accused of
deceptive trade practices and false advertising due to its claims
of iOS 9 being compatible with older iOS devices, primarily the
iPhone 4s.  The lawsuit claims that iOS "significantly interferes"
with the performance of the iPhone 4s and that Apple is in the
wrong for not allowing users to downgrade to older versions of the
operating system, reported 9to5mac.


ARGENTINA: Reaches Settlement Deal in Bondholders' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, report that Argentina has
reached a deal with lawyers pursuing a US class action lawsuit
over defaulted debt to resolve the case, as part of the country's
efforts to settle long-running litigation over its 2002 default, a
court-appointed mediator said on Feb. 16.

Daniel Pollack, a New York lawyer overseeing the settlement talks,
said the agreement in principle "fit within the numerics" of
Argentina's proposed offer to resolve various lawsuits by holders
of defaulted bonds.

Exactly how many bondholders are covered by the class action
settlement would be known in several weeks, Mr. Pollack said.
Those who do participate would receive 100 per cent of the
principal owed and 50 per cent of the interest on that principal,
he said.

Mr. Pollack said the deal was conditioned on the approval of the
Argentine Congress and the lifting of injunctions issued by US
District Judge Thomas Griesa in the litigation.  He added that he
was "hopeful that there will be more settlements to come."

Jason Zweig, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was pleased
Argentina had "decided to put this matter behind them."

"This shows that the proposal is good and that we are continuing
to advance positively. We hope that there will be more agreements
in the coming days," said a source in the Argentine finance
ministry.

The deal came after Argentina, headed by President Mauricio Macri,
on February 5 proposed paying $US6.5 billion ($9.1 billion) to
settle litigation stemming from its record $US100 billion default
in 2002.

Two out of six leading bondholders pursuing have already accepted
the offer, Mr. Pollack has said.  The offer represents a 27.5 per
cent to 30 per cent discount for creditors who filed claims of
about $US9 billion.

But Elliott Management's NML Capital and Aurelius Capital
Management, among the leading creditors pursuing individual
lawsuits in the dispute, have not accepted the offer.

Those creditors spurned Argentina's 2005 and 2010 debt
restructurings, which resulted in 92 per cent of its defaulted
debt being swapped and investors being paid less than 30 cents on
the US dollar.

The class action lawsuit in the Feb. 16 accord was one of several
by boldholders who sought to pursue claims as a group.

Plaintiffs led by Henry Brecher, one of the bondholders, until
recently sought $US68 million.  But a US appeals court in
September dealt the plaintiffs a setback by throwing out a ruling
that had expanded the class action.

As a result, the plaintiffs were expected at a hearing in April to
present a revised model in which the damages that could be sought
would have been limited to only investors who held the bonds for a
continuous defined period.

Mr. Macri is seeking to resolve Argentina's decade-long battle
with creditors as part of his efforts to undo the policies of his
predecessor, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

The country defaulted for the second time in 13 years in 2014 when
Fernandez refused to abide by a US court order to settle with so-
called holdout hedge funds, vowing never to sweeten terms for
investors who bought up the bonds after the default, dubbing them
"vultures."

Argentina's push to resolve its longstanding legal battles is
boosting the country's overseas bonds, which have jumped 4 per
cent.  The gains on the notes compare with an average loss of 1.2
per cent for junk-rated emerging-market debt.

Argentina's Finance Secretary Luis Caputo, who has travelled back
and forth between New York and Buenos Aires since December, was in
Manhattan again for the talks, a government official told
reporters on Feb. 15.  Santiago Bausili, undersecretary of finance
and a former Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase banker, has also
been involved in the talks.


ARKLATEX WIRELINE: "Wright" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Arklatex Wireline Services, LLC, f/k/a
AWS Oilfield Services, Arklatex Energy Services, LLC, Tri-State
Wireline, LLC, PDP Wireline LLC, AND Predator Pressure Control and
Crane Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00043 (W.D.
Tex., San Antonio Division, January 15, 2016), seeks unpaid
overtime wages as liquidated damages, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ark La Tex Wireline Services provides cased-hole wireline services
in North Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Its services
include cased-hole logging, pipe recovery, perforating,
mechanical, pressure control, crane mobilization, and horizontal
pump down and high angle services. The company was founded in 2005
and is based in Shreveport, Louisiana with additional offices in
Edinburg, Lytle, Odessa, Tyler, Palestine, and Weatherford, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
          Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
          1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 331 1800
          Facsimile: (806) 398 9095
          E-mail jyoung@youngfirm.com
                 rachael@youngfirm.com


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Class Action Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action in California remains pending against
Arrowhead Research Corporation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2015.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in a consolidated class action pending before
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California regarding certain public statements in connection with
the Company's hepatitis B drug research.  The consolidated class
action, initially filed as Wang v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et
al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 10, 2014), and
Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07911
(C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014),  asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.  Additionally, three putative
stockholder derivative actions captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et
al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein
(Backus) v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed
Dec. 2, 2014); and Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446
(C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 22, 2015), were filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors in
connection with the facts underlying the securities claims.  An
additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar claims
is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially filed
as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5, 2015);
and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 16,
2015).  Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts
and some seek various forms of injunctive relief.

Arrowhead Research develops novel drugs to treat intractable
diseases by silencing the genes that cause them.


BANK OF NEW YORK: 3 Class Actions Filed in New York
---------------------------------------------------
The Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2016, that in late December 2015 and January 2016,
three putative class action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon
in federal court in the Southern District of New York asserting
claims relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when
converting dividends and other distributions from non-U.S.
companies in its role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt
issuers. The primary claims are for breach of contract and
violations of ERISA. The lawsuits are in their earliest stages.


BASIC ENERGY: Faces "Holley" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
BRAD HOLLEY v. BASIC ENERGY SERVICES, L.P., d/b/a BASIC
ENERGY SERVICES; T.M. "ROE" PATTERSON, JIM NEWMAN and ALAN KRENEK,
Each Individually and as Officers of BASIC ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.,
Case 5:16-cv-00147 (W.D.Tex., February 11, 2016), was filed on
behalf of himself and on behalf of other hourly Equipment
Operators, including chemical loaders, sand spotters and other
equivalent positions that are not wireline operators, seeking
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Basic Energy Services, L.P. offers oil well servicing contract
services. The company's fluid services offer trucking, storage,
disposal and mixing plant options.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE CROSS: "Oakes" Sues over Denied Coverage for Hep-C Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Oakes, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Blue Cross And Blue Shield
Of Florida, Inc., d/b/a/ Florida Blue, Defendant, Case. No. 9:16-
cv-80028-KAM (S.D.Fla, January 7, 2016), seeks unpaid benefits,
injunctive relief, enjoinment, attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
and further relief for breach of Fiduciary Obligations under the
Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974.

Florida Blue is the health insurance plan operating under the Blue
Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Florida. It is
a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Florida with its principle place of business at 4800
Deerwood Campus Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32246.

Oakes is a plan holder of Florida Blue. He was diagnosed with
Hepatitis C which could have been treated with Harvoni but was
denied coverage by Florida Blue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andr‚s Rivero, Esq.
      Jorge A Mestre, Esq.
      Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
      Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
      Daniel A. Sox, Esq.
      RIVERO MESTRE LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
      Miami, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 445-2500
      Fax: (305) 445-2505
      E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
              arolnick@riveromestre.com
              jmestre@riveromestre.com
              cwhorton@riveromestre.com
              dsox@riveromestre.com


BP PLC: Jury Selection Starts in Ex-Rig Supervisor's Trial
----------------------------------------------------------
Janet McConnaughey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a judge and attorneys questioned jurors on Feb. 16 as a former BP
rig supervisor went on trial for a misdemeanor pollution charge
from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in the Gulf of
Mexico.

Robert Kaluza, 65, is likely the last person to stand trial after
a sweeping Justice Department investigation into the rig explosion
and well blowout.  Millions of gallons of oil spewed into the Gulf
of Mexico, and BP PLC and the U.S. government worked for nearly
three months to stop the gusher.

Each prospective juror had earlier filled out a 16-page
questionnaire and pledged not to research, read or look into any
information that might be related to Mr. Kaluza's case.  One of
the 48 questions asked was their opinions about oil companies, BP
and co-defendants Transocean and Halliburton.  They also were
asked about drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and whether
they, family members or close friends were affected by the 2010
explosion or oil spill.

If attorneys or the judge had questions about their answers, they
were called up to a table where the judge and attorneys sat to ask
them for details.  Questions and answers were not audible to
others in the courtroom.

Prosecutors say Mr. Kaluza and Donald Vidrine, another rig
supervisor, botched a "negative pressure test" and missed clear
signs of trouble before the blowout.

Both had faced more serious charges of manslaughter of 11 workers
who died when the rig exploded, but federal prosecutors backed off
those charges.  In terms of individual criminal responsibility for
the spill, only four mostly lower-ranking employees faced charges,
and those cases have unraveled before skeptical jurors and judges.

The government did secure a landmark criminal settlement and
record civil penalties against the corporation, which BP said
would cost it billions of dollars.

Mr. Kaluza's trial is for a single charge of violating the Clean
Water Act.  Mr. Vidrine pleaded guilty to the same charge last
year.  He has not been sentenced yet, but it's likely no one will
serve any prison time related to the spill.

"From Bob's standpoint, he's charged with a crime he didn't
commit, and he's going to go to trial to clear his name,"
Mr. Kaluza's attorney Shaun Clarke said in December.

The manslaughter charges against Messrs. Kaluza and Vidrine were
dropped after the June acquittal of former BP executive David
Rainey.  A jury found him not guilty of manipulating calculations
to match a far-too-low estimate of the amount of oil spewing into
the Gulf.

Former BP engineer Kurt Mix once faced two felony charges for
allegedly deleting text messages that prosecutors said were
related to investigations of the spill.  After a yearslong legal
ordeal, he pleaded guilty last November to a misdemeanor charge
and received no jail time.  He made clear publicly that he
believed he had done nothing wrong and felt vindicated.


BREEZE-EASTERN CORP: Faces "Soueidan" Suit Over TransDigm Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Majed Soueidan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Breeze-Eastern Corporation,
Brad Pedersen, Robert J. Kelly, Nelson Obus, William J. Recker,
William M. Shockley, Frederick Wasserman, Charles A. Vehlow,
William T. Crosby, Transdigm Group Incorporated and Hook
Acquisition Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 11834 (Del. Ch.,
December 22, 2015), asks the Court to enjoin the consummation of
the merger between Breeze-Eastern and TransDigm Group Incorporated
through Hook Acquisition Sub Inc.  The case seeks reasonable
attorneys' fees and further equitable relief for breaches of
fiduciary duties.

Breeze-Eastern Corporation is to be acquired by TransDigm Group
Incorporated through Hook Acquisition Sub Inc. Despite the fact
that the Breeze-Eastern stock price increased by 73% in the last
12 months on the strength of its reported financial results, the
Defendants are forcing the stockholders to sell their stock at a
discount, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns shares of stock
of Breeze-Eastern.

Breeze-Eastern is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Whippany, New Jersey. It designs,
develops, manufactures, sells, and services sophisticated
engineered mission equipment for specialty aerospace and defense
applications. TransDigm is a global designer, producer, and
supplier of highly engineered aircraft components, systems and
subsystems for use on nearly all commercial and military
aircrafts. Brad Pedersen, Robert J. Kelly, Nelson Obus, William J.
Recker, William M. Shockley, Frederick Wasserman, Charles A.
Vehlow and William T. Crosby are members of the Board of
Directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carmela P. Keener, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 N. Market Street, #1401
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 656-4433
      Fax: (302) 658-7567
      Email: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

            - and -

      HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 935-7400
      Fax: (212) 753-3630


BRO'S PAINTING: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Ricardo Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Bro's Painting, LLC,
Defendant, Case. No. CV160096 (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages plus an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and other
expenses of suit, and other relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec.
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed as a painter for Defendant. He regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, occasionally in excess of
50 hours per week, and was paid an hourly rate of $12. He is owed
compensation for his last pay period, including regular pay and
overtime pay.

Bro's Painting, LLC, is a limited liability company registered to
do business in Pelham, Shelby County, Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Chester, Esq
      SCHWARTZ ROLLER & ZWILLING
      600 Vestavia Parkway, Suite 251
      Birmingham, AL 35216
      Telephone: (205) 822-2701
      Facsimile: (205) 822-2702
      Email: ezwilling@szalaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Fixed Price of Seafood Products, "Daniels" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunde Daniels and Christopher Todd on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC,
Starkist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and King Oscar, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00185-JLC-MDD (S.D. Cal., January 25,
2016), alleges that the Defendants have conspired to raise, fix,
stabilize or maintain prices as well as allocate customers, and
restrict capacity within the market, for the sale of shelf-stable
packaged seafood products (PSPs) during the period from and
including at least January 1, 2000 through such time as the
anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct ceases (Class
Period).  The Plaintiffs ask the Court to adjudge and decree the
alleged unlawful conduct to be in violation of Sections 1 of the
Sherman Act, Section 3 of the Clayton Act, the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, and the and the Mississippi Antitrust
Statute.

Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC d/b/a Chicken of the Sea International is
a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
4510 Executive Drive, No. 3, San Diego, CA 92121.

King Oscar, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 3838 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 115, San
Diego, CA 92108.

COTS and KOI are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Thai Union Frozen
Products Public Company, Ltd., a publicly held company
headquartered in Thailand.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC, f/k/a Bumble Bee Seafoods LLC is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business at 9655 Granite
Ridge Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92123. Bumble Bee is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Lion Capital, a private investment firm
headquartered in the United Kingdom.

StarKist Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 225 North Shore Drive, Suite 400, Pittsburgh,
PA 15212. StarKist is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dongwon
Enterprises Co., which is headquartered in the Republic of Korea.

The complaint says the Defendants and their co-conspirators
directly and through their affiliates sold PSPs in the United
States and in this district at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period. Defendants are direct, horizontal competitors in
the United States PSP market.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
     Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
     Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
     Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     750 B Street, Suite 2770
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 239-4599
     Fax: (619) 234-4599
     E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
             rickert@whafh.com
             livesay@whafh.com

           - and -

     Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
     Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: 212/545-4600
     Fax: 212/545-4653
     E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
             burt@whafh.com

           - and -

     Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
     Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 984-0000
     Fax: (312) 212-4401
     E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
             malmstrom@whafh.com
             dejong@whafh.com


BURBERRY LTD: Faces "Belcastro" Suit for Deceptive Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS BELCASTRO v. BURBERRY LIMITED, Case 1:16-cv-01080
(S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2016), seeks monetary damages,
restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant for
deceptive and misleading labeling and marketing of merchandise
Burberry sold through its company-owned Burberry Factory Outlet
stores.

Burberry sells menswear, womenswear, coats, dresses, shoes,
accessories, bags, scarves, beauty and fragrance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
     Benjamin Elga, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     16 Court Street, Suite 1012
     Brooklyn, NY 11241
     Phone: (202) 789-3960
     Fax: (202) 789-1813
     E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
              belga@cuneolaw.com

        - and -

     Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     2000 L. Street, N.W., Suite 808
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Phone: (202) 973-0900
     Fax: (202) 973-0950
     E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com

        - and -

     Charles D. Moore, Esq.
     Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
     HALUNEN LAW
     1650 IDS Center
     80 S 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: 612.605.4098
     Fax: 612.605.4099
     E-mail: moore@halunenlaw.com
             wolchansky@halunenlaw.com

        - and -

     Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
     One West Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 525-4100
     Fax: (954) 449-4602
     E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
             edelsberg@kolawyers.com


BURGER KING: Violated FCRA & ICRAA, "Robinson" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Lamont Robinson, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Burger King Corporation, a Florida
Corporation; Scarbrough Management Corporation, a California
corporation, Central Valley Group II, a California corporation,
and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG15798513
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, December 31, 2015), seeks all
available remedies including statutory damages, actual damages,
injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act, and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies
Act.

Burger King operates a chain of fast food hamburger restaurants
worldwide. The company offers burgers, chicken, salads and
veggies, breakfast, beverages, coffee and frappes, sides, sweets,
kids' meals, and more. It also provides franchising opportunities.
The company was founded in 1954 and is based in Miami, Florida. It
has locations in Miami, Florida; Madrid, Spain; Zug, Switzerland;
Singapore; Slough, United Kingdom; and Munich, Germany. Burger
King Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Burger King Holdings,
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobin, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (3l0) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  tuvia@setarehlaw.com


CAFE EL TAPATIO: Violated FLSA & IWPCA, "Ramirez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v.
Cafe El Tapatio, Inc., and Joseph M. Parra, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00659 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division,
January 15, 2016), seeks redress for Defendants' willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, 820 ILCS Section 105/1 et seq. (IMWL), and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act; as well as for Defendants' failure to
pay Plaintiff at least the Illinois mandated minimum wage rate,
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a
week, and for Defendants' failure to compensate him for all hours
worked.

The Plaintiff also seeks redress under the Municipal Code of
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance for Defendants' failure to
compensate him at least the city of Chicago mandated minimum wage
rate.

Defendants operate a restaurant called "Cafe el Tapatio" located
at 3400 North Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALBEE NORTH: Violated Consumer Protection, "Riedel" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jutamat Riedel and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Calbee North
America, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. cv16-02299 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 15, 2016), seeks relief for Defendant's misconduct in
marketing its Harvest Snaps Products in a way that is deceptive to
consumers.

The Defendant claimed that Harvest Snaps food products are simply
baked snap peas when they are a combination of powdered snap peas,
rice and corn oil among a handful of other ingredients and
flavoring agents, says the complaint.

Calbee North America processes and markets potato products and
frozen food products in Oregon. The company was formerly known as
RDO-Calbee Foods, LLC and changed its name to Calbee North America
LLC in June 2012. The company was founded in 2006 and is based in
Boardman, Oregon. RDO-Calbee Foods, LLC is a joint venture between
RD Offutt Foods and CALBEE, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Xee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over 2012 Legionnaires' Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a lawyer requesting permission to file a
class-action lawsuit over the 2012 deadly Legionnaires' outbreak
in Quebec City says public health officials weren't properly
prepared to deal with the situation.

Jean-Pierre Menard argued at the Quebec City courthouse on
Feb. 16 that mismanagement by public health officials made the
outbreak last longer and led to more deaths.

Mr. Menard is representing Solange Allen, who lost her husband
Claude Desjardins to the severe pneumonia caused by the Legionella
bacterium.

Mr. Desjardins was among the 14 people who died that summer.

Public health officials said 181 people were infected by the
bacterium over the course of the summer.

It took more than two months to find the source of the bacteria,
which turned out to be water in the rooftop cooling system of a
downtown building.

The proposed lawsuit contends the province should have established
a mandatory list of all buildings with cooling systems, as
recommended in the late 1990s after an earlier Legionnaires'
outbreak in the city.

Ms. Allen said her husband was 64 when he died and four months
away from retirement.

She was joined in court on Feb. 16 by others who lost a relative
to listen to legal arguments about whether the class-action should
be allowed.

The proposed lawsuit is aimed at public health officials, the
province of Quebec and the owner of the building where the
bacteria flourished.  Quebec's attorney general is also named in
the proposed suit.


CAPITAN CORP: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Fredy Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Capitan Corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:16-cv-00041-OLG (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division,
January 15, 2016), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorney's fees as a result of
Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay overtime
compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Capitan Corp. is a for-profit, domestic corporation registered to
do business in the State of Texas, providing products and services
in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those
areas in which fracking is a viable business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARNEGIE MANAGEMENT: "Ford" Suit Alleges Time-keeping Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kailey N. Ford, Plaintiff, v. Carnegie Management Services, Inc.
and McDonald's USA, LLC, Defendants, Case. No. 2:16-cv-00018-GCS-
NMK (S.D. Ohio, January 8, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wage
compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, compensation withheld,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Chapter 4111, Ohio Constitution
Art. 2 Sec. 34a, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and Sec. 1343(a)(4).

Carnegie Management Services, Inc. operates the McDonald's
franchise located at 6000 Sinclair Road, Columbus, Ohio 43229,
where Kailey Ford works as a Manager in Training.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant fraudulently edited their
time cards to reduce their compensable hours.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel I. Bryant (0090859)
      BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
      629 N. High St., 4th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614) 704-0546
      Fax: (614) 573-9826
      Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


CELADON GROUP: Appeal in "Wilmoth" Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Celadon Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the company's
appeal from a judgment in the "Wilmoth" class action remains
pending.

A subsidiary has been named as the defendant in Wilmoth et al. v.
Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a class action proceeding. A
summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs.

"We have appealed this judgment," the Company said.  "We believe
that we will be successful on appeal, but that it is also
reasonably possible the judgment will be upheld. We estimate the
possible range of financial exposure associated with this claim to
be between $0 and approximately $5 million. We currently do not
have a contingency reserved for this claim, but will continue to
monitor the progress of this claim to determine if a reserve is
necessary in the future."


CELADON GROUP: Appeal in "Day" Case Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Celadon Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the company's
appeal from a judgment in the "Day" class action remains pending.

"We have been named as the defendant in Day et al. v. Celadon
Trucking Services, Inc., a class action proceeding," the Company
said.  "A judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs. We have
appealed this judgment. We believe that we will be successful on
appeal, but that it is also reasonably possible the judgment will
be upheld. We estimate the possible range of financial exposure
associated with this claim to be between $0 and approximately $2
million. We currently do not have a contingency reserved for this
claim, but will continue to monitor the progress of this claim to
determine if a reserve is necessary in the future."


CELLCEUTIX CORP: To Defend Against "O'Connell" Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellceutix Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a securities class
action lawsuit entitled O'Connell v. Cellceutix Corp. et al. (No.
1:15-cv-07194) was filed in September 2015 by a law firm in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and its officers alleging that the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Cellceutix is in the business of developing innovative small
molecule therapies to treat diseases with significant medical
need, particularly in the areas of cancer, antibiotics and
inflammatory disease.


CLIFFS NATURAL: $84,000,000 Settlement Reached in Ohio Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. reached agreements in principle to
settle both the putative federal securities class action pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, and the combined shareholder derivative actions pending in
the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The lawsuits were brought against the Company and/or a number of
its former directors and officers in 2014 before the change of
control which occurred coincident with the July 2014 annual
shareholder meeting. These lawsuits were based, among other
things, on the alleged dissemination of false or misleading
information by the previous management and previous board of
directors regarding the Company's former Bloom Lake mine in
Canada, the impact of those operations on the Company's financial
outlook, including the sustainability of the common stock
dividend, and alleged failures to maintain internal controls and
appropriately oversee and manage the development of the Bloom Lake
mining operation.

The settlement agreements contain no admission of liability or
wrongdoing and include a full release of all defendants in
connection with the allegations made in the lawsuits. The
settlements are subject to definitive documentation, shareholder
notice, and court approval.

The settlement of these lawsuits will have no impact on the
Company's financial position or operations. The agreement in the
securities action provides for a settlement payment to the class
of $84,000,000, the totality of which will be paid by the
Company's third party insurance carriers. Under the terms of the
settlement for the derivative actions, the Company has agreed to
adopt a number of changes to its corporate governance policies,
protocols and practices. In addition, the Company's insurance
carriers will pay $775,000 for plaintiff's attorneys' fees and
costs, subject to court approval.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. (NYSE: CLF) --
http://www.cliffsnaturalresources.com/-- is a major supplier of
iron ore pellets to the North American steel industry from its
mines and pellet plants located in Michigan and Minnesota. Cliffs
also operates an iron ore mining complex in Western Australia.


COOK COUNTY, IL: "Renx Group" Suit Challenges Filling Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Renx Group, LLC, f/k/a Big Blue Capital Partners, LLC,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
the Plaintiff, v. Dorothy Brown, as Clerk of the Circuit, Court of
Cook County, Illinois; Maria Pappas, as Treasurer of Cook County,
Illinois; and Cook County, Illinois, a body politic, the
Defendants, Case No. 2013-CH-13958 (Ill. Circuit Ct., Cook County-
Chancery Division, November 14, 2013), seeks to recover unlawful
fees demanded and collected by Defendants.

The Defendants charge and collect a fee for filing a motion or
petition to reconsider, vacate or modify interlocutory orders in
the Circuit Court. However, the Clerk of Court's statutory
authorization is limited to collecting such a fee, says the
complaint.

The Circuit Court of Cook County of the State of Illinois is the
largest of the 24 judicial circuits in Illinois and one of the
largest unified court systems in the world. It has more than 400
judges who serve the 5.1 million residents of Cook County within
the City of Chicago and its 126 surrounding suburbs. More than 1.2
million cases are filed each year.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rusty A. Payton, Esq.
          PAYTONDANN ATTORNEYS
          161 N Clark St, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 702 1000
          Facsimile: (312) 702 1000


CORAL TELL: Israel Class Suit over Phone Call Overages Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Turbine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a class action
lawsuit related to Coral Tell Ltd. remains pending in Israel.

On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the amount of NIS
19,200,000, or approximately $5,300,000, was filed in the Tel-Aviv
Jaffa District Court against Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli company
that owns and operates a website offering advertisements.

"Coral Tell Ltd. is currently being sued in a class action lawsuit
regarding phone call overages, and has served a third-party notice
against Logia and two additional companies for our alleged
involvement in facilitating the overages," Digital Turbine said.
"The suit relates to a service offered by the Coral Tell website,
enabling advertisers to display a virtual cellular number in the
advertisement instead of their real cellular number. The plaintiff
claims that calls were charged for the connection time between two
segments of the call, instead of the second segment alone; that
the caller was charged even if the advertiser did not answer the
call (as the charge began upon initiation of the first segment);
and that the caller was charged for text messages sent to the
advertiser, although the service did not support delivery of text
messages.

"We have no contractual relationship with this company," Digital
Turbine said.  "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and a
finding of liability on our part remote. After conferring with
advisors and counsel, management believes that the ultimate
liability, if any, in aggregate will not be material to the
financial position or results or operations of the Company for any
future period."

On November 25, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the
parties to submit their positions as to whether the defendant
(applicant) has a right to appeal the Israeli District Court's
decision or must request the Israeli Supreme Court to grant a
right to appeal.

On December 25, 2013, after reviewing the parties' positions, the
Israeli Supreme Court ordered the respondents (Cellcom, Logia,
Ethrix) to submit their responses to the defendant's petition to
grant the right to appeal by January 26th, 2014. Appellant
responded thereafter and the appeal is now under review and
pending judgment. Usually, in petitions such as this, the Israeli
Supreme Court makes a judgment based on the parties' written
responses.

The Defendant appealed the ruling of July 2013, and on April 1,
2015 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. This means that the
third-party notices, Logia included, will be addressed and heard
after judgment is made in the case between the Plaintiff and
Defendant.

Digital Turbine does not believe there is a probable and estimable
claim. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability.

Digital Turbine, through its subsidiaries, innovates at the
convergence of media and mobile communications, delivering end-to-
end products and solutions for mobile operators, application
advertisers, device original equipment manufacturers ("OEM"), and
other third parties to enable them to effectively monetize mobile
content and generate higher value user acquisition. The Company
operates its business in two reportable segments -- Advertising
and Content.


CUSTOM BY W: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Hernandez, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff, v.
Custom By W., Inc. and Michael Wicentowsky, Defendants, Case. No.
CV160096 (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, unpaid spread of hours premium,
statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a painter for Defendants'
interior design company located at 315 East 89th Street, Brooklyn,
New York 11236. He claims to have worked over 40 hours per week,
over 10 hours per day for five to six days a week, for a minimum
of 50 hours a week, with no breaks in the day.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: 212-465-1188
      Fax: 212-465-1181


CVS HEALTH: Faces "Barchock" Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY BARCHOCK, THOMAS WASECKO and STACY WELLER v. CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION, THE BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE OF CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION, and GALLIARD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Case 1:16-cv-
00061 (D.R.I., February 11, 2016), was brought for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and to obtain the relief provided under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE
     395 Smith Street
     Providence, RI 02908
     Phone: (401) 864-5877
     Fax: (401) 354-7464
     E-mail: sld@the-straight-shooter.com

        - and -

     Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
     John N. Nestico, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
     Scottsdale, AZ 85253
     Phone: (480) 428-0142
     Fax: (866) 505-8036
     E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
             jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: 415-421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     E-mail: kbates@schneiderwallace.com


D&D PAINTING: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL RIVERA, an Individual, on behalf of himself and for the
benefit of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. D&D
Painting, Inc., a California corporation; D&D Painting And
Drywall and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC6055172
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, December 23, 2015), seeks:

* unpaid wages in accordance with California Labor Law,

* damages resulting from discharge of respective duties with
   interest and from engaging in unfair competition in violation
   of California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200, et
   seq., and

* restitution, interests, attorneys' fees and cost of suit under
   Labor Code Sec. 226 and 1194 and further relief.

Plaintiff claims that they were required to attend mandatory
meetings without compensation, perform work for which they were
paid less than the minimum wage, work in excess of regular
workdays and workweek hours without being paid the required
overtime and/or double-time premium wages and work through meal
periods. She also alleges that the Defendant failed to maintain
accurate time-keeping records and accurate itemized wage
statements, pay statutory waiting-time penalties, and reimburse
her for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred.

D&D Painting and Drywall is located at 9837 Owensmouth Avenue,
Suite H, Chatsworth, California 91311.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cesar H. Nava, Esq.
      Stanley J. Hodson, Esq.
      NAVA LAW FIRM
      326 South 'A' Street, Suite 2
      Oxnard, CA 93030
      Tel: (805) 483-2465
      Fax: (805) 483-0860
      Email: cnava@navalaw.com
             sjhodson@navalaw.com


DAVE AND BUSTER'S: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilber H. Boies, PC, Esq. and Susan M. Nash, Esq., of McDermott
Will & Emery LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that compliance with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has
resulted in increased health benefit costs for many employers.  A
recent court decision demonstrates that while programs to reduce
the number of full-time employees may lower health care costs in
the short run, they also may lead to ERISA class action
litigation.  In Marin v. Dave and Buster's, a federal district
judge in the Southern District of New York denied a motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit claiming that the Dave and Buster's
amusement chain violated ERISA by cutting employee hours to avoid
providing health care benefits to a class of employees.

The ACA's employer shared responsibility requirements obligate
large employers to offer minimum essential health coverage to
substantially all of their full-time employees, or to pay
significant penalties if just one such employee qualifies for a
premium subsidy on a public health insurance exchange.  There are
also penalties if an employer offers coverage to its full-time
employees but the coverage is not affordable for such employees or
is not of minimum value.  Specifically, the ACA defines a full-
time employee as an employee who regularly works on average at
least 30 hours per week.  Employers are not exposed to penalties
under the ACA for failure to offer coverage to part-time
employees.  As a result, some employers have considered moving
employees to part-time status in order to avoid triggering
penalties under the ACA for failure to offer health insurance
coverage to such workers.

Section 510 of ERISA makes it unlawful for any person to
discriminate against any participant or beneficiary for exercising
a right under ERISA or an ERISA benefit plan.  The plaintiffs
alleged that by reducing employees' hours to keep them below the
30-hour weekly average to qualify as a full-time employee, Dave &
Buster's interfered with the attainment of the affected employees'
right to be eligible for company health benefits.

Two things are particularly notable about the court decision
denying a motion to dismiss the case.  First, while the complaint
includes claims for past and future health benefits and for
"incidental" lost wages, the opinion focuses on ERISA Section 510
and holds that the plaintiff has a viable claim that reducing her
work hours was done for the purpose of interfering with her right
to benefits under the company health plan.  Second, the opinion
finds that the complaint successfully alleged the employer's
"unlawful purpose" and intention to interfere with benefits,
pointing to allegations that company representatives publicly
stated that they were reducing the number of full-time employees
to avoid ACA costs.

This court decision will encourage plaintiffs' class action
lawyers and should be of concern to employers.  Plaintiffs'
lawyers now have a model for a class action complaint under
Section 510 of ERISA when employers limit their full-time employee
staff.  Further, when plaintiffs are able to get past a motion to
dismiss and take discovery, depositions and document production
will be difficult for employers if avoiding or reducing ACA
benefits has been part of the internal discussion about employee
status and staffing, particularly if the restructuring is done in
a manner that attempts to evade ACA requirements.  Employers
contemplating staffing changes in response to ACA employer shared
responsibility requirements, such as reducing employee's work
hours or requiring breaks in service to avoid service bridging,
are encouraged to contact legal counsel before implementing such
workforce policies.


DEL-AIR ELECTRICAL: Faces "Kirton" Suit for FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN KIRTON v. DEL-AIR ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC., a Florida
corporation, and ROBERT DELLO RUSSO, individually, Case 8:16-cv-
00329-JSM-AEP (M.D.Fla., February 11, 2016), seeks overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Del-Air Electrical Services, Inc. is an electrical contractor,
which provides electrical services for new construction,
residential and commercial customers throughout the state of
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Camar R. Jones, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP P.A.
     1515 S. Federal Hwy, Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: (561) 447-8831
     E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


DELTA APPAREL: Company, Soffe & Junkfood to Pay Up $200,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 2, 2016, that Delta Apparel, Soffe
and Junkfood have collectively agreed to contribute $200,000 to
the settlement reached in the California wage and hour litigation.

"We were served with a complaint in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or about March 13,
2013, by a former employee of our Delta Activewear business unit
at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution facility alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws and unfair business
practices with respect to meal and rest periods, compensation and
wage statements, and related claims (the "Complaint")," the
Company said. "The Complaint is brought as a class action and
seeks to include all of our Delta Activewear business unit's
current and certain former employees within California who are or
were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint
also names as defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent
contractor of Soffe, and a former employee, and sought to include
all current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe and
the Soffe independent contractor within California who are or were
non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. Delta Apparel,
Inc. is now the only remaining defendant in this case. The
Complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary
damages and compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs,
and pre-judgment interest."

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

"On September 17, 2015, an agreement in principle was reached
between all parties to settle the above-referenced wage and hour
matters. Pursuant to that agreement, the defendants in the matters
have agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $300,000 in exchange for
a comprehensive release of all claims at issue in the matters.
Delta Apparel, Inc., Soffe and Junkfood have collectively agreed
to contribute $200,000 towards the aggregate settlement amount,
which remains in our accrued expenses as of January 2, 2016. The
settlement agreement requires the approval of the applicable
courts before it can be finalized and the parties are currently
seeking the necessary approvals."


DESIGNER SHOE: Wants "Compare At" Pricing Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and Dani Meyer, writing for Law360, report that
Designer Shoe Warehouse claimed in California federal court on
Feb. 12 that two shoppers' proposed false advertising class action
should be dismissed because they've failed to support their claim
that the retailer duped them and others with phony "compare at"
prices.

DSW Inc. said that Melanie Barber and Michael Yang never
identified other retailers who sold the products they purchased,
or how much those retailers charged, and said that the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission doesn't require comparison prices to be
former prices that customers have actually paid.

"Plaintiffs claim that a reasonable consumer would interpret the
phrase 'compare at' as a former price comparison," DSW said.  "The
[first amended complaint] does not identify any representation by
DSW that would cause a consumer to reach this conclusion, and
plaintiffs offer no explanation as to why a consumer would believe
this."

Two California federal courts have held that reasonable people
would interpret a "compare at" price to be nothing more than "a
comparable value comparison," but the two plaintiffs' claims
wouldn't stand up even if their interpretation was correct,
according to DSW.

The company noted that it defeated another proposed class action
over its comparison prices just January, when U.S. District Judge
Jesus G. Bernal agreed that the shopper behind that suit didn't
provide enough details.

DSW said that Ms. Barber and Mr. Yang made similarly deficient
allegations, and said the pair has failed to show that they didn't
get what they paid for.

"Here, DSW listed a price, plaintiffs decided that each item was
worth that price, and plaintiffs gave that amount of money in
exchange for their items they purchased," DSW said.  "Plaintiffs
do not allege that the listed 'compare at' prices were inaccurate,
that the items they bought are worth any less than what they paid,
or that it would otherwise unjust for DSW to retain that amount."

Ms. Barber and Mr. Yang sued in December, claiming that they
purchased a total of three products after seeing "compare at"
prices of $125.00, $59.00 and $35.00, and DSW prices of $69.95,
$34.94 and $19.95, respectively.

On Feb. 12, DSW filed not only its motion to dismiss, but also a
motion to strike the plaintiffs' class claims, telling the court
that "they have no hope of success" for certifying a class
covering consumers in a total of 40 states.

"They identify no class representatives entitled to invoke these
laws, nor do they allege any facts showing that statutory
violations occurred in these other states," DSW said.  "As a
matter of law, due process, choice of law considerations and
California substantive law prohibit plaintiffs from this attempt
to corral the rights of non-residents into this proceeding."

The plaintiffs are represented by Wayne S. Kreger of the Law
Offices of Wayne S. Kreger PA.

DSW is represented by Stephanie A. Sheridan, Anthony J. Anscombe
and Meegan B. Brooks of Sedgwick LLP.

The suit is Barber et al. v. DSW Inc., case number 8:15-cv-02024,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Class Action by Rayter and Herendeen
-----------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a putative
class action lawsuit was filed by Alex Rayter and Ryan Herendeen,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
DeVry Group and DeVry University, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on January
29, 2016.

The lawsuit claims breaches of implied contract and the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the
California Unfair Trade Practices Act, the California False
Advertising Act and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
and negligent misrepresentations. The claims are based on
allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the FTC
lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief against future violations of law, restitution, disgorgement
of profits, punitive damages, reimbursement of costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court
deems proper.

DeVry Group strongly believes DeVry University's advertising
complied with each of the various laws implicated in this action
and both DeVry Group and DeVry University intend to vigorously
defend themselves.


DIRECTV: "Torres" Suit Seeks Actual, Statutory Damages Under EFTA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosario Torres, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DirecTV, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-00094-GMS (D. Ariz., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover
actual damages, statutory damages with total recovery of lesser of
$500,000 or 1% of the net worth of Defendant, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs relief as the Court may deem just and
proper, pursuant to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

DIRECTV is based in El Segundo, California. The company provides
direct-to-home digital television services and multi-channel video
programming distribution (MVPD) services in the United States. It
provides access to various channels of digital-quality video
entertainment and CD-quality audio programming that are
transmitted directly to subscribers' homes or businesses via
geosynchronous satellites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV (029098)
          Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: 602-388-8898
          Facsimile: 866-317-2674
          E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com


DIRECTV: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Clause Class Waivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hoenig, writing for Law.com, reports that in mid-December,
the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in DIRECTV v. Imburgia,
upholding a class arbitration waiver clause in a consumer service
agreement and reversing a California appellate court's decision in
favor of two consumers who sued over early termination fees they
believed to violate state law.  As a result, the plaintiffs had to
submit to individual arbitration and not to pursue class
proceedings.  DIRECTV is another high court ruling in a chain that
began with the now-famous Concepcion decision in 2011.  This
article briefly surveys the court's pivotal rulings leading to the
DIRECTV decision and provides the pith and substance of this new
ruling.

In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a 5-4 ruling that the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts state laws that make specific
categories of claims non-arbitrable, the U.S. Supreme Court said:
"[w]hen state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a
particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The
conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA."  This is a forceful
premise and can cut a wide swath.  Thus, in Marmet Health Care
Center v. Brown the court held that injury and death lawsuits
against nursing homes could be barred by an arbitration agreement.
Let's look closer at Concepcion, the seminal precedent in the
cluster.

Section 2 of the FAA makes agreements to arbitrate "valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract."  That
provision was held in Concepcion to preempt a California Supreme
Court rule adopted in a case called Discover Bank v. Superior
Court  The latter was widely interpreted as banning most consumer
arbitration agreements requiring arbitration to be conducted only
on an individual basis.  In other words, California's rule deemed
"unconscionable" class action waivers in arbitration agreements
incorporated into consumer contracts of adhesion where the damages
claimed would be relatively small and one party had superior
bargaining power.  The California approach proved to be
influential in other jurisdictions as mandatory arbitration of
certain kinds of consumer claims were deemed against public
policy.

Concepcion swept all that away. Because the California rule, as
applied to AT&T's arbitration provision, "stands as an obstacle to
the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives of Congress," California's categorical
unconscionability approach was preempted.  The underlying dispute
in Concepcion arose from a cell phone contract between Vincent and
Liza Concepcion and AT&T Mobility.  By purchasing the wireless
service, they received two new cell phones as part of the
agreement.  Although they did not have to pay for the phones, they
were charged $30.22 in sales tax for the devices.  They sued in a
federal court that AT&T's advertisements for "free" phones were
fraudulent.

The case was later consolidated with a putative class action
against AT&T involving the same issues.  AT&T then moved to compel
arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement between the
parties.  The cell phone arbitration clause had a class action
waiver: "You and AT&T agree that each may bring claims against the
other only in your or its individual capacity, and not as a
plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative
proceeding."

AT&T included "consumer-friendly," generous provisions.  The
consumer would get at least a $7,500 payment if the arbitration
award exceeded the last written settlement offer the company made
prior to selecting an arbitrator; cost-free arbitration for non-
frivolous claims; double attorney fees if the arbitrator awarded
the customer more than AT&T's last settlement offer; and the
option of conducting the arbitration in person, over the phone, or
solely on the filed papers.

Waiver Upheld
The district court denied AT&T's motion to compel arbitration on
the ground that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable in
California.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed.  It recognized that the AT&T arbitration agreement
"essentially guarantees" that customers will have relief that
makes them "whole." But the court held that California law made
the inability-to-arbitrate-on-behalf-of-a-class provision
unconscionable.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed.  It reasoned, in part, that
the Discover Bank rule "interfered with fundamental attributes of
arbitration."  One of these was that class arbitration "greatly
increases the risks to defendants" because class arbitration has
the same high stakes of class actions in court yet is subject to
the sharply limited standard of judicial review of arbitration
awards.

Marmet, the nursing home injury case, involved three negligence
suits for injuries or harm filed against nursing homes in West
Virginia.  In each of the three cases, a patient requiring
extensive nursing care died and a family member sued. The
agreements signed by family members with the nursing homes
included arbitration clauses requiring the parties to arbitrate
all disputes.  The party filing the arbitration was responsible
for paying a filing fee in accordance with the Rules of the
American Arbitration Association fee schedules.  A state trial
court dismissed the lawsuits based on the agreement to arbitrate.

The cases wound up in West Virginia's highest court which held
that "as a matter of public policy" an arbitration clause in a
nursing home admission agreement adopted prior to an occurrence of
negligence that results in personal injury or wrongful death,
"shall not be enforced to compel arbitration of a dispute
concerning the negligence."  The West Virginia court called the
U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the FAA "tendentious" and
"created from whole cloth" and concluded that the FAA does not
preempt the state's public policy against pre-dispute arbitration
agreements that apply to nursing home injury or death claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court acted swiftly to grant certiorari, vacate
the West Virginia ruling and remand for proceedings not
inconsistent with the court's opinion.  This time the Supreme
Court did not act 5-4, but unanimously, in a "per curiam" opinion.
The FAA says an arbitration agreement "shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract."  The
statute's text, said the court, "includes no exception for
personal-injury or wrongful-death claims."  It "requires courts to
enforce the bargain of the parties to arbitrate" and it "reflects
an emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute
resolution."

Citing Concepcion, the court emphasized that when state law
"prohibits outright" arbitration of a particular type of claim,
the conflicting state rule is displaced and preempted by the FAA.
West Virginia's prohibition against pre-dispute agreements to
arbitrate nursing home injury or death claims was a "categorical
rule prohibiting arbitration of a particular type of claim" and
thus was "contrary to the terms and coverage of the FAA."

The FAA Section 2's "savings clause" (arbitration agreements are
valid, irrevocable and enforceable, "save upon such grounds as
exist at law or equity for the revocation of any contract") could,
in a given case, put into play state law defenses that are
applicable to "any contract."  Concepcion advised that this could
include state law defenses such as fraud, duress or
unconscionability.  But a state's "general" contract defenses
aimed primarily at arbitration agreements or targeting or applying
to arbitration agreements disproportionately will be preempted.

Mr. Hoenig's June 2013 column reported on the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, upholding an
arbitrator's decision to allow class arbitration, but only because
the parties there agreed that the arbitrator should decide whether
their contract authorized class arbitration.  The defendant's
decision to challenge "arbitrability" of the issue in court came
too late.  Thus, even though the underlying agreement was "silent"
on whether the parties had intended to permit class arbitration,
the arbitrator's construction "holds, however good, bad or ugly."

Since contracts that are "silent" regarding class arbitration have
a measure of frailty in this regard -- indeed, the court in Oxford
said in footnote 2: "this Court has not yet decided whether the
availability of class arbitration is a question of arbitrability"
-- Mr. Hoenig column advised those firms electing to arbitrate
disputes to incorporate "class action waivers" in their
contractual arbitration clauses.

In American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the court
held the FAA does not permit courts to invalidate a contractual
waiver of class arbitration on the ground that the plaintiff's
cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds
the potential recovery.  The Amex decision, as it is popularly
called, involved federal antitrust class action claims by
merchants alleging American Express violated the Sherman and the
Clayton Acts by forcing merchants to accept its credit cards at
rates some 30 percent higher than fees for competing credit cards.
Amex fought the court class action proceedings by moving to compel
individual arbitration in accordance with the class waiver
provision.

In resisting Amex's motion, the plaintiffs submitted an
economist's declaration that estimated the costs of an expert's
analysis needed to prove the individual antitrust claims would be
at least several hundred thousand dollars, and "might exceed $1
million."  Compared to the individual plaintiff's maximum
antitrust recovery of some $12,850 (or $38,549 when trebled), such
costs were deemed "prohibitive."  The district court, nonetheless,
granted the defense motion to compel individual arbitration, but
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed holding
that the class waiver was unenforceable since Concepcion involved
FAA preemption of a state statute.  In Amex, however, the federal
statutes were not intended to be preempted. A petition for
rehearing en banc was denied with five judges dissenting.

'Concepcion's' Strength

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Amex was emphatic confirmation
of Concepcion's strength.  The court held that the FAA does not
permit courts to invalidate a contractual class action waiver on
the ground that a plaintiff's cost of individually arbitrating a
federal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery.  The
expense of litigation is not a determinative factor: "[T]he
antitrust laws do not guarantee an affordable procedural path to
the vindication of every claim." The fact that "it is not worth
the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy does not
constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that remedy."

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the five-justice majority,
confirmed the vitality of Concepcion: "Truth to tell, our decision
in AT&T Mobility all but resolves this case.  There we invalidated
a law conditioning enforcement of arbitration on the availability
of class procedure because that law 'interfere[d] with fundamental
attributes of arbitration.'"  Class arbitration "sacrifices the
principal advantage of arbitration -- its informality -- and makes
the process slower, more costly, and more likely to generate
procedural morass than final judgment."  And, in its footnote 5,
the court reminded us that "the FAA's command to enforce
arbitration agreements trumps any interest in ensuring the
prosecution of low-value claims."

In the court's newest decision in this chain, DIRECTV, the service
agreement had a provision that "any Claim either of us asserts
will be resolved only by binding arbitration."  The agreement also
set forth a waiver of class arbitration.  However, it also
provided that, if the "law of your state" makes the waiver of
class arbitration unenforceable, then the entire arbitration
provision "is unenforceable."  The California courts held the
arbitration provision unenforceable since the words "law of your
state" made California law determinative even if that law were
inconsistent with Concepcion.  The Supreme Court, however,
reversed.

The contract's reference to "state law," absent any indication to
the contrary, is governed by its ordinary meaning, namely "valid"
state law.  The court emphasized that, while Concepcion was a
"closely divided" holding (5-4 decision) and lower court judges
can note their disagreement with the decision, "[n]o one denies
that lower courts must follow" Concepcion.  The FAA "is a law of
the United States, and Concepcion is an authoritative
interpretation of that Act. Consequently, the judges of every
State must follow it."10

Since Concepcion issued in 2011, there has been a great deal of
commentary, much of it extremely critical and some of it quite
strident.  In particular, the "doomsday" kind of commentary seemed
to impart an emotional, "over-the-top" message in the face of a
rather generous legal system. Then, too, the Concepcion
arbitration provision enforced by the court there was quite
generous.

What were the competing rationales? The exceptions? How "bad" was
the Concepcion aftermath? Since the article literally was at the
printer in December when DIRECTV issued, we could only include
minimal discussion of the new ruling.

The article -- "Arbitration and Class Action Waivers Under
Concepcion: Reason and Reasonableness Deflect Strident Attacks"
-- examines the roots of the Concepcion decision and the
considerations that support it.  It also reviews judicial
developments post-Concepcion as well as "exceptions" to the rule.
The attempts by claimants to mount additional theories or defenses
to defeat enforcement of class waivers, with varying success, are
surveyed.  In the latter section we discuss challenges on
"unconscionability" grounds and the features courts look at to
decide the issue; challenges on contract formation grounds;
failure to give assent and "illusoriness" of the agreement; issues
of waiver and estoppel; and the effect of excessive arbitration
and administrative fees.

Conclusion

Arbitration and class action waiver provisions are a fact of life.
The Supreme Court says they are enforceable.  There are complex
considerations affecting the ability of lawyers to challenge as
well as to enforce such provisions.  The chain of decisions and
our law review article discussed above can be useful resources in
the lawyer's quest to defend or defeat such provisions.


DIRT DOCTORS: Faces "Del Re" Wage-and-Hour Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
Francisco Del Re, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v.  Dirt Doctors, LLC, aka Thiry Brothers
Home Improvements, and Derek Thiry, Individually, and Daryl Thiry,
Individually, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-00432-FLW-TJB (D. N.J.,
January 25, 2016), seeks recovery against Defendants for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201
et. seq. and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A.,
34:11-56a et seq.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants did not properly compensate
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated employees, for all
overtime hours worked in a work week.

Dirt Doctors are in the home improvement business throughout the
State of New Jersey.  Dirt Doctors are headquartered in
Bridgewater, Somerset County, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
     JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     301 North Harrison Street
     Suite 9F, #306
     Princeton, NJ 08540
     Tel: (201) 687-9977
     Fax: (201) 595-0308
     E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


EDS HARDWOOD: "Corazzari" Files Sexual Discrimination Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fabio Corazzari, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EDS Hardwood Floors, Inc. and
Eliton De Sordi, Defendants, Case 7:16-cv-00544 (S.D.N.Y., January
25, 2016), seeks equitable and legal relief for the Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29
U.S.C.  Sections 201, et seq. (FLSA), New York Labor Laws (NYLL)
Sections 190 et seq. and 650 et seq. and 12 NYCRR 142-2.14, and
New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law Sec. 290 et seq.
(NYSHRL).

The Plaintiff alleges he was discriminated against and unlawfully
terminated on the basis of his sexual orientation.

The Plaintiff seeks payment of:

     a) all overtime wages due to the Plaintiff and the FLSA
        Collective Plaintiffs, an additional award of 100% of all
        wages due, all reasonable attorneys' fees,  costs and
       interest, in an amount to be determined by the Court;

     b) an additional award of 100% of all wages due to the
        Plaintiff, all reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
        interest, in an amount to be determined by this Court;

     c) all overtime wages due, an additional award of 100% of
        all wages due to the Plaintiff, all reasonable attorneys'
        fees, costs and interest, in an amount to be determined
        by the Court;

     d) liquidated damages in the amount of $50.00 per day in
        which the violation occurred, up to a maximum of
        $5,000.00, along with all reasonable attorneys' fees and
        costs;

     e) liquidated damages in the amount of $250.00 per day
        for every day in which the violation occurred, up to a
        maximum of $5,000.00, along with all reasonable
        attorneys' fees and costs;

     f) all spread of hour wages due in an amount to be
        determined by the Court, liquidated damages, along with
        all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

     g) all compensatory, emotional, physical, liquidated, and
        punitive damages, if applicable, along with lost pay,
        front pay, reasonable attorneys' fees, the costs and
        disbursements of this action and any other damages
        permitted by law in an amount to be determined at trial;
        and

     h) other and further relief as is just and proper.

EDS is a New York limited liability company with its principal
place of business located at 141 Crotona Avenue, Harrison, New
York 10528.  EDS is engaged in the business of repairing and
installing flooring for residential and commercial properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth J. Katz, Esq.
     KATZ MELINGER PLLC
     280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 460-0047
     Fax: (212) 428-6811


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Certiorari Petition in Madden NFL Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's
petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court is pending.

On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed
a putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging
that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of
certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March
2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the
complaint on First Amendment grounds.

In January 2015, that trial court decision was affirmed by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was remanded back to
the district court. In October 2015, the Company filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which
is pending.

Electronic Arts develops, markets, publishes and distributes game
software content and services that can be played by consumers on a
variety of platforms, including video game consoles (such as the
PlayStation 3 and 4 from Sony, and the Xbox 360 and Xbox One from
Microsoft), PCs, mobile phones and tablets.


ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Faces $20MM Class Action Over 2013 Bushfires
--------------------------------------------------------------
SkyNews reports that residents caught in the path of the 2013 Blue
Mountains bushfires suffered a terrifying ordeal that could have
been avoided if a power company had cut down a single tree, the
NSW Supreme Court has heard.

A $200 million class action lawsuit against Endeavour Energy began
in Sydney on Feb. 17 with claims that a massive blaze that burned
through the lower-mountains suburbs of Springwood and Winmalee in
October 2013 was sparked by a tree falling onto an electricity
conductor at Linksview Road in Springwood.

"This tree was compromised by dry rot which, if Endeavour Energy
had adopted reasonable practices, it would have been aware of and
would have attended to," barrister Tim Tobin SC told the court in
his opening address.

The class action has been brought by Sean Johnston and other Blue
Mountains residents who allege they lost property or suffered
physical or psychiatric injury as a result of Endeavour Energy's
inaction in the hot and dry months that preceded the outbreak of
wildfire.

"Flames were as high as 20 metres and travelling at frightening
speed, destroying 194 homes and partially damaging hundreds more,"
Mr. Tobin said on Feb. 17.

"For members of the group who were caught in the path of the fire,
the experience was life-threatening and terrifying."

Mr. Tobin told the court the bushland region west of Sydney was in
"a state of high vulnerability to ignition and spread of bushfire"
in the lead up to October 17.

That day, he said, Springwood woman Marilyn Stubbs arrived home
from the shops about 1pm and noticed "nothing unusual".

Fires were already burning higher up the mountains and to the
west, and there was smoke in the sky as Mrs. Stubbs went to her
bedroom and began reading a magazine.

But by 1:09 p.m., Mrs. Stubbs was dialling triple zero.

She will give evidence over the two-month civil case that she
heard "a twang followed by a 'zzz', a sound consistent with an
electrical noise", followed by a "crackling" sound.

When she went to investigate, Mrs. Stubbs saw a 'slow, creeping'
fire through her window and within moments, she saw trees
beginning to explode into flames.

"This explosion of trees sent embers flying and looked like
fireworks," Mr. Tobin said.

The hearing continues before Justice Peter Garling.


ENERGY PRO: "Galvez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Galvez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gary Grecco, Milton Siavichay,
individually and Energy Pro Insulation LLC, and Advanced Firestop
Solutions, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00228 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and related
damages for unpaid overtime hours worked, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Energy Pro is a New York Corporation located at Staten Island, New
York. The Company's line of business include Home Energy
Assessments, Heating, Insulation & Air Sealing, Air Conditioning &
Heat Pump, and Solar Electric.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumacj. Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
          11 Broadway Suite 960
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 344 9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344 0301


EOS PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Lip Balm, "Menz" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melisa Menz, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. EOS Products, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-00128-
SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla., January 19, 2016) is an action for damages as
a proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling,
and sale of defective lip balm designed, manufactured, marketed,
advertised, and sold by EOS in the State of Florida and throughout
the United States.

EOS Products, LLC is a New York LLC that provides beauty products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
      Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
      EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
      5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
      Davie, FL 33328
      Telephone: (954) 889-3359
      Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
      E-mail: JEggnatz@ELPlawyers.com
              MPascucci@ELPlawyers.com


ETHICON INC: Three Lawyers Leave MDL Team Following Fee Fight
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a battle over legal fees and costs has prompted three lawyers
to withdraw from the plaintiffs leadership team in the
multidistrict litigation over power morcellators made by Johnson &
Johnson's Ethicon Inc.

After a hearing on Feb. 10 before a federal judge in Kansas, two
plaintiffs lawyers -- Rebecca King, an attorney at Houston's
Tracey & Fox, and Fran‡ois Blaudeau, of counsel at Heninger
Garrison Davis in Birmingham -- resigned from the 20-person
plaintiffs steering committee, according to co-lead counsel
Paul Pennock.

A third committee member, Avram Blair, of Avram Blair & Associates
in Houston, also resigned after a similar fee dispute, said Mr.
Pennock, managing attorney at New York's Weitz & Luxenberg.

The MDL's committee was noted for being the first to involve a
majority of women members.

Their departures leave 10 women attorneys on a 17-person
committee.

Those lawyers along with two other plaintiffs attorneys, one of
whom also served on the committee, claimed that they should not
have to pay into a proposed common benefit fund for cases they had
just settled.

A common benefit fund charges a "hold back" amount on settlements
and judgments of individual cases in order to pay for the attorney
fees and costs that lead counsel incur in an MDL.

Mr. Pennock, who moved to establish the fund on Dec. 31, had
insisted that lawyers with recent settlements retroactively pay 2
percent of their fees and costs to the fund given that they were
precipitated by the formation of an MDL and plaintiffs steering
committee.

After the hearing, Mr. Pennock told The NLJ that he agreed to
remove the 2 percent requirement and make other changes to the
fund, though he declined to say what those would be.  He also
confirmed the committee's resignations.

"We resolved our differences and they are out, and we're moving
forward," Mr. Pennock said.  He said he wasn't sure whether the
committee would replace them.

King, Blaudeau and Blair did not respond to requests for comment.
More than 30 lawsuits have been filed alleging that Ethicon's
power morcellators -- medical devices used in laparoscopic uterine
surgeries -- have caused women to develop an aggressive form of
cancer.  Ethicon pulled those devices from shelves in 2014
following a U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety advisory. The
cases against Ethicon were coordinated into an MDL on Oct. 15.

King and Blaudeau filed motions on Dec. 30 and Jan. 4 to resign
from the committee after settling cases against Ethicon.  Both
lawyers joined Blair and Molly Hoffman of Fay Kaplan Law in
Washington, another plaintiffs lawyer, in opposing the fund's
approval.

Mr. Pennock's proposal also included holdbacks for future
settlements of up to 12 percent fees and costs -- an amount that
another plaintiffs lawyer, Andrew Sciolla of Pogust Braslow &
Millrood in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, called "excessive" in a
Jan. 21 motion.

Mr. Pennock said he would be talking with Mr. Sciolla in the
coming weeks about those concerns.  Mr. Sciolla did not respond to
a request for comment.


EXPERIAN INFO: "Clark" Suit Seeks Statutory Damages Under FCRA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Clark, Jon Hann, Angela Osment, Leon Wilson, Chmond Va
Debra Punturi, Elmo Wilcox, Iii, Rosemary Robinson, Marveen
Robinson, Hezekiah Winn, Roderick Samuels, Wanda Mcdowney,
Elizabeth Kirwin, Susan Chandler, Kim Breeden, and Olga Anderson,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00032-MHL (E.D. Virg.,
Richmond Division, January 15, 2016), seeks to recover statutory
and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs,
punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the
legal rate, and such other relief the Court deems just, equitable,
and proper pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Experian Info is an information services company that provides
data and analytical tools to clients around the world. It offers
credit report, credit score, credit monitoring, and identity theft
protection services to individuals; and customer acquisition,
customer management, risk management, fraud management, debt
recovery, regulatory compliance, business resources, and
consulting services to businesses. The company is based in Costa
Mesa, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Susan M. Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273 7770
          Facsimile: (888) 892 3512
          E-mail: matt@clalegal.com
                  casey@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  srotkis@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          KELL y & CRANDALL, PLC
          4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591 9285
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com


EXPRESS COURIER: Sued for FLSA, Ark. Minimum Wage Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Harris, Rick Ketcham and Adam Manske v. Express Courier
International, Inc., Case 5:16-cv-05033-TLB (W.D.Ark., February
11, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Express Courier International, Inc. provides on-demand and
scheduled courier services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss New York Action Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the defendants'
motions to dismiss the federal securities litigation in New York
remains pending.

On August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A
Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other
similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC).

"The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Paul E. Rothamel
(our former chief executive officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (our
former chief financial officer and former chief operating officer)
and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934," the Company said.  "In general,
the complaint alleges that the implementation of certain strategic
and growth initiatives were less successful than represented by
the defendants, that certain of the Company's business units and
investments were not performing as well as represented by the
defendants and that, as a result, the defendants' disclosures and
statements about the Company's business and operations were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


EZCORP INC: Has Until Feb. 29 to Respond to Texas Action
--------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has
until February 29, 2016 to respond to the Amended Complaint in the
federal securities litigation in Texas.

On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A
Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other
similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS).

"The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I.
Grimshaw (our chief executive officer) and Mark E. Kuchenrither
(our former chief financial officer) and asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder," the Company said. "The
original complaint related to the Company's announcement on July
17, 2015 that it will restate the financial statements for fiscal
2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged generally
that the Company issued materially false or misleading statements
concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and
prospects and that the Company misrepresented the financial
performance of the Grupo Finmart business."

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

"On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the
two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective
counsel appointed as co-lead counsel.

"On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our Class A
Common Stock between November 6, 2015 and October 20, 2015. The
Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout
the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal
controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of
Grupo Finmart. The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither,
as a controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert
any claims against Mr. Grimshaw.

"Under the Court's current scheduling order, we have until
February 29, 2016 to respond to the Amended Complaint, and we
intend to file a motion to dismiss the claims," the Company said.
"This case is in the very early stages. We cannot predict the
outcome of the litigation, but we intend to defend vigorously
against all allegations and claims."


FARMER BROS: "Hernandez" Class Action Claims Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Farmer Bros. Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a court has
dismissed claims in the case, Steve Hernandez vs. Farmer Bros.
Co., while the claims in the case, Monica Zuno vs. Farmer Bros.
Co., Superior Court of State of California, County of Los Angeles,
remain pending.

On July 24, 2015, former Company employee Hernandez filed a
putative class action complaint for damages alleging a single
cause of action for unfair competition under the California
Business & Professions Code. The claim purports to seek
disgorgement of profits for alleged violations of various
provisions of the California Labor Code relating to: failing to
pay overtime, failing to provide meal breaks, failing to pay
minimum wage, failing to pay wages timely during employment and
upon termination, failing to provide accurate and complete wage
statements, and failing to reimburse business-related expenses.
Hernandez's complaint seeks restitution in an unspecified amount
and injunctive relief, in addition to attorneys' fees and
expenses. Hernandez alleges that the putative class is all
"current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals" for the
four (4) years preceding the filing of the complaint through final
judgment, and Hernandez also purports to reserve the right to
establish sub-classes as appropriate.

On November 12, 2015, a separate putative class representative,
Monica Zuno, filed claim under the same class action; the Court
has related this case to the Hernandez case.

On November 17, 2015, the unified case was assigned to a judge,
and this judge ordered the stay on discovery to remain intact
until after a decision on the Company's demurrer action. The
plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Demurrer and, in response, on
January 5, 2016, the Company filed a reply to this Opposition to
the Demurrer.

"On February 2, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the demurrer and
found in our favor, sustaining the demurrer in its entirety
without leave to amend as to the plaintiff Hernandez, and so
dismissing Hernandez's claims and the related putative class," the
Company said.  "Claims on behalf of the plaintiff Zuno remain at
this time, pending the filing of an amended complaint on behalf of
this remaining plaintiff and reduced putative class. At this time,
we are not able to predict the probability of the outcome or
estimate of loss, if any, related to this matter."


FEDERAL INTERIORS: Faces "Harmon" Suit Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN HARMON and THERMAN D. GLADDEN, SR., v. FEDERAL INTERIORS
GROUP, LLC, JASON ROCKWELL, DAVID ROCKWELL, U.S. BUSINESS
INTERIORS, INC., Case 1:16-cv-00390-JKB (D.Md., February 11,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act; unpaid wages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under Maryland Wage and Hour Law,
Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment Article; and unpaid
wages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Maryland Code Annotated,
Labor and Employment Article.

Defendants operate a business that delivers, assembles and
installs office furniture and equipment in the Baltimore, Virginia
and Washington, D.C. areas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph E. Spicer, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Tel: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: jspicer@nicholllaw.com


FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Fertility Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
CTVNews.ca reports that a British Columbia couple has launched a
class-action lawsuit against the maker of a fertility drug after
certain batches of the drug were recalled over concerns about
their potency late last year.

Amanda and Joep Olthuis are suing Swiss-based Ferring
Pharmaceuticals, alleging that an ineffective batch of the drug
Bravelle dashed their hopes of having children.

They also say they can't afford another round of treatment.

The drug is designed to help women's ovaries produce more eggs,
often in combination with another hormone for growth and
ovulation, as part of a cycle of in vitro fertilization.

Amanda Olthuis was 36 years old when she and her husband travelled
from their home in Port Moody, B.C., to the Genesis Fertility
Centre in Vancouver.

There, she was prescribed a series of treatments over the next
several months, including injections of Bravelle.

The couple says the total cost of those treatments was $14,000, a
sum that required years of saving.

"It took us two years to save up the money.  I had to work six
days a week . . . we didn't go to movies, we didn't go out for
dinners," Mr. Olthuis told CTV News.

"We scrounged, scraped and saved for two years because we wanted a
family."

But to the couple's shock, the IVF cycle failed and the batch of
Bravelle Olthuis was taking was recalled.

Ferring announced last October that tests showed four lots of
Bravelle, sold between 2014 and 2015 in the U.S. and Canada, had
displayed "reduced potency" and could result in lessened
therapeutic effect.

The company said the batches were "unlikely" to result in direct
adverse health consequences in the short term, but warned there
was the potential for "unnecessary overexposure" of patients in
the process of determining an effective dose.

Ferring is offering to refund the cost of the drug -- about $2,500
-- but the couple says they are also owed the cost of the IFV
cycle.

"We would have never have done the whole cycle if we knew the drug
was a dud," said Joep Olthuis.

"We really started realizing we deserve more."

Quebec is the only Canadian province that provides universal
coverage of the costs of IVF.  The province's health plan covers
up to three cycles of the treatment.  Last fall, Ontario agreed to
cover the cost of one cycle for women under 43.

Amanda and Joep Olthuis are also suing Ferring for other related
health care costs, out-of-pocket expenses like travel, loss of
income, pain and suffering, as well as the "loss of opportunity to
have biological children."

"The Defendant may have squandered these women's last opportunity
to get pregnant, causing serious mental and emotional harm to
couples who now may be unable to start families of their own," a
statement of claim submitted to B.C.'s Supreme Court says.

The law firm representing the couple says it has been contacted by
another 20 families across Canada about issues relating to
Bravelle.

"It is our understanding is that there are hundreds across the
country who have been affected," said David Klein, managing
partner of Klein Lawyers.

There are also reportedly dozens of similar lawsuits in the U.S.
In a statement, Michael Seckler, the general manager of Ferring,
said the company is aware of the lawsuit, but can't comment on
pending litigation.

"Distribution of Bravelle has been halted while an analysis to
establish the root cause of the issue is carried out," said
Mr. Seckler.

"We appreciate the urgency of this issue, and are working hard to
restore supply as quickly as possible."

The company says "manufacturing issues" have slowed the release of
new batches of Bravelle.

That's not a problem for many other couples as there are other
drugs that can be used instead.

But Joep and Amanda Olthuis, who's about to turn 38 in March, say
the issues with the drug have cost them precious time and money in
their efforts to have children.

"I just want to have a family -- that is our dream," said Joep.
"It is getting harder and harder when we miss out on these chances
and we're cheated out of that."


FIFTH STREET: Faces "Craig" Class Action in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a putative
stockholder class action lawsuit captioned James Craig v. Bernard
D. Berman, et. al. was filed on January 29, 2016, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint names certain
current officers and/or directors, consisting of Bernard D.
Berman, James Castro-Blanco, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Brian S. Dunn,
Richard P. Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, Sandeep K. Khorana, Todd G.
Owens and Douglas F. Ray, the Investment Adviser, Fifth Street
Asset Management Inc. ("FSAM"), the Company and Fifth Street
Holdings L.P. as defendants.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders by, among other things,
perpetuating and failing to terminate the Company's investment
advisory agreement with Fifth Street Management LLC; seeking to
have existing board members and management remain in place; and
including certain disclosures in the Company's proxy materials,
including, among other things, the effect that termination of the
investment advisory agreement would have on the Company's debt
obligations, business and operations.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction preventing
the Company and its board of directors from soliciting proxies for
the 2016 annual meeting until additional disclosures are made; a
declaration that the defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties by refusing to terminate the investment advisory agreement
and by acting to have the Company's board of directors and Fifth
Street Management LLC remain in place; a declaration that any
shares repurchased by the Company after the record date of the
2016 annual meeting will not be considered outstanding shares for
purposes of the stockholder approvals sought at the annual
meeting; and awarding plaintiff costs and disbursements.


FISCARDO INC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Hernandez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Celso Hernandez and Jorge Lechuga, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Fiscardo, Inc. d/b/a
Orion Diner & Grill Astrinos Voumvourakis, Ioannis Akrriotis, and
Georgios Milatos, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00359-LTS
(S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wages,
overtime compensation, spread of hours pay, uniform-related
expenses, unlawful deductions, and other statutory penalties,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Fiscardo owns and operates the Orion Diner, which is an American
food diner located in Midtown Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S, Schaffer, Esq.
          Arsenio D. Rodriquez, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300 0375


FLINT, MI: Meeting Held Over Water Crisis Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Emery, writing for MLive, reports that hundreds of people
packed the Northbank Center in downtown Flint for an informational
meeting on class action lawsuits related to the city's water
crisis.

More than 300 people packed the grand ballroom Tuesday, Feb. 16,
with dozens more turned away because there wasn't enough room. The
informational meeting was for residents interested in becoming
part of lawsuits filed in connection to the water crisis.

Erin Brockovich has joined the Flint Water Class Action Legal
Team, but was unable to attend the informational meeting.  Instead
Brockovich talked to the audience over the phone and answered
questions.

Ms. Brockovich said Flint residents making their voices heard has
made the biggest impact in getting the city's story told.

"We continue to do our activist work, but I have to say . . . what
has made the biggest difference in this community is every single
one of you coming out and using your voices and standing up to
right and wrong," Ms. Brockovich said.  "You have become a model
example of how communities need to rally and take care of their
people for this entire country.  I have to say thank you and how
proud I am of every one of you."

Water and blood testing is something Ms. Brockovich said she
couldn't stress enough to Flint residents.  She said the legal
team will continue to work to get information out to residents.

"We will work diligently to provide information to you so you can
better protect your children, your loved ones, provide information
about your property, and as I said earlier it is very important
that everyone get tested.  I can't emphasize that enough," Ms.
Brockovich said.

Flint attorney Trachelle Young was one of several lawyers at the
meeting that spoke to residents.  She said the meeting was held to
inform residents about resources available to them, as well as the
lawsuits that were filed.

"We were here primarily to inform people about what's going on, to
educate them about the resources that are out there, about what
the symptoms and signs can be because everybody is different.
Some people are thinking 'Well I'm suffering from this, but not
that so maybe it's not lead poisoning.'" Ms. Young said.  "We
don't want people to self-assess themselves.  We want them to get
tested and to educate themselves, because when you educate
yourself, you arm yourself and you better prepare yourself to deal
with the situation."

Ms. Young is no stranger to the water crisis.  Ms. Young said the
water at her Flint home was tested by Virginia Tech researchers
and came back with elevated levels.

"Every day for the last few months I take my kids and we drive
outside of Flint.  I don't trust the water to the extent that we
don't shower in it, we don't bathe in it, we don't cook in it."
Ms. Young said.  "So we're eating out, we're eating over at
relatives' homes.  We have no trust at all as far as my house is
concerned.  We don't use it except for sewage purposes to flush
the toilet, because that's about what we think the water is
worth."

The Flint Water Class Action Legal Team explained the three
lawsuits that have been filed in federal, court of claims, and
circuit court. Young broke-down what each of the lawsuits claim.

"Basically the federal lawsuit deals with the U.S. Constitution,
so that's the Constitutional claims against the defendants."
Ms. Young said.  "Court of claims is the court you're required to
sue the state in.  Anytime you want to sue the state as a
defendant you have to go in the court of claims, so Snyder and the
state are named in the court of claims lawsuit.  The circuit court
case is dealing with intentional infliction of emotional distress
and it's named all the lower level government officials that made
decisions throughout this process that were not based on solid
evidence of any sort or those who were in their position and just
did not do their job."

Ms. Young said first and foremost, residents need to get their
blood and water tested.  She said test results today wouldn't
necessarily indicate lead exposure in the past.

"The test results are not something that you can strictly rely
upon because we know the life of the lead in your body is only
about 30 days," Ms. Young said.  "Just because you test negative
does not mean you have not been exposed.  So we still want people
to get tested because that will give you an indication of what's
in your body at that point in time."

Prudie Kelso lives in Flint and said she just got her blood tested
on Feb. 15.  Ms. Kelso said she has issues getting water to her
house because she is a senior citizen and has health issues.

"It's bad when your skin breaks out and you itch," Ms. Kelso said.
"You have to go get water every day to wash dishes and wash up."

Sandra Metcalf said the meeting gave her a lot of great
information.  She not only has rashes, but also lead poisoning.
Metcalf said she also has issues getting bottled water into her
home.

"It's hard for me to tote the water in, and then having to bathe
in it," Ms. Metcalf said.  "It's affecting a little bit of
everything.  Trying to deal with getting water in and having water
accessible to me and my grandkids."

The meeting also allowed residents to speak to the legal team and
talk to experts who provided information about testing, nutrition,
plumbing, housing issues, along with other important issues.

For more information about the lawsuits, visit
www.flintwaterclassaction.com


FLOYD COUNTY, NY:  Jail Strip-Search Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Depompei, writing for News and Tribune, reports that a
U.S. District Court judge in New Albany granted a request on
Feb. 16 that makes a lawsuit against the Floyd County Jail a class
action case.

A lawsuit was filed in June 2014 in which Tabitha Gentry -- who
was arrested March 20, 2014, on multiple misdemeanor charges --
claims she was forcibly stripped of her clothes, Tasered and
pepper-sprayed while being held in a padded cell for nearly five
hours.  She and six other plaintiffs who were held in padded cells
claim that punishment by jail officers during their incarceration
violated their constitutional rights.

The other plaintiffs are: Vincent Minton, Michael Herron,
Adam Walker, Brian Burgess, Anna Chastain and Janelle South.

With Chief Judge Richard Young's order to make the lawsuit a
class-action case, those seven plaintiffs now represent "all
inmates confined from June 12, 2013, to present in the Floyd
County jail who were not on a suicide watch, but were housed in a
padded cell where they were deprived of clothing, bedding and
hygiene products."

Also included in the lawsuit are "those class members who were
subjected to weapons deployment while confined and secured in the
padded cells."

The defendants named in the lawsuit are former Floyd County
Sheriff Darrell Mills and officers who were employed by the
sheriff's department at the time of the alleged incidents.

In the defense's response to a request for class-action status,
Jeffrey Lowe, the attorney representing Floyd County, said the
lawsuit should not be certified as class action because the court
would have to decide whether each plaintiff and potential class
member was wrongfully punished on an individual basis.  The
response, filed in August, further stated that the plaintiff's
examples of additional reports allegedly describing similar
treatment of other individuals by jail personnel are unfounded.

The defense claims that the behavior of the plaintiffs was "deemed
to pose a threat to the safety and security" of the jail at the
time.  Because of the perceived threat, in some cases, "plaintiffs
had their clothes removed, were provided a smock to cover them and
were placed in a padded cell by [themselves] until the threat was
removed."

The Floyd County Sheriff's Department's policy on combative
subject states that clothing is removed to "prevent the inmate
from further harming themselves, other inmates, and or staff."


GAONA LANDSCAPING: Faces "Vazquez" Suit for Alleged FLSA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAN VAZQUEZ v. GAONA LANDSCAPING, INC. and JOSE L. GAONA, Case:
1:16-cv-02162 (N.D.Ill., February 11, 2016), was brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal to Portal Act, and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendants' alleged failure to pay
wages and overtime wages to Plaintiff and a class of similarly
situated employees.

Defendant Gaona Landscaping, Inc. is a landscaping business
located in McHenry, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marty Denis, Esq.
     Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
     BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP
     525 West Monroe, Suite 2360
     Chicago, IL 60661
     Phone: (312) 648-5570


GEICO GENERAL: "Milligan" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages and Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorena M. Milligan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Geico General Insurance
Company And CCC Information Services Inc., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00240 (E.D.N.Y., Long Island Division, January 15,
2016), seeks to recover actual, consequential, and punitive
damages, equitable and declaratory relief, costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees under GEICO Policies and New York Law.

GEICO General Insurance Company provides personal automobile
insurance products. The company operates as a private passenger
auto insurer offering various insurance products, including auto
and motorcycle insurance; boat insurance; home, apartment, and
mobile home insurance; renter's insurance; flood insurance; and
personal umbrella protection. It offers its products and services
in the United States. GEICO General Insurance Company, Inc. was
formerly known as Equi-Gen Insurance Company and changed its name
to GEICO General Insurance Company, Inc. in September, 1982. The
company was founded in 1934 and is based in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Marc L. Newman, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: 248-841-2200
          E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  mln@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Ari Kresch, Esq.
          EXCOLO LAW GROUP
          26700 Lahser Rd.
          Southfield, MI 48033-2608
          Telephone: (248) 565 2099

GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violated Sherman Act, St. Cloud City Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
City of St. Cloud, Minnesota, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Reichl,
General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance
Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund,
Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S
Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC, Thatcher Group, Inc., Kemira
Chemicals, Inc., and John Does 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
0:16-cv-00091 (D. Minn., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover
damages over the Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act, by
conspiring to increase prices and otherwise restrain competition
in the market for Alum sold.

General Chemical manufactures specialty chemicals. The Company
provides refinery and chemical sulfuric acid regeneration
services. General Chemical serves the photographic, water
treatment and pharmaceutical industries. It is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


GEORGIA: Dept. of Driver Services Faces Suit Over Denied License
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kapil Sethi, Ignacio Blanco Sola, Jyotsnaben Patel, Indira
Nursalim, Munira Nasser, Badrudduza Nasser, Shree
Sravanirachakulla, Mohamed L. Camara v. Robert Mikell Commissioner
of Georgia Department of Driver Services, Case No. 2016CV269936
(Ga. Super. Ct., January 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for failure to provide a basis for the denial of the Petitioner's
application for a driver's license.

Robert Mikell is the Commissioner of Georgia Department of Driver
Services.

Georgia Department of Driver Services serves the public by
offering commercial and regular passenger vehicle driver's
licenses and driver's permits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin W. Chaney, Esq.
      JUSTIN W. CHANEY, LLC
      1801 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 110
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (678) 592-5432
      Facsimile: (678) 686-8473
      E-mail: jchaney@lawchaney.com


GERDES WHOLESALE: "Cabrajal" Suit Asserts FLSA & IMWL Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Flores Cabrajal, on behalf of himself, and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff,
v. Gerdes Wholesale Nursery, Inc., and Jason Gerdes, individually
the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-50007 (N.D. Ill., Western
Division, January 15, 2016), seeks to recover liquidated damages,
unpaid back wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Gerdes Wholesale Nursery is a wholesale nursery stock provider,
growing a variety of plants and trees, as well as purchasing a
variety of other plants and trees from other growers and
nurseries, and then selling them to clients throughout the United
States and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 840
          Chicago, IL, 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853 1450

               - and -

          Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
          FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER
          ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784 3541


GOLDEN STATE: "Parson" Sues Over Denied Breaks, Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
David Parson and Brandon Mitchell, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, and Mariah Gullat as an individual,
Plaintiffs, v. Golden State FC LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., Trueblue
Inc., SMX, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
RG15797524 (Cal. Super., Alameda County, December 22, 2015), seeks
penalties, damages and injunction resulting from unlawful denial
of rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide
accurate pay stubs in Violation of Labor Code 226, Unfair Business
Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code 17200,
violation of Labor Code Sec. 203 (Waiting Times).

Defendants engaged in the business of selling merchandise via an
online catalog and fulfilling orders at multiple large warehouses
referred to as "fulfillment centers" from which customer orders
were mailed or otherwise shipped to consumers. Plaintiffs worked
in such warehouses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
      Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
      John T. Stralen, Esq.
      CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APC
      865 Howe Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95825
      Tel: (916) 777-7777
      Fax: (916) 924-1829
      Email: jwatson@justice4you.com


GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces "Sain" Suit Over Deceptive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Sain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Ronnie Greathouse, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Goodman
Manufacturing Co., L.P., Goodman Company, L.P., and Goodman
Global, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-04006-SOH (W.D.
Ark., January 15, 2016), seeks damages and relief for Goodman's
unfair and unconscionable conduct of failing to disclose
evaporator coil defect in Goodman Units pursuant to the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The Defendant also allegedly failed to compensate consumers for
the service and labor costs they were forced to incur to hire HVAC
technicians to diagnose and repair the units.

Goodman Manufacturing Company designs, manufactures, and markets
air conditioning and heating equipment. It offers residential and
light commercial air conditioning, heating, and indoor air quality
products and systems. The company also provides residential
products, such as air conditioners, heat pumps, gas furnaces,
packaged units, controls and thermostats, indoor air quality
products, air handlers and coils, and mini-split systems. It
offers its products through a network of distributors and
independent installers in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1975 and is based in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Chad Trammell, Esq.
          Virginia C. Trammell, Esq.
          Melody H. Piazza, Esq.
          TRAMMELL PIAZZA LAW FIRM, PLLC
          418 North State Line Avenue
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 779 1860
          Facsimile: (870) 779 1861
          E-mail: chad@trammellpiazza.com
                  vctramrnell@hotrnail.com

               - and -

          Jim Wyly, Esq.
          Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
          WYLY-ROMMEL, PLLC
          4004 Texas Boulevard
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 334-8646
          Facsimile: (903) 334-8645
          E-mail: wyly@wylyyrommel.com
                  srommel@wylyrommel.com

               - and -

          Eric T. Bishop, Esq.
          BISHOP & BISHOP
          P.O. Box 609
          171 W. Main
          Ashdown, AR 71822
          E-mail: bishop-thad@sbcglobal.net


H&O INVESTMENTS: "Molina" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Molina, Mauricio Hernandez, Constantino Avila, Gabriel
Gutierrez and Wilson Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. H & O Investments
LLC, H & O Equipment LLC, d/b/a H & O Lawn 360, David Mahler Jr.,
Karen Stirling, Randall Gomez, Rick Summers and Roy H. Maughan
Jr., jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00377
(E.D. La., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

H & O Investments is an active Louisiana Limited Liability Company
with its principal place of business at Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:


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

               - and -

          Marco Balducci, Esq.
          PELTON + BALDUCCI, LLC
          1100 Poydras St., Ste. 2725
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 708 5400


HAIN CELESTIAL: $9.35MM Settlement in False Ad Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler entered an Order Approving Class-
Action Settlement, Dismissing Case, And Entering Final Judgment in
the case, ROSMINAH BROWN and ERIC LOHELA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE HAIN
CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, No. 3:11-cv-03082-LB (N.D.
Cal.).

The court finds the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable and
approves the final settlement, including fees, costs, and the
incentive awards to the named plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela bought Avalon
Organics(R) and JASON(R) brand cosmetic products that are
manufactured and marketed by the defendant The Hain Celestial
Group and then -- on behalf of themselves and other consumers --
sued Hain complaining that Hain falsely advertised, marketed,
sold, and labeled these and other products as organic, in
violation of 1) the California Organic Products Act of 2003
("COPA"), Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 110810, et seq., 2) the
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200
et seq., 3) the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ.
Code Sec. 1750, et seq., and 4) the California Commercial Code
provision regarding express warranties, Cal. Com. Code Sec. 2313.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that on May 11,
2011, Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, as well as a non-profit organization, filed
a putative class action in the Superior Court of California,
Alameda County against the Company. The complaint alleged that the
labels of certain Avalon Organics(R) brand and JASON(R) brand
personal care products used prior to the Company's implementation
of ANSI/NSF-305 certification in mid-2011 violated certain
California statutes. Defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The action was consolidated with a subsequently-filed putative
class action containing substantially identical allegations
concerning only the JASON(R) brand personal care products. The
consolidated actions sought an award for damages, injunctive
relief, costs, expenses and attorney's fees.  The court previously
certified two classes.

In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle with
the plaintiffs to settle the class action.  Hain will pay:

     -- $7.5 million cash and
     -- $1.85 million in coupons (plus $150,000 in redemption
        costs) redeemable for the two cosmetic-product brands at
        issue in the litigation: Avalon Organics(R) and JASON(R).

In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded a
charge of $5,725,000 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 (a
separate charge of $1,975,000 was recorded in prior years).

The parties finalized the settlement and the court granted
preliminary approval in October 2015.  The Court held a fairness
hearing on February 11, 2016.

A copy of the February 17, 2016 Settlement Approval Order is
available at http://is.gd/vJv39hfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lisa Margaret Burger, Esq.
     Howard Judd Hirsch, Esq.
     Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
     LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
     503 Divisadero Street
     San Francisco, CA 94117
     Tel: 415 913-7800
     Fax: 415 759-4112

          - and -

     Amir David Benakote, Esq.
     Behram Viraf Parekh, Esq.
     Heather Baker Dobbs, Esq.
     Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
     KIRTLAND AND PACKARD
     2041 Rosecrans Ave
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Tel: 310-536-1000
     E-mail: adb@kirtlandpackard.com
             bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
             hmb@kirtlandpackard.com
             mlk@kirtlandpackard.com

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, is
represented by:

     William Lewis Stern, Esq.
     Alexandra Eve Laks, Esq.
     Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq.
     James M. Schurz, Esq.
     Kathleen Brenna Roney, Esq.
     MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
     425 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
     Tel: (415) 268-7637
     E-mail: wstern@mofo.com
             alaks@mofo.com
             cvetesi@mofo.com
             jschurz@mofo.com
             kroney@mofo.com

Steven Helfand, Defendant, represented by:

     Steven F. Helfand, Esq.
     HELFAND LAW OFFICES
     582 Market Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     E-mail: steven@stevenhelfand.com

QAI, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Robert Laurence
Rosenthal, Attorney at Law.

NSF International, Interested Party, represented by Robert
Laurence Rosenthal, Attorney at Law.

Sheri Lee Williams, Objector, represented by Bradley David Salter,
Attorney at Law.

Dawn Weaver, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.


HALLIBURTON CO: 5th Cir. to Hear Appeal on Certification Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has granted the Company's petition
to appeal a district court ruling in a securities class action
lawsuit.

"In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against us in
federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws
after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an
investigation in connection with our change in accounting for
revenue on long-term construction projects and related
disclosures," the Company said. "In the weeks that followed,
approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against us.
Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our
present or former officers and directors. The class action cases
were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action
complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et
al., was filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese
of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.
AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).
We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004."

"In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by
the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the
resulting asbestos liability exposure.

"In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to
dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August
2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior
to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims
to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.

"In April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated
complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion
in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the
claims against all individual defendants other than our Chief
Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed
against our CEO and us.

"In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The
district court issued an order in November 2008 denying the motion
for class certification. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court's order denying class certification.

"In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth
Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in
order to obtain class certification and the case was returned to
the lower courts for further consideration.

"In January 2012, the district court issued an order certifying
the class. In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order
affirming the district court's order.

"Our writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court was
granted and in June 2014 the Supreme Court issued its decision,
maintaining the presumption of class member reliance through the
"fraud on the market" theory, but holding that we are entitled to
rebut that presumption by presenting evidence that there was no
impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentation.
Because the district court and the Fifth Circuit denied us that
opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's
decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the
Supreme Court decision.

"In December 2014, the district court held a hearing to consider
whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged
misrepresentations. On July 27, 2015, the district court denied
certification for the plaintiff class with respect to five of the
six dates upon which the plaintiffs claimed that disclosures
correcting previously misleading statements had been made that
resulted in an impact to the stock price. However, the district
court certified the class with respect to a disclosure made on
December 7, 2001 regarding an adverse jury verdict in an asbestos
case that plaintiffs alleged was corrective, leaving the
allegation relating to disclosure of the asbestos liability
exposure as the only remaining punitive class action claim. The
ruling was based on the district court's conclusion that the court
was required to assume at class certification that a disclosure
was actually corrective.

"We do not agree with that conclusion and filed a petition with
the Fifth Circuit seeking to appeal the ruling. On November 4,
2015, the Fifth Circuit granted our petition to appeal the
district court's ruling. The case will now be fully briefed and
argued before the Fifth Circuit. We cannot predict the outcome or
consequences of this case, which we intend to vigorously defend."


HAWKINS INC: Dismissed as Defendant in Antitrust Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hawkins, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 27, 2015, that the Company has
been dismissed as defendant in several civil antitrust class
action lawsuits.

During the end of the third fiscal quarter and the beginning of
the fourth fiscal quarter, the Company was named as a defendant in
several civil antitrust class action lawsuits filed in the federal
District Court in Minnesota.  These cases appear to have arisen
out of a series of recent federal criminal and civil lawsuits in
New Jersey alleging price fixing or bid rigging among
manufacturers of aluminum sulfate, or alum.  The lawsuits
erroneously alleged that Hawkins manufactures alum even though we
are only a distributor.   Accordingly, after working with the
attorneys for the plaintiffs in the various lawsuits, the Company
was dismissed as a defendant in each of the lawsuits in February
2016.


HEALTHPORT TECH: Removes Class Action Over Medical Record Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reports
that a health records company removed a Belleville attorney's
class action lawsuit alleging it charges unauthorized fees in
Illinois and Missouri.

HealthPort Technologies filed a notice of removal to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Jan. 11
through attorneys Jena Valdetero and Jonathan Potts of Bryan Cave
LLP in Chicago.

The Law Office of Brent Gaines, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed the lawsuit on Nov. 16 against
Healthport Technologies.

According to the complaint, Healthport Technologies contracts with
doctors and hospitals throughout the country to fulfill requests
for medical records. However, the suit alleges the defendant is
charging unnecessary fees.

In Illinois, Mr. Gaines alleges the defendant charges $20 for
copying medical records when there is actually no copying done.

Similarly, in Missouri, Gaines claims the defendant charges $22.82
to search and retrieve records when it isn't actually retrieving
anything.

The suit alleges the fees violate both states' laws.

As an example, the plaintiff explained that he sent a letter to
the defendant requesting copies of a client's medical records but
the defendant said there were no records for the dates indicated,
meaning no copying was performed.  But the plaintiff still
received a bill for the $20 fee.  He alleges a similar situation
occurred in Missouri.

The plaintiff seeks certification of the proposed class,
declaration that the defendant has violated the law, statutory,
punitive and monetary damages, monetary relief, court costs and
attorney's fees.

Mr. Gaines is represented by Brian T. Kreisler of The Kreisler Law
Firm in O'Fallon, Michael R. Reese and George V. Granade of Reese
LLC in New York City, and Melissa W. Wolchansky --
wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- of Halunen Law of Minneapolis.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 15-L-651


HF FINANCIAL: Defending "Stein" Class Suit in South Dakota
----------------------------------------------------------
HF Financial Corp. is defending a class action lawsuit by Shiva Y.
Stein, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015.

On December 14, 2015, Shiva Y. Stein, a purported stockholder of
the Company, filed a putative class action and derivative
complaint against the Company, each of the members of the
Company's Board of Directors and Great Western in the Circuit
Court of Minnehaha County, South Dakota, purportedly on behalf of
the public stockholders of the Company. The complaint asserts that
the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
purportedly failing to take adequate steps to enhance the
Company's stockholder value as a merger candidate and by not
acting independently to protect the interests of the Company's
stockholders. The complaint further asserts that the Company and
Great Western aided and abetted the purported breaches of
fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff seeks (i) a declaration that the action may be
maintained as a class action; (ii) injunctive relief to prevent
the consummation of the Merger; (iii) in the event the Merger is
consummated, rescission of the transaction or rescissionary
damages; (iv) an order directing the defendants to account to the
plaintiff for damages because of alleged wrongdoing; (v) an award
to plaintiff of costs and disbursements including attorneys' and
experts' fees; and (vi) other relief as may be just and proper.

The Company believes these claims are without merit, and are
vigorously defending this action. The Company cannot predict the
outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of loss from
these matters.


HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces "Elder" Suit for Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Elder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. and
Hilton Grand Vacations Company, Inc. the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00278-LB (N.D. Cal., January 15, 2016), seeks damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief, pursuant to the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law,
and California False Advertising Law.

The Plaintiff asserts breach of express warranty, breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, breach of contract, and
unjust enrichment against the Defendants.

Hilton Worldwide Holdings, a hospitality company, owns, leases,
manages, develops, and franchises hotels, resorts, and timeshare
properties worldwide. The company operates hotels under the Hilton
Hotels & Resorts, Waldorf Astoria Hotels & Resorts, Conrad Hotels
& Resorts, Canopy by Hilton, Curio - A Collection by Hilton,
DoubleTree by Hilton, Embassy Suites by Hilton, Hilton Garden Inn,
Hampton by Hilton, Homewood Suites by Hilton, Home2 Suites by
Hilton, and Hilton Grand Vacations brands. As of October 28, 2015,
it had approximately 4,500 managed, franchised, owned, and leased
hotels and timeshare properties with approximately 745,000 rooms
in 97 countries and territories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Julia A. Luster, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jluster@bursor.com

               - and -

          Jana Eisinger, Esq.
          MARTINEZ LAW GROUP
          720 South Colorado Boulevard
          South Tower, Suite 1020
          Denver, CO 80246
          Telephone: (303) 597 4000
          Facsimile: (303) 597 4001
          E-Mail: eisinger@mlgrouppc.com


II-VI INCORPORATED: To Defend Against Anadigics Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
II-VI Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is
aware of a class action complaint captioned Wes Zalewski v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., filed on January 27, 2016 in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Somerset County (the "Zalewski Litigation"),
which is related to the Company's proposed acquisition of
Anadigics, Inc. ("Anadigics") by means of a tender offer and
second-step merger.

In the Zalewski Litigation, the plaintiff, a stockholder in
Anadigics, generally alleges, among other things, that the members
of Anadigics's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to
Anadigics's shareholders, putting the board of directors' personal
interests ahead of the interests of Anadigics, using allegedly
unfair deal protection devices, and having an unfair and
inadequate process in negotiating the tender offer and the merger.

The plaintiff also has named the Company and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Regulus Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser"), as
defendants in the complaint, alleging that both Purchaser and II-
VI aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the
Anadigics board of directors. The plaintiff in the Zalewski
Litigation generally seeks, among other relief, declaratory and
injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the proposed tender
offer and merger, rescission of the proposed tender offer and
merger if consummated prior to final judgment, attorneys' fees and
expenses, and other forms of relief.

Purchaser and II-VI are reviewing the allegations in the Zalewski
Litigation, but believe the Zalewski Litigation is without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations. The
Company does not believe that a material loss related to this
claim is reasonably possible.

II-VI Incorporated, a worldwide leader in engineered materials and
opto-electronic components, is a vertically integrated
manufacturing company that develops innovative products for
diversified applications in the industrial, optical
communications, military, life sciences, semiconductor equipment,
and consumer markets. The Company produces a wide variety of
application-specific photonic and electronic materials and
components, and deploys them in various forms, including as
integrated with advanced software.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: April 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on
Feb. 16 disclosed that class action litigation has been brought on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. ("Insys" or the "Company")
between March 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you purchased or acquired Insys common stock during the Class
Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff
by no later than April 4, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.  You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Insys investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-
7358.

Background on the Insys Securities Class Litigation

Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes supportive care products.  Insys's
core product, Subsys, is a sublingual fentanyl spray approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") to treat
breakthrough cancer pain.

The action alleges that during the Class Period, Insys and certain
of its senior executives misrepresented and failed to disclose
that Insys was engaged in off-label marketing of Subsys, that
certain Insys employees were complicit in an illegal kickback
scheme pursuant to which Insys paid millions of dollars to medical
professionals in exchange for prescribing Subsys to patients, and,
as a result of the foregoing, Insys's financial results and
guidance were materially false and misleading.

On April 24, 2015, the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation
("SIRF") reported an increasing number of patient deaths from off-
label uses of Subsys.  Following this article, the price of Insys
stock fell $6.00 per share, or nearly 10%, to close at $56.42 per
share on the next trading day, April 27, 2015.

On May 20, 2015, two top prescribers of Subsys were reportedly
arrested by federal authorities and charged with conspiracy to
distribute controlled substances outside the usual course of
professional practice and to commit healthcare fraud.  Following
this news, Insys stock price fell $2.65 per share, or more than
4%, from its close on to close at $57.12 on May 20, 2015.

On June 25, 2015, The New York Times reported that a nurse who was
a top prescriber of Subsys pled guilty to federal charges of
accepting kickbacks from Insys.  On this news, Insys's stock price
fell another $3.00 per share, or nearly 8%, from its closing price
on June 24, 2015, to close at $35.74.

On December 3, 2015, SIRF reported that Insys's prior
authorization unit routinely changed insurance codes for patients'
diagnoses to ones for "cancer" and engaged in other misconduct to
deceive insurers.  Following this news, Insys stock price fell
another $5.93 per share, or nearly 19%, to close at $26.06 on
December 3, 2015.

On January 25, 2016, SIRF reported that Insys executives have
continued to pressure the Company's employees to develop new
schemes to promote Subsys for off-label uses.  On this news, Insys
stock price fell another $1.07 per share, or more than 4%, from
its close on January 24, 2016, to close at $21.58 on January 25,
2016.

                    About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally
recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors
and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for thirteen years.  In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated
unusual dedication and creativity." Best Lawyers and U.S. News
have named Lieff Cabraser as a "Law Firm of the Year" for each
year the publications have given this award to law firms.


ISORAY INC: April 21 Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------
IsoRay, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that oral argument is
scheduled on this motion on April 21, 2016, on IsoRay's motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit.

On May 22, 2015, the first of three lawsuits was filed against
IsoRay, Inc. and two of its officers -- Dwight Babcock and Brien
Ragle -- related to a press release on May 20, 2015 regarding a
May 19 online publication of the peer-reviewed article in the
journal Brachytherapy titled "Analysis of Stereotactic Radiation
vs. Wedge Resection vs. Wedge Resection Plus Cesium-131
Brachytherapy in Early-Stage Lung Cancer" by Dr. Bhupesh Parashar,
et al. The lawsuits are class actions alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. By Order dated August 17, 2015, all of
the pending lawsuits were consolidated into one case -- In re
IsoRay, Inc. Securities Litigation; Case No. 4:15-cv-05046-LRS, in
the US District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
IsoRay retained Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati as its and its
officers' defense counsel.

On October 16, 2015, an amended complaint was filed with more
detailed allegations relating to violations of federal securities
laws and requesting damages through a jury trial. Mr. Ragle was
dismissed from the complaint. On December 15, 2015, IsoRay filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint altogether. Oral argument is
scheduled on this motion on April 21, 2016.

IsoRay believes the lawsuit is without merit and is seeking its
dismissal.

IsoRay, Inc. is a brachytherapy device manufacturer with FDA
clearance and CE marking for two medical devices that can be
delivered to the physician in multiple configurations as
prescribed. The Company manufactures and sells these products as
the Proxcelan(R) Cesium-131 brachytherapy seed and the GliaSite(R)
Radiation Therapy System (GliaSite(R) RTS). Each brachytherapy
seed order is manufactured to the physician's specifications for a
named patient on a specific treatment date. The GliaSite(R) RTS
utilizes a balloon catheter system, which allows the physician to
later place a specified dose of radioisotope (either Cesitrex(R)
or Iotrex(R) solution) in the treatment location.


JNP BUS: Violated FLSA, New York Labor Law, "Xu" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Xi Qun Xu and Yi Di Xue, individually and on behalf all other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JNP Bus Service
Inc., Taos Global Group Inc., Xiao Long Chen, Wen Liang Wu, Pei
Gen Tao, John Does and Jane Does No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00245 (E.D.N.Y., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law, New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

The Plaintiffs also seek damages for illegal termination of up to
$5,000 per Plaintiff; up to $5,000 per Plaintiff for Defendants
failure to provide a paystub that lists employee's name,
employer's name, employer's address and telephone number,
employee's rate or rates of pay, any deductions made from
employee's wages, any allowances claimed as part of the minimum
wage, and employees gross and net wages for each pay day;
liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid minimum wage, unpaid
"spread of hours" premium, unpaid overtime pursuant to the NY Wage
Theft Prevention Act; and prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

JNP Bus Service owns and operates a garage that services and
repairs buses in Brooklyn, NY located at Clinton Street, Brooklyn,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


KELLOGG, BROWN: Veterans File Class Action over Toxic Burn Pits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Hickman, writing for Vice News, reports that at the start
of America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military commanders
were faced with a seemingly mundane problem: how to dispose of the
wreckage created by bombs and battle, and the waste created by
more than 100,000 military personnel.  This soon became a serious
issue -- every soldier was said to be producing an average of 10
pounds of trash per day -- and the DOD decided to construct open-
air burn pits on military bases to incinerate the trash.

The Pentagon contracted the firm Kellogg, Brown, and Root (KBR) to
get the job done, and by May of 2003, there were more than 270
burn pits operating on military bases across Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many of the pits were massive -- some as large as 10 acres,
burning more than 50 tons of trash a day.  Most pits operated 24
hours a day, seven days a week, in close proximity to where
service members slept and worked. The acrid smoke and ash from the
pits was a constant annoyance to soldiers.

From 2002 until 2009, there was no regulation for what could or
could not be burned.  And so KBR burned Styrofoam, plastics,
tires, pesticide containers, batteries, medical waste, and even
human body parts.  According to a 2010 Government Accountability
Report, more than 1,000 known toxins and carcinogens were burned
in the pits.

As early as 2004, US veterans returning home from the wars began
to get sick.  Their symptoms often started out as annoyances --
constant congestion, endlessly runny noses.  But the symptoms
didn't always go away; instead, they would get worse, leading to
shortness of breath, constant pain, and an inability to work.

For the sickest vets, there were diagnoses of cancer.  And,
eventually, death.

Thousands of men and women were getting sick because of their
exposure to the burn pits; over the past few years, Mr. Hickman
have poken with about 150 of them.  The Department of Defense
(DOD), however, denied the burn pits were a health hazard, blocked
veterans from getting the medical assistance and compensation they
needed, and shielded KBR.

Military service members started to become ill with rare and
mysterious bronchial diseases and cancers.  These veterans -- the
vast majority of whom were completely healthy before deploying --
came to believe their illnesses were caused from their exposure to
the burn pits, but when they sought treatment at Veteran's
Administration (VA) hospitals and filed for disability benefits,
the DOD denied that the pits were a hazard, and the VA sided with
the DOD.  Almost every veteran who sought benefits based on
exposure to burn pits had his or her claim denied.  It is hard to
prove a war injury not created by a bullet or grenade.

Veterans decided to take legal action.  Because of a federal law
known as the Farris Doctrine, military members and veterans cannot
sue the Pentagon for compensation for injury or death.  So many
veterans decided to join a class-action lawsuit and sue KBR,
alleging that the contractor knew it had constructed the burn pits
too close to where soldiers were housed and knew that what was
being burned was hazardous.  KBR, however, claims that the
military chose both the locations of the burn pits and the makeup
of what was burned. The DOD is staying silent on the issue,
neither agreeing nor disagreeing with KBR.  Many lawyers I
interviewed who are familiar with the case believe this is a
coordinated legal strategy; it creates a legal limbo in which no
one can seemingly be held accountable.

Fourteen years after the wars began, there are tens of thousands
of veterans who are still sick.  Many of them are dying from what
they believe was their exposure to the burn pits.  Very few have
received benefits from the VA for their illnesses.  Many are so
sick they can't work and are going broke. DOD officials have done
nothing to help them.

A clear pattern has emerged regarding these illnesses, and the VA
should acknowledge that pattern and take action.  The DOD must
take responsibility and stop denying its involvement in creating
the burn pits, admitting there were health hazards associated with
exposure.  And KBR must provide compensation to sick veterans.  It
is what's owed to the service members who selflessly went to war
on behalf of the United States.


KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN: "Restivo" Files Suit Over Acorn Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Restivo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Norman H.
Wesley, Barbara D. Carlini, John D. Hayes, Brian P. Kelley, A.D.
David Mackay, Michael J. Mardy, Hinda Miller, David E. Moran, Jos‚
Octavio Reyes Lagunes, Susan Saltzbart Kilsby, Robert A. Steele,
Acorn Holdings B.V., Maple Holdings Acquisition Corp. and JAB
Holdings B.V., Defendants, Case No. 11840 (Del. Ch., December 23,
2015), seeks damages, attorney's fees and equitable relief for
breach of fiduciary duties.

According to the complaint, Acorn Holdings would acquire all of
the outstanding shares of Keurig in a merger. The Board agreed to
certain onerous deals in favor of Acorn that are generally
unfavorable to the stockholders.

John Restivo is a shareholder of Kuerig.

Norman H. Wesley, Barbara D. Carlini, John D. Hayes, Brian P.
Kelley, A.D. David Mackay, Michael J. Mardy, Hinda Miller, David
E. Moran, Jose Octavio Reyes Lagunes, Susan Saltzbart Kilsby and
Robert A. Steele are members of the Board of Kuerig.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

           - and -

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Marc Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      2 Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Tel: (610) 667-6200


KLA-TENCOR CORP: MOU Reached to Settle Lam Research Merger Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a memorandum of
understanding has been reached to settle litigation relating to
the Merger Agreement between KLA and Lam Research Corporation
("Lam").

Certain legal actions against KLA, the members of the KLA board of
directors (the "KLA Board"), Lam, Topeka Merger Sub 1, Inc.
("Merger Sub 1"), and Topeka Merger Sub 2, Inc. ("Merger Sub 2")
were brought in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger
and Reorganization, dated October 20, 2015, by and among Lam, KLA,
Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2 (the "Merger Agreement"). These
legal actions consist of (i) the action captioned Rooney v.
Wallace, et al., Case No. 11700, pending in the Court of Chancery
in the State of Delaware (the "Rooney Action"), (ii) the action
captioned Hedgecock v. KLA-Tencor Corp., et al., Case No.
115CV287329, pending in the California Superior Court for Santa
Clara County (the "Hedgecock Action"), (iii) the action captioned
Karr v. KLA-Tencor Corp., et al., Case No. 115CV287331, pending in
the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County (the "Karr
Action"), and (iv) the action captioned Spoleto Corp. v. Wallace,
et al., Case No. 115CV289552, pending in the California Superior
Court for Santa Clara County (the "Spoleto Action," and together
with the Rooney Action, the Hedgecock Action, and the Karr Action,
the "Actions"). The Hedgecock Action and the Karr Action were
brought in October 2015; the Rooney Action was brought in November
2015; and the Spoleto Action was brought in December 2015.

Each of the Actions challenges the proposed sale of KLA to Lam as
a putative class action filed on behalf of KLA's stockholders. The
Actions collectively allege that (i) the KLA Board breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing KLA to agree to a
merger transaction with Lam, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2 (the
"Lam Group") at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process,
and making disclosures concerning the transaction that are
materially misleading, and (ii) KLA and the Lam Group aided and
abetted such breaches. The plaintiffs in each of the Actions seek
to enjoin or rescind KLA's transaction with the Lam Group, as
applicable, as well as an award of damages and attorney's fees, in
addition to other relief.

Agreement in Principle to Resolve Merger-Related Litigation

On February 5, 2016, an agreement in principle was reached with
the plaintiffs in the Rooney Action, Hedgecock Action, and Spoleto
Action to settle those actions. Pursuant to the agreement in
principle, as set forth in a signed memorandum of understanding,
the parties agreed to resolve disputed legal claims and KLA and
Lam agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the
proposed merger of KLA with and into a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Lam, whereby KLA will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lam, as
set forth in this Current Report on Form 8-K. None of the
defendants in the Actions has admitted wrongdoing of any kind,
including that there were any inadequacies in any disclosure, any
breach of any fiduciary duty or aiding or abetting any of the
foregoing. The agreement in principle is expected to be further
memorialized in a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject
to customary terms and conditions, including court approval, and
will include an agreement by the plaintiffs, on behalf of a class
of KLA stockholders, to provide a release of claims of KLA
stockholders against KLA, Lam, Merger Sub 1, Merger Sub 2, and
their respective officers and directors. The settlement will not
affect the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders of KLA
in connection with the acquisition of KLA by Lam or the timing of
the special meetings of the stockholders of KLA and Lam. This
Current Report on Form 8-K should be read in conjunction with the
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

Plaintiff in the Karr Action has agreed to either dismiss his
action or join the memorandum of understanding through an
amendment thereto, by February 9, 2016. The proposed settlement is
conditioned on the dismissal of the Karr Action, whether by
plaintiff Karr individually or through plaintiff Karr joining the
memorandum of understanding.


KOENIG'S INC: Owners Face "Velasquez" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Velasquez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. William Fitzgerald, Lori Fitzgerald and
John Does 1-3. Defendants, Case No. 16-009018-AB (N.Y. Sup.,
Nassau County, October 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime, spread of hours and uniform maintenance
compensation with corresponding liquidated damages under the New
York Labor Law, liquidated damages as a result of failure to
furnish a notice at the time of hiring, correct wage statements,
failure maintain records, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
and further equitable relief under the New York Labor Law.

Defendants own and operate Koenig's Restaurant Corp., a New York
Corporation with principal place of business at 86 South Tyson
Avenue, Floral Park, New York 11001.

Velasquez worked as a cook at Koenig's. He claims to have worked
in excess of forty hours a week, without compensation for the
overtime hours rendered. He typically worked more than ten hours
each day during the week, without being paid spread of hours
wages. He also never received wage statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marous Monteiro, Esq.
      MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
      91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
      Hempstead, NY 11550
      Tel: (516) 280-4600
      Fax: (516) 280-4530
      Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: March 24 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------
LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a court is
scheduled to hear the motion to dismiss the amended complaint the
federal securities class action on March 24, 2016.

A consolidated securities class action captioned In re LeapFrog
Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-CV-00347-
EMC, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against LeapFrog and two of its
officers, John Barbour and Raymond L. Arthur (the "Class Action").
The consolidated complaint, filed on June 24, 2015, alleges that
defendants violated Section 10(b) the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by
making materially false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial projections, financial results, and
development of new products between May 5, 2014 and June 11, 2015.
The complaint also alleges that defendants are liable as control-
person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint
seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.

Based on a review of the allegations, the Company and the
individual defendants believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims.
A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on October
8, 2015. At the hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss, the
Court stated that it perceived significant problems with the
plaintiff's allegations and directed the plaintiff to file a
further amended complaint that pleads more particularized facts.
The amended complaint was filed on December 4, 2015.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
January 15, 2016. The Court is scheduled to hear the Company's
motion to dismiss on March 24, 2016.


LEAR CORP: Settlement with End-Payor Purchasers Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a settlement agreement
between the Company and the class of end-payor purchasers of
automotive wire harnesses remains subject to the final court
approval.

Beginning on October 5, 2011, several plaintiffs filed putative
class action complaints in several United States federal district
courts against the Company and several other global suppliers of
automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust and related laws. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and
indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the
Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period.
The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices
at which automotive wire harnesses were sold and that this had an
anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce in the United
States. The complaints further allege that defendants fraudulently
concealed their alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs in these
proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified
amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses relating to the
proceedings, including attorneys' fees.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions (the "Consolidated Cases"), for pretrial
purposes, into one proceeding in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court").

In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to
litigate the Consolidated Cases, the Company entered into
settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Cases on May 5, 2014 (the "Settlement Agreements"), under which
the class plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases will release the
Company from all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of
action. The Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the
Company of any wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it
violated no laws in connection with these matters. Because the
conduct alleged by the class plaintiffs overwhelmingly relates to
periods prior to the Company's emergence from bankruptcy
proceedings in 2009, the Settlement Agreements provide that the
aggregate settlement amount of $8.75 million will consist of
$370,263 in cash contributed by the Company with the remainder
paid in outstanding common stock and warrants of the Company held
in the bankruptcy reserve established under the Company's plan of
reorganization.

The Settlement Agreements were approved by the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 27,
2014, and preliminarily approved, on the record in open court, by
the District Court on July 1, 2014. The Settlement Agreement
between the Company and the class of direct purchasers received
the final approval of the District Court on December 3, 2014. The
Settlement Agreement between the Company and the class of auto
dealers received the final approval of the District Court on
December 7, 2015. The Settlement Agreement between the Company and
the class of end-payor purchasers remains subject to the final
approval of the District Court, which will be decided following
the provision of notice to purported class members and a hearing
to confirm the fairness of the settlement.

Lear Corporation is a leading Tier 1 supplier to the global
automotive industry.  Lear supplies seating, electrical
distribution systems and electronic modules, as well as related
sub-systems, components and software, to virtually every major
automotive manufacturer in the world.


LET THERE BE BAGELS: "Amon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Amon, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff, v. Let There Be
Bagels PW, Inc., Yuriy Murgat, Worn Simon and Simon Varon,
Defendants, Case No. CV-0094 (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2016), seeks an
injunction, award of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
and/or punitive damages for failure to pay overtime compensation
and minimum wage, statutory penalties and prejudgment, and other
and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Amon was hired by the Defendants to work in the kitchen for
Defendants' bakery located at 475 Port Washington Blvd., Port
Washington, New York 11050 as a salad preparer, stock person and
dishwasher. He claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per
workweek without overtime compensation.

Let There Be Bagels PW, Inc., is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of New York, with a principal place of
business located at 475 Port Washington Blvd., Port Washington,
New York 11050 with Yuriy Murgat is owner and Principal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: 212-465-1188
      Fax: 212-465-1181


LIVANOVA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Heater-Cooler Device
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Stauffer, writing for Lancaster Online, reports that some
patients who may have been exposed to potentially deadly infection
during open-heart surgeries at two regional hospitals have filed a
class-action lawsuit seeking aggregate damages in excess of $5
million.

Two York County residents have filed the lawsuit in federal court
against LivaNova PLC, which is based in Italy and manufactures the
heater-cooler device used in the surgeries.

The class-action lawsuit was filed by Philadelphia-based firm
Anapol Weiss on behalf of the York County residents and others
like them who had open-heart surgery at either WellSpan Health
York Hospital or Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center.

The lawsuit says the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has linked the infection risk to the device.

WellSpan reported in October that about 1,300 patients who had
open-heart surgeries at their York Hospital between Oct. 1, 2011,
and July 24, 2015, may have been exposed to the infection -- and
that the infection was likely a contributing factor in four
deaths.

Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center made a similar report
in November, saying that about 2,300 patients who had open-heart
surgery there between Nov. 5, 2011, and Nov. 5, 2015, may have
been affected.

The hospitals are offering free screening and treatment to exposed
individuals, but the lawsuit says it is unknown how long that will
last.

The plaintiffs are seeking to have the devices declared unsafe and
LivaNova held responsible for the cost of monitoring the patients.

Both hospitals said they have now replaced all of the devices, but
the plaintiffs say that other hospitals in Pennsylvania continue
to use them.

LivaNova has issued revised cleaning and disinfecting protocols
for the device, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has
asked hospitals to follow them.

Lancaster County hospitals said they have not uncovered instances
of the infection and follow the new cleaning and disinfecting
procedures for the device.


LOS ANGELES, CA: LA Fire Dept Employees Files Wage and Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford R. Anderson, Marvin D. Anderson, Eugene M. Andrews,
Humberto Aponte, John R. Arce, Martin O. Avila, Alan K. Babin,
John T. Benn, Ruthie Bernal, Jennifer Boscoe, Mark S. Chase,
Braxton Clark, Dennis Clay, Dennis A. Clemons, Shawn Connolly,
Nicolas R. Cruz, John I. Dallas Jr., Shawn L. Dean, Federico G.
Delavega Jr., Daniel Delgadillo, James Fisher, Benjamin Flores,
Carlos Gallegos, Frank Godoy, Kenneth F. Guardado, Martin,
Gutierrez, Sir R. Habersham IV, Brian Halley, Kwante L. Hampton,
Craig P. Hancock, Reynaldo Husband, Leon Jones, Paul Jordan,
Cynthia Josselyn, Rickey King, Marcus D. Law, Lee Lewis, Marcus A.
Lidy, Derricke Lockhart, Glenn Martinez, Oscar Martinez, Lance V.
Matthews, Eric V. McGlover, Kenneth Meyer, David R. Miranda,
Alexander A. Molina, Carlos Morez, Aaron G. Mungaray, Bryan
Nassour, Erick Nieves, John Novela, Gabriel Orona, Linsay
Pellegrini, Mario Pinel, Timothy Pleasant, Clinton Pruiet, Russell
K. Rawls, Michael Reddy, Benjamin Reyes, David Riles, Alberto Ros
Jr., Bernard Sanchez, Richard M. Sesma, Mark Siddens, Donald A.
Smith, Cindy A. Struck, Warren Sutton, Thomas J. Teora, Paul A.
Terris, Gerald R. Travens, Gilbert T. Urrea Jr., Anthony T.
Valdez, Ray Valles, John Vigil, Aaron Walker, John L. Williams,
Plaintiffs, v. City Of Los Angeles, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00187 (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2016), seeks back pay compensation,
liquidated damages equal to his/her unpaid compensation, plus pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and the costs and other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq.

Plaintiffs work as fire inspectors for the Los Angeles Fire
Department. They were assigned to work four 10-hour shifts each
week. In addition to this schedule, plaintiffs routinely work an
additional 10-hour shift causing them to work over 40 hours in a
workweek and are routinely credited with compensatory time on an
hour-for-hour basis without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lester G. Ostrov, Esq.
      LESTER G. OSTROV, PROFESSIONAL CORP.
      5757 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse 5
      Los Angeles, CA 90036
      Tel: (323) 424-3440
      Fax: (323) 424-3468
      Email: lostrov@lgolaw.com

                - and -

      Thomas A. Woodley, Esq.
      Michael R. Willats
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY
      1101 Vermont Ave, N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 833-8855
      Fax: (202) 452-1090
      Email: taw@wmlaborlaw.com
             mrw@wmlaborlaw.com


MAG BUILDERS: "Chacon" Suit Asserts FLSA, NYLL Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR CHACON, LUIS CHACON and RICARDO RUIZ, v. MAG BUILDERS, INC.
and TOMAFZ SKROVZKI, Case 1:16-cv-01075 (S.D.N.Y., February 11,
2016), seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2)
liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

MAG Builders is a custom-home builder.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     Shin Hahn, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


MANASSEH JORDAN: Faces "Molitor" Suit Over Automated Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Molitor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Manasseh Jordan Ministries, Inc. and Yakim
Manasseh Jordan, Case No. 2016CH00079 (Ill. Cir. Ct., January 5,
2015) seeks to put a stop to the incessant and abusive spam
robocalling practices to constantly find new donors and generate
new lines of revenue.

The Defendants operate a non-profit organization that conducts
business and solicits payments throughout Cook County, the State
of Illinois, and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              erapp@edelson.com


MANHATTAN NUVO: Violated FLSA AND NYLL, "Bonini" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darianna Bonini and Christa Rodriguez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Manhattan Nuvo, LLC, d/b/a Le Reve Restaurant & Lounge, Jouseph
Shenouda, and Adam Attia, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00335-
VEC (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2016), seeks:

  * to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages,
    damages for requiring Plaintiffs to participate in illegal
    tip pool,

  * liquidated damages and all other remedies prescribed by the
    FLSA and the New York Law,

  * injunctive relief to enjoin the Defendants from future
    violations of federal and state law, and

  * attorneys' fees and costs as provided by statute.

Manhattan Nuvo is a corporation duly organized and existing under
New York law. It operates an establishment doing business at East
54th Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James F. Woods, Esq.
          WOODS LONERGAN & READ PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 300
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 684 2500
          Facsimile: (212) 684 2512
          E-mail: jwoods@wlesq.com

               - and -

          Erik H. Langeland. Esq.
          LANGELAND LAW
          733 3rd Avenue, 15 Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 354 6270
          Facsimile: (212) 898 9086
          E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com


MANNKIND CORPORATION: Faces "Ardolino" Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Ardolino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mannkind Corporation, Alfred Mann,
Matthew Pfeffer, and Hakan Edstrom, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00348 (C.D. Cal., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal
securities law and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

MannKind Corp., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of therapeutic
products for diseases, such as diabetes. The company's primary
approved product, AFREZZA is a rapid-acting inhaled insulin that
is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2014 to
improve glycemic control in adult patients with diabetes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683)
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


MCESSY INVESTMENT: "Amador" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Amador, on behalf of himself and other Plaintiffs similarly
situated v. McEssy Investment Company d/b/a McDonald's and William
H. McEssy, Case No. 1:16-cv-00789 (N.D. Ill., January 19, 2016)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate McDonald's restaurants throughout
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marty Denis, Esq.
      Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
      BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP
      525 West Monroe, Suite 2360
      Chicago, IL 60661
      Telephone: (312) 648-5570


MCKEE FOODS: "Juan" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Cal. Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Juan, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. McKee Foods
Corp., and Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00058 (C.D.
Cal, January 15, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, pursuant
to the California Labor Code.

McKee Foods engages in the production and distribution of snack
cakes in the United States and Canada. Its products include
granola bars and cereals, fudge dipped granola bars, fruit and
grain bars, seasonal bars, and sweet and salty granola bars;
brownies, cakes, cookies, donuts, muffins, pastries, pies, snack
bars, and seasonal snacks; and steel cut oats, bulgur wheat, oat
bran, and pie crusts. The company was formerly known as McKee
Baking Company and changed its name to McKee Foods Corporation in
1991. McKee Foods was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in
Collegedale, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G. Emilio, Esq.
          Laurie M. Cortez, Esq.
          EMILIO LAW GROUP APC
          12832 Valley View Street, Suite 106
          Garden Grove, CA 92845
          Telephone: (714) 379 6239
          Facsimile: (714) 379 5444


MID-ATLANTIC LUBE: "Hoover" Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Hoover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Mid-Atlantic Lubes, Inc. trading as Jiffy
Lube and Mark I. Rhee, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00064-PD (E.D.
Pa., January 7, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wage and unpaid
overtime pay from Defendants for all overtime hours worked, as
well as liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees
and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 201, et seq, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law, 43 PS. Sec. 260.1 et seq. and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act, 43 RS. Sec. 333.101, et seq.

The Defendant is a California Corporation engaged primarily in the
operation of automobile service shops whose services range from
oil changes and battery maintenance to engine repair.

Hoover worked for Jiffy Lube at its Warminster, Pennsylvania
location as an Assistant Manager. He claims to have rendered in
excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime compensation.

      Eric Meyer, Esq.
      Jerry R. DeSiderato, Esq.
      DILLWORTH PAXSON LLP
      1500 Market Street, Suite 350oE
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 575-7000
      Email: emeyer@di1worthlaw.com
             jdesiderato@dillworthlaw.com

              - and -

      Steven K. Eisenberg, Esq.
      Evan Barenbaum, Esq.
      STERN & EISENBERG, P.C.
      1581 Main Street, Suite 200
      Warrington, PA 18976-3400
      Tel: (267) 620-2130
      Email: ebarenbaum@stemeisenberg.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Mercado, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00038-WJM-MF
(D.N.J., January 4, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

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

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


MODEL N: Mediated Settlement Reached in Consolidated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Model N, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that all parties have
reached a mutually acceptable resolution of a consolidated class
action lawsuit by way of a mediated settlement.

On September 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015, purported securities
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
executive officers and underwriters of the initial public offering
(IPO). The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of the
Company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who
purchased the Company's stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages
and other relief. On March 2, 2015, the Court entered an order
consolidating the two class action lawsuits.

On November 4, 2015, all parties reached a mutually acceptable
resolution by way of a mediated settlement. The Company does not
believe that its portion of the settlement amount will be material
to its results of operations.


MONSANTO CO: Brief in "Mirzaie" 9th Cir. Appeal Due July 25
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elvis Mirzaie, et al v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 16-55228 (9th
Cir, Feb. 12, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a lower court decision
in a fraud class action, Case No. 2:15-cv-04361-DDP-FFM (C.D.
Cal., June 9, 2015).

Appellants Edison Mirzaie, Elvis Mirzaie and Romi Mirzaie's
opening brief is due July 25, 2016.

Appellee Monsanto Company's answering brief due Aug. 24, 2016.

Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of
the answering brief.

Elvis Mirzaie and Romi Mirzaie, as individuals and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

     T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
     T MATTHEW PHILLIPS LAW OFFICES
     10040 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 170
     Las Vegas, NV 89129
     Tel: 323-314-6996

Monstanto Company, a Delaware corporation, is represented by:

     Stephen R. Smerek, Esq.
     WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
     333 South Grand Avenue
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: 213-615-1700


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Status Sought for Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that lawyers for
the plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and 11
major conferences on Feb. 17 filed documents that began the
process of asking a federal judge to grant class-action status to
groups of athletes seeking monetary damages based on the
difference between the value of a traditional athletic scholarship
and one that also covers the full cost of attending college.

Much of the Feb. 17 filing with U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken
in Oakland was provisionally made under seal, but prior filings in
the case and reporting this past August by USA TODAY Sports
concerning the value of cost-of-attendance-based scholarships that
some Division I schools began awarding this school year indicate
the prospective classes could cover tens of thousands of athletes
and hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

In a separate portion of this case and in another related case,
Judge Wilken already has granted class-action status to groups of
athletes challenging the NCAA's new cost-of-attendance-based
limits on the compensation athletes can receive while playing
college sports.  In that portion of this case, and in the other
related case, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would
nullify the new limits. The NCAA and the conferences have begun
the process of asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
overturn Judge Wilken's ruling.

Judge Wilken is the same judge who handled the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit
and found that the NCAA's limits on what major-college football
and men's basketball players can receive for playing sports
"unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws.

That finding was upheld by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit,
although the panel -- by a 2-1 margin -- threw out Judge Wilken's
plan that would have allowed schools to provide athletes deferred
compensation of as much as $5,000 per year.  The panel's majority
ruled that the law "requires that the NCAA permit its schools to
provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes.
It does not require more."  The O'Bannon plaintiffs' bid for a re-
hearing by an 11-member panel of the 9th Circuit has been
rejected, and the parties have until mid-March to decide whether
to ask the Supreme Court to take the case.

Both the damages and the injunctive portions of the suit at issue
in the Feb. 17 filing are being led primarily by lawyers from
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  The related case, which seeks
the injunction -- but not damages -- is being directed primarily
by Jeffrey Kessler.  It is being pursued on behalf of plaintiffs
led by former Clemson football player Martin Jenkins and two
current Wisconsin athletes: basketball player Nigel Hayes and
football player Alec James.  It covers football and men's
basketball players in the power conferences.

However, when Judge Wilken granted class-action status to the
groups of plaintiffs seeking an injunction, she noted that if
groups of athletes seeking damages were granted class-action
status, the plaintiffs intended to delay pursuit of the Jenkins
case pending completion of a jury trial in the damages case.

The request being made on Feb. 17 regarding damages classes
relates to groups of plaintiffs outlined in an amended version of
a case initially filed in March 2014 on behalf of former West
Virginia football player Shawne Alston.  Mr. Alston remains a
named plaintiff, but the initial case was consolidated with other
suits involving athletes in other sports. According to a revised
filing of the suit in July 2014, it now seeks to cover Bowl
Subdivision football players, Division I men's basketball players
and Division I women's basketball players who received athletic
scholarships.  Although the NCAA and 11 conferences are named as
defendants, other Division I schools and conferences are alleged
to have been co-conspirators.

Because of federal antitrust law, the prospective classes would be
allowed to reach back and attempt to cover athletes who were on
scholarship in those three sports during the four years prior to
the suit's initial filing.  The suit also seeks to cover athletes
in those three sports subsequent to the suit's initial filing who
received -- or are still receiving -- athletic scholarships that
do not cover the full cost of attendance.

As a result, the prospective class could cover five-plus years of
athletes in Bowl Subdivision football, which covers more than 120
schools and has a scholarship limit of 85. Division I basketball
covers more than 330 schools and has a scholarship limit of 13 for
men's teams and 15 for women's teams.

With $3,000 to $3,500 as the average differential between a
scholarship that does not cover the full cost of attendance and a
scholarship that covers cost of attendance, the damages being
sought in the case potentially could be between $250 million and
$350 million.

Under antitrust law, if a jury decides to award damages to a
plaintiff, that amount is tripled.

If this portion of the case results in any of the prospective
classes not being granted class-action status, the case could be
limited to some or all of the named plaintiffs only.

Since the beginning of the 2015-16 school year, colleges have been
allowed to award athletic scholarships that cover tuition, room,
board, books, fees and other incidental expenses up to the full
cost of attending college.  Prior to this year, schools could not
cover those incidentals -- part of what was at issue in the
O'Bannon case.  While the NCAA pursued its appeal of Judge
Wilken's verdict in the case to the 9th Circuit, the association's
wealthiest conferences enacted a rules change that put the new
scholarship model in place before Judge Wilken's ruling would have
required it.


NEWBRIDGE BANCORP: MOU Reached in Yadkin Merger Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newbridge Bancorp said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, that the
parties in the class action lawsuits related to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of October 12, 2015 (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among Yadkin Financial Corporation, NewBridge
Bancorp, a North Carolina corporation ("NewBridge"), and Navy
Merger Sub Corp., a North Carolina corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Yadkin ("Merger Sub"), have reached a memorandum of
understanding for the settlement of the cases.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, three purported class action lawsuits relating to the
Merger Agreement were filed on behalf of NewBridge shareholders in
the Superior Court of the State of North Carolina, Guilford
County, against NewBridge, members of the NewBridge board of
directors, Yadkin and Merger Sub (the "Defendants"), which
lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single class action
currently pending in the General Court of Justice Superior Court
Division, County of Guilford (the "Court"), captioned In re
NewBridge Bancorp Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 15-CVS-
9251(Master File); 15-CVS-10097, 15-CVS-10047 (the "Consolidated
Action").

On February 5, 2016, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") with respect to
a proposed settlement of the Consolidated Action, pursuant to
which the parties have agreed, among other things, that NewBridge
will make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed
merger.

The proposed settlement will not affect the timing of the
respective special meetings of NewBridge and Yadkin, which are
each scheduled to be held on February 23, 2016, or the amount of
the consideration to be paid to NewBridge shareholders in
connection with the proposed merger. The proposed settlement is
not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or
liability by any of the Defendants. The Defendants believe that no
further disclosure is required to supplement the joint proxy
statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, the
Defendants have agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed
settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to
the proposed merger, all of which are set forth below in order to,
among other things (1) eliminate the burden, inconvenience,
expense, risk, and distraction of further litigation; and (ii)
finally resolve and terminate all of the claims that were or could
have been asserted against the Defendants in the litigation.

Nothing in this Current Report or any settlement shall be deemed
an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the
disclosures set forth herein. The parties have agreed to use their
reasonable best efforts to obtain final approval of the proposed
settlement and the dismissal of the Consolidated Action with
prejudice. Subject to the allowance for reasonably appropriate and
necessary confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, if
any, the Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties
will enter into a definitive settlement agreement ("Stipulation").
The Stipulation will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to NewBridge' shareholders. If the
Stipulation is finally approved by the Court, the parties
anticipate that it will resolve and release all claims pursuant to
terms that will be disclosed to NewBridge shareholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
will file a petition in the Court for approval of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid by NewBridge or its successor. NewBridge
or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees
and expenses approved by the Court. There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into the Stipulation or that the
Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such Stipulation. In such event, the Memorandum of
Understanding may be terminated.


NISKA GAS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Public Unitholders Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs
in the Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC Public Unitholders
Litigation have filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the
Litigation.

Subsequent to the announcement of the proposed acquisition of the
Company by Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P. and its
institutional partners on June 14, 2015, alleged unitholders of
Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC (the "Plaintiffs") filed four class
action lawsuits against Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, Niska Gas
Storage Management LLC, Niska Sponsor Holdings Cooperatief U.A.
(collectively "Niska"), Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P.,
Swan Holdings LP, Swan Merger Sub LLC, and the members of Niska's
Board of Directors (collectively with Niska, the "Defendants") in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These lawsuits are
styled (a) Eddie Barringer vs. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et
al. (Case No. 11210); (b) David Raul vs. Niska Gas Storage
Partners LLC, et al. (Case No. 11220); (c) Nathan Peterson vs.
Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al., (Case No. 11234); and (d)
Fred Pappey vs. William H. Shea, Jr. et al., (Case No. 11238)
(collectively, the "Litigation").

The above styled lawsuits have been consolidated for all purposes
and captioned In re Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC Public
Unitholders Litigation, CONSOL. C.A. No. 11210-CB (the "Action").
On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the Litigation without prejudice as to any individual
or class claims, with each party to bear its own costs.

The Company operates the AECO HubTM, which consists of the
Countess and Suffield gas storage facilities in Alberta, Canada,
and the Wild Goose and Salt Plains gas storage facilities in
California and Oklahoma, respectively. Niska Partners markets gas
storage services of working gas capacity in addition to optimizing
storage capacity with its own proprietary gas purchases at each of
these facilities.  It also operates a natural gas marketing
business which is an extension of our propriety optimization
activities in Canada.


NISSAN NA: "Jefferson" Suit Alleges Illegal Vehicle Reselling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Jefferson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant,
Case. No. 3:16-cv-00031-JCH (D. Conn,, January 7, 2016), seeks
actual and compensatory damages and reasonable attorney fees and
costs as a result of fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment and for
violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Defendant allegedly sold, bought back and auctioned off a 2014
Infinity Q50 and registered it with the New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Department. It was eventually bought by the Plaintiff on May 4,
2015 and she was unaware that it was a buy-back unit.

Nissan North America, Inc., is a Tennessee business entity
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. It is into the business of
manufacturing and selling of automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW L.L.C.
      43 Danbury Road
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Tel: (203) 653-2250 ext. 5500
      Fax: (203) 653-3424


NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss 5th Amended Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a California court has
not yet ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss a Fifth Amended
Complaint in a securities class action lawsuit.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically relating to the purported
improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The
complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October
22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks
unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws. The District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend
its complaint.

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014,
and the District Court once again granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.

On December 23, 2014 Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company's
motion was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended
Complaint. On August 28, 2015, the District Court issued an order
granting the Company's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended
Complaint with leave to amend.

On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint
and the Company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. The Court
has not yet ruled on the Company's motion.

Nuvasive is a medical device company in the global spine surgery
market, focused on developing minimally-disruptive surgical
products and procedurally-integrated solutions for spine surgery.
Its currently-marketed product portfolio is focused on
applications for spine fusion surgery, including biologics used to
aid in the spinal fusion process. For the year ended December 31,
2015, Nuvasive generated global revenues of $811.1 million,
including sales in over 30 countries.


PEERLESS NETWORK: "Pacleb" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
Florencio Pacleb, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Peerless Network, Inc.;
Airbus, Inc., and Does 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00359-DSF-AGR (C.D. Cal., January 15,
2016), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions
of the Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Peerless Networks, based in Chicago, Illinois, provides
telecommunications services. The Company offers interconnections
networking services to better connect individuals through their
website.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          Arvin Ratanavongse, 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
                  Aratanavongse@toddflaw.com


PEPPERIDGE FARM: SDAs File Class Action Over Employment Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal
class action lawsuit claims cookie and cracker maker Pepperidge
Farm has exploited the workers who deliver, set up and maintain
its product displays in supermarkets and other stores, treating
these workers like employees, but classifying them as independent
contractors, contrary to labor law.

In the lawsuit filed Feb. 12 in Chicago federal court, plaintiff
Daniel Mulhern claimed Pepperidge Farm should have classified him
and other sales development associates, or SDAs, as employees, not
as independent contractors.  Mr. Mulhern asked the court to award
damages and court costs.

SDAs are responsible for delivering Pepperidge Farm merchandise to
stores in their territory, stocking shelves, merchandising the
products, setting up promotional displays and removing unsold
product.  According to the lawsuit, they have also been expected
to solicit new stores and other sales locations in their territory
in order to expand Pepperidge Farm's footprint in the area.

The suit claimed the SDAs are required to sign an agreement
establishing them as contractors with Pepperidge Farm, but the
terms of the agreements cannot be negotiated.

The suit claimed that SDAs do not have the freedoms one would
expect of independent contractors.  They are not permitted to sell
or sublet all or part of their route or territory without the
consent of Pepperidge Farm, and they cannot act as distributors
for any of Pepperidge Farm's competitors.  Pepperidge Farm
determines the amount and type of product to be delivered to each
customer and the retail price of those products, and does not
permit the SDAs to have input on such matters.  The company also
sets each SDA's delivery schedule, and expects them to visit
retailers in their personal vehicle on non-delivery days to check
on their inventory.

Though SDAs are generally treated as employees, Mr. Mulhern
claimed their classification as independent contractors has
allowed the company to charge them for expenses the company would
have to absorb if they were regular employees.  For example, SDAs
have been required to purchase and maintain specialized handheld
computer units to perform their work tasks, and to purchase or
lease and insure an appropriate delivery truck.  Each quarter, the
company has advised SDAs how much damaged or expired merchandise
they may return to the company; they are charged for returning
merchandise over that amount. As contractors, SDAs also have not
been eligible for benefits such as insurance, retirement plans,
paid time off or overtime pay.

The average SDA would routinely work between 55 and 70 hours a
week for Pepperidge Farm, the lawsuit said, making it difficult,
if not impossible, for them to contract with any other clients.

The suit alleged three violations against Pepperidge Farm.  In the
first count, the lawsuit asserted the company violated the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by charging SDAs for such
things as returned merchandise and the purchase and maintenance of
computer equipment.  The second count alleged the company violated
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to pay overtime.  The
third count charged the company with unjust enrichment, claiming
it avoided obligations like payroll tax contributions and workers'
compensation coverage by classifying the SDAs as independent
contractors and shifting the burden on to them.

The putative class covered by the suit would include all SDAs in
Illinois who were under contract with Pepperidge Farm between Feb.
12, 2006, and Feb. 12, 2016.

Mr. Muhern and the putative class is represented by the firms of
Freed Kanner London & Millen, of Bannockburn; Shapiro Haber &
Urmy, of Boston; and Rudolph Friedmann LLP, of Boston.

The case is docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois as 16-CV-02199 Mulhern vs Pepperidge Farm.


PFIZER INC: Rejection of Plaintiffs' Zoloft Case Experts Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that a Philadelphia
judge said the exclusion of two causation experts from a state
court Zoloft birth-defect case was proper, observing that one of
the experts had also been barred from offering testimony in the
federal multidistrict litigation surrounding the drug.

In an opinion in response to the plaintiffs' appeal in Porter v.
SmithKline Beecham, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark
I. Bernstein wrote that the conclusions drawn by the plaintiffs'
experts, Dr. Michael Freeman and Dr. Robert Cabrera, were based on
flawed methodology.

Dr. Cabrera's testimony had previously been excluded from the
Zoloft MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  The future of that litigation remains uncertain, as
presiding U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe's decision in December
to bar testimony from causation expert Dr. Nicholas Jewell leaves
the plaintiffs without an expert.  Judge Rufe has yet to rule on
Pfizer's summary judgment motion in the litigation.

Judge Bernstein pointed to several factors for not allowing
Dr. Freeman and Dr. Cabrera's testimony, who focused on general
and specific causation.

According to Judge Bernstein, Dr. Freeman described himself as a
forensic epidemiologist, meaning applying epidemiology in the
legal setting for evaluating causation.  Dr. Freeman testified
that the application of forensic epidemiology depended on which
legal jurisdiction he was in.

"Although Dr. Freeman believes the appropriate standard for a
scientific conclusion in the field of 'forensic' epidemiology
depends on 'jurisdiction,' only a legal standard depends on
jurisdiction," Judge Bernstein said, "and proper scientific
methodology and conclusions do not vary whether testified to on
the Pennsylvania side or the New Jersey side of the Benjamin
Franklin Bridge."

Proper epidemiological analysis is based on study results that
show an association between a drug and a reaction, Bernstein said.
He added that different birth defects, such as gastrointestinal,
cardiac and other malformations that have been alleged in Zoloft
cases, cannot be lumped together in terms of causation.

According to Judge Bernstein, Dr. Freeman did this with
omphalocele birth defects -- a condition in which children are
born with their intestines outside of the body. The plaintiff, Bo
Porter, suffered from this condition.

"Dr. Freeman improperly lumps the omphalocele birth defect with
digestive system defects and assumes medical literature concerning
digestive system defects supports his opinion," Judge Bernstein
said.  "However, omphalocele is not a digestive system birth
defect."

Other factors, such as poor nutrition, smoking, age and drug use
have to be considered as well when looking at birth defects.
Bernstein said Freeman did not address confounding factors in his
report.

Additionally, "Dr. Freeman opines specifically that Bo Porter's
omphalocele birth defect was caused by exposure to Zoloft in
utero. However, Dr. Freeman is not a medical doctor and does not
have a clinical medical degree," Judge Bernstein said.

The judge added that while medical doctors rely on clinical
judgment and expertise to formulate opinions, Dr. Freeman relied
on forensic epidemiology.

Judge Bernstein said that Dr. Cabrera's opinions contained the
same methodological failings as Dr. Freeman's, as well as others.

Dr. Cabrera reported that studies have shown SSRIs, the class of
drug that Zoloft belongs to, significantly increase the risk of
birth defects.  But according to Bernstein, Cabrera did not
analyze studies that excluded the drug Paxil.

"This is a fatal methodological flaw because Paxil has been
identified as having significantly different effects from Zoloft
and the other SSRIs," Judge Bernstein said.  "Paxil is a causal
factor in birth defects."

Lastly, Judge Bernstein said Dr. Cabrera's conclusions were
speculative and lacked the data necessary to support his theory
that the alteration of serotonin levels in the body can damage a
developing fetus.

Plaintiffs' counsel Mark Karpo did not return a call seeking
comment.  Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan represented the defendants and
deferred comment to a Pfizer spokesperson, who said in a statement
sent to The Legal, "The order affirms that there is no reliable
scientific evidence demonstrating that Zoloft causes the injuries
alleged by the plaintiffs."


PHILLIP MORRIS: Not Obliged to Offer CT Scans to Smokers
--------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Stockman, writing for Law Newz, reports that a class action
lawsuit against tobacco giant Phillip Morris wrapped up with a ten
person jury determining that the company should not have to offer
CT scans to smokers.  The plaintiffs, a class of Massachusetts
smokers, argued that Philip Morris knew cigarettes were dangerous
and defective, could have easily made them safer and therefore
should cover the costs of tests to assess whether the smokers had
developed lung cancer.

What made this case particularly interesting was that the
plaintiffs were not seeking monetary damages but just low dose
scans that can detect early-stage lung cancer often too small to
show up on traditional X-rays.

Before the case began, Law professor Richard Daynard of
Northeastern told the Associated Press  that this one was stronger
than many past legal efforts because: "you have better technology
which captures the tumors at a much earlier stage where there's a
very good chance that if you get them that the person . . . is
probably not going to die from it,"

Putting aside the legal arguments, at the least, it seems like a
pretty compelling emotional and moral argument.  Well, the law
firm that represented Phillip Morris, New York based Weil Gotshal
and Manges seemed to recognize that too.  They actually issued a
press release gloating about their "monumental" win over "all
Massachusetts smokers of Philip Morris USA cigarettes who have
smoked for 20 pack-years, with a total class size estimated to be
in the tens of thousands."  They even named all the heroic
attorneys who helped to defend the good Phillip Morris name: "The
Weil trial team is led by litigation partner Diane Sullivan and
also includes counsel Adam Tolin and associates Jed Winer,
Caroline Toole, and Robert Brown."

Self-touting can sometimes be awfully revealing.  They actually
said this in trumpeting their victory:

"Plaintiffs sought a comprehensive program that would have
included yearly low dose CT scans, which are now the standard of
care for the early detection of lung cancer for certain patients."

It's the standard of care so it's even more impressive that we
were able to deny them that!?!

A legal victory is one thing but for lawyers for a tobacco company
to publicly celebrate denying potential cancer victims the best
way of identifying lung disease as early as possible seems
reprehensible. . . even for a law firm.

Law Newz reached out to Phillip Morris and they had no comment.


PREFERRED IMAGING: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
R. Michelle Lewis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Preferred Imaging Centers, LLC,
Toggle, LLC, and Lisa Baird, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00136-M (N.D. Tex., Dallas Division, January 15, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and all available damages under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal
Pay Act.

Preferred Imaging is a limited liability company incorporated
under the laws of the State of Texas. It has done business in the
State of Texas with principal place of business located at 5601
Granite Parkway, Suite 460, Plano, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          Baron & Budd, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521 3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


PRIMERO MINING: April 15 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 16 issued the following statement:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Primero Mining Corp. ("Primero Mining") between
October 5, 2012 and February 3, 2016.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action has been
commenced in the USDC for the Central District of California.  If
you purchased or otherwise acquired Primero Mining securities
between October 5, 2012 and February 3, 2016, your rights may be
affected by this action.  To get more information go to:
http://zlk.9nl.com/primero-mining

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose material facts about tax compliance at Primero's
Mexican subsidiary, Primero Empresa Minera, S.A. de C.V.

On February 3, 2016, Primero disclosed that its Mexican subsidiary
received a legal claim from the Mexican tax authorities, Servicio
de Administraci¢n Tributaria ("SAT"), seeking to nullify the
Advance Pricing Agreement issued by SAT in 2012.  On this news,
shares of Primero Mining fell $0.74 per share or over 28% to close
at $1.89 per share on February 4, 2016.

If you suffered a loss in Primero Mining you have until April 15,
2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/primero-mining

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.  The
firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation involving
financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.


PROVIDENCE ST. JOHN'S: "Nemeth" Sues Over Illegal Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Nemeth, Plaintiff, v. Providence St. John's Health
Center, a non-profit California corporation, Rightsourcing, Inc.,
a New York corporation, Pro Unlimited Global Solutions, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Jaron McDonnel, an individual and Does 1-20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 604623 (Cal. Super., December 21,
2015), seeks general, special, punitive, treble, economic and non-
economic damages, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, attorney's
fees and further relief according to proof resulting from wrongful
termination and employment practices in violation of public policy
and in violation of California Labor Code Sec. 1050, 1102.5, 2698,
6310, California Health & Safety Code Sec. 1278.5.

Plaintiff is a certified medical assistant. She claims to have
been illegally dismissed after reporting certain malpractices
pertaining to the prescription of drugs in the hospital.

Providence St. John's Health Center is a California Corporation
operating a hospital in Los Angeles. Right Sourcing, Inc. is a New
York corporation and is affiliated with Pro Unlimited Global
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation. They are human resource
management companies which hire individuals to work in healthcare
positions. They jointly managed human resource functions at
Providence during Plaintiffs employment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tali Shaddow, Esq.
      Mark Steven Avila, Esq.
      AVILA & SHADDOW
      21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 1180
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Tel: (818)227-8610
      Fax: (818)227-8616


PULASKI FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Pulaski Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
intends to defend against a putative class action lawsuit filed in
relation to its merger with First Busey Corporation.

On December 3, 2015, the Company and First Busey Corporation
entered into a Merger Agreement, pursuant to which First Busey
will acquire the Company and the Bank. Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, the Company agreed not to issue any new stock-
based awards.

A putative class action lawsuit, Patel v. Douglass, et al., has
been filed in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis,
Missouri. The lawsuit names as defendants the members of the
Company's board of directors, the Company and First Busey
Corporation. A demand for jury trial has been made. The lawsuit
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty due to the process leading to
the proposed merger of the Company and First Busey Corporation,
potential conflicts of interest, inadequate merger consideration,
the terms of the merger agreement, and the failure to disclose
allegedly material information related to the proposed merger in
the Schedule 14A Proxy Statement filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016. The lawsuit also
alleges that First Busey Corporation aided and abetted the breach
of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes class certification,
declaratory relief, an injunction against the merger, rescission
or rescissory damages if the merger is consummated, costs and
attorney's fees.

The Company believes that the factual allegations in the complaint
are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against these
allegations.

Pulaski Financial Corp., operating in its 94th year, is a
community-based financial institution holding company
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.  It conducts operations
primarily through Pulaski Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), which had $1.65
billion in assets at December 31, 2015.  Pulaski Bank provides an
array of financial products and services for businesses and
consumers primarily through its thirteen full-service offices in
the St. Louis metropolitan area and residential mortgage loan
production offices in the St. Louis, Kansas City, Chicago and
Omaha-Council Bluffs metropolitan areas, mid-Missouri,
southwestern Missouri, eastern Kansas, and Lincoln, Nebraska.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Fober" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Fober, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., dba Examone,
and Does 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case
No. 8:16-cv-00065-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal., January 15, 2016), seeks
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Quest Diagnostics provides diagnostic testing information services
in the United States and internationally. The company offers
clinical testing services, such as routine testing, gene-based and
esoteric testing, anatomic pathology services, and drugs-of-abuse
testing, as well as related services and insights; laboratory
testing services for new drugs, vaccines, and medical devices;
analytic, on-site prevention, and wellness services; laboratory
outreach services; and risk assessment services for the life
insurance industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, 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
                  abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


RAYMOND JAMES: Class Action Pending Related to Open End Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that one class
action remains pending pertaining to the open end funds.

Certain of the Morgan Keegan entities, along with Regions
Financial Corporation ("Regions"), have been named in class-action
lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of
shareholders of Regions and investors who purchased shares of
certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan Keegan Fund complex
(the "Regions Funds"). The Regions Funds were formerly managed by
Morgan Asset Management ("MAM"), an entity which was at one time a
subsidiary of one of the Morgan Keegan affiliates, but an entity
which was not part of our Morgan Keegan acquisition. The
complaints contain various allegations, including claims that the
Regions Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose material facts relating to the activities of the funds.

In August 2013, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee approved the settlement of the class action
and the derivative action regarding the closed end funds for $62
million and $6 million, respectively, which have been paid. There
is one pending class action pertaining to the open end funds.

Certain of the shareholders in the funds and other interested
parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual
civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class action
lawsuits.

Raymond James Financial, Inc. is a financial holding company whose
broker-dealer subsidiaries are engaged in various financial
services businesses, including the underwriting, distribution,
trading and brokerage of equity and debt securities and the sale
of mutual funds and other investment products.  In addition, other
subsidiaries of RJF provide investment management services for
retail and institutional clients, corporate and retail banking,
and trust services.


REPUBLIC SCHOOLS NASHVILLE: Violated TCPA, "Skeete" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irika Skeete, on behalf of herself and all other entities and
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Republic Schools
Nashville, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00043 (M.D. Tenn.,
Nashville Division, January 15, 2016), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited text message
activities and an award of statutory damages under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees.

RePublic Schools Nashville is a Tennessee corporation, having an
address of 1300 56th Avenue North, Nashville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &JENNINGS, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          E-mail: jleniski@bsjfirm.com
                  gstranch@bsjfirm.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 28 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q4 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that during the fourth
quarter of 2015, 28 tobacco-related cases were served against
Reynolds Defendants. On December 31, 2015, there were 268 cases
pending against Reynolds Defendants:

     -- 251 in the United States and
     -- 17 in Canada,

as compared with 177 total cases on December 31, 2014.

The U.S. case number does not include the approximately 564
individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as a
consolidated action, 3,111 Engle Progeny cases, involving
approximately 4,046 individual plaintiffs, and 2,499 Broin II
cases, pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard
Tobacco or their affiliates or indemnitees.

Of the U.S. cases pending on December 31, 2015, 24 are pending in
federal court, 226 in state court and 1 in tribal court, primarily
in the following states:

     -- Maryland (43 cases);
     -- Illinois (35 cases);
     -- Florida (30 cases);
     -- New York (24 cases);
     -- Missouri (19 cases);
     -- Delaware (14 cases); and
     -- California (12 cases).


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Served in 3,111 Engle Progeny Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015,
RJR Tobacco had been served in 3,111 Engle Progeny cases filed on
behalf of approximately 4,046 individual plaintiffs.

The tobacco-related legal actions range from individual lawsuits
to class-actions and other aggregate claim lawsuits. In Engle v.
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the Florida Supreme Court issued a
ruling that, while determining that the case could not proceed
further as a class action, permitted members of the Engle class to
file individual claims, including claims for punitive damages,
through January 11, 2008. The decision preserved several of the
Engle jury findings for use in adjudicating these subsequent
individual actions, which are now known as Engle Progeny cases.

As of December 31, 2015, RJR Tobacco had been served in 3,111
Engle Progeny cases filed on behalf of approximately 4,046
individual plaintiffs. Many of these cases are in active discovery
or nearing trial.

In all Engle Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been
the proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco has
argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual
elements of claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is
a violation of federal due process. In 2013, both the Florida
Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit rejected that argument.

The Engle Progeny cases have resulted in increased litigation and
trial activity, including an increased number of adverse verdicts,
and increased expenses. Through December 31, 2015, RJR Tobacco or
Lorillard Tobacco cumulatively paid $214.9 million in compensatory
and punitive damages and $66.8 million for attorneys' and
statutory interest, for a total of $281.7 million, in these cases.
In addition, outstanding jury verdicts in favor of the Engle
Progeny plaintiffs had been entered against RJR Tobacco or
Lorillard Tobacco in the amount of $184.2 million in compensatory
damages (as adjusted) and in the amount of $191.1 million in
punitive damages, for a total of $375.3 million. All of these
verdicts are in various stages in the appellate process. Although
RJR Tobacco cannot currently predict when or how much it may be
required to pay, RJR Tobacco will likely be required to pay
additional judgments as the litigation proceeds.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 6 Engle Progeny Cases Removed to Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on October 22, 2015, RJR
Tobacco and Philip Morris USA Inc. removed five Engle Progeny
cases to federal court and, on January 4, 2016, removed a sixth
Engle Progeny case.

In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class action brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers
allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145
billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006,
the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively
decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury
findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed
within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include
jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that
nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes
that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed
unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly
concealed unspecified information about the health risks of
smoking.

In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were
filed in federal and state courts in Florida against the major
tobacco companies, including RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., Lorillard Tobacco and Philip Morris USA Inc. Such
actions are commonly referred to as "Engle Progeny" cases. As of
December 31, 2015, 27 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal
court, and 3,084 of them were pending in state court. These cases
include approximately 4,046 plaintiffs.

In addition, as of December 31, 2015, RJR Tobacco was aware of 9
additional Engle Progeny cases that had been filed but not served.
One hundred eight Engle Progeny cases have been tried in Florida
state and federal courts since the beginning of 2013, and numerous
state court trials are scheduled for 2016. The number of pending
cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and
involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in
which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of judgment," referred to in
Florida statutes as "proposals for settlement," from RJR Tobacco,
Lorillard Tobacco and/or RJR Tobacco's affiliates and indemnitees.
An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR
Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco's right to recover attorneys' fees
under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR
Tobacco or Lorillard Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made
through court-ordered mediations.

During the first quarter of 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard
Tobacco, together with Philip Morris USA Inc., tentatively settled
virtually all of the Engle Progeny cases then pending against them
in federal district court. The total amount of the settlement was
$100 million divided as follows: RJR Tobacco - $42.5 million;
Philip Morris USA Inc. - $42.5 million; and Lorillard Tobacco -
$15 million.

The settlement, which received final approval from the court on
November 6, 2015, covers more than 400 federal progeny cases but
does not cover 12 federal progeny cases previously tried to
verdict and currently pending on post-trial motions or appeal; one
federal progeny case pending as of December 31, 2015, involving
pro se plaintiffs unrepresented by counsel; and two federal
progeny cases filed by different lawyers from the ones who
negotiated the settlement for the plaintiffs.

On August 3, 2015, RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris USA Inc. removed
33 cases from state court to the federal courts in Florida. These
cases also are not part of the settlement, and were remanded back
to state court on November 24, 2015.

On October 22, 2015, RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris USA Inc.
removed an additional five cases to federal court and, on January
4, 2016, removed a sixth case. At present, those cases remain in
federal court.

In March 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco paid their share
of the settlement.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $375-Mil. in Judgments Remain Outstanding
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015,
judgments in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been
entered and remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco or Lorillard
Tobacco in the amount of $184,217,140 in compensatory damages (as
adjusted) and in the amount of $191,106,000 in punitive damages,
for a total of $375,323,140.

All of these verdicts are at various stages in the post-trial or
appellate process. RJR Tobacco continues to believe that RJR
Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco have valid defenses in these cases,
including case-specific issues beyond the due process issue
discussed above. It is the policy of RJR Tobacco and its
affiliates to vigorously defend smoking and health claims,
including all Engle Progeny cases.

Should RJR Tobacco or Lorillard Tobacco not prevail in any
particular individual Engle Progeny case or determine that in any
individual Engle Progeny case an unfavorable outcome has become
probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, a loss would
be recognized, which could have a material adverse effect on the
results of operations, cash flows and financial position of RAI in
a particular quarter or year. This position on loss recognition
for Engle Progeny cases as of December 31, 2015, is consistent
with RAI's and RJR Tobacco's historic position on loss recognition
for other smoking and health litigation. It is also the policy of
RJR Tobacco to record any loss concerning litigation at such time
as an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount can be
reasonably estimated on an individual case-by-case basis.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 26 Cases Set for Trial Through Dec. 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that there are 26 tobacco
related cases, exclusive of Engle Progeny cases, scheduled for
trial as of December 31, 2015 through December 31, 2016, for RJR
Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., Lorillard Tobacco or
their affiliates and indemnitees: one non-smoking and health case,
one class action, three individual smoking and health cases and 21
Filter Cases. There are approximately 93 Engle Progeny cases
against RJR Tobacco, B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco set for trial
through December 31, 2016, but it is not known how many of these
cases will actually be tried.

Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are
dismissed before trial.

From January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015, 112 smoking and
health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which
RJR Tobacco, B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco were defendants were
tried, including seven trials for cases where mistrials were
declared in the original proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR
Tobacco, B&W and Lorillard Tobacco and, in some cases, RJR
Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco and/or other defendants, were
returned in 53 cases, including 12 mistrials, tried in Florida
(52) and West Virginia (1). Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs
were returned in 53 cases tried in Florida, and 1 in California.
Three cases in Florida were dismissed during trial. One case in
Florida was a retrial only as to the amount of damages. In another
case in Florida, the jury entered a partial verdict that did not
include compensatory or punitive damages, and post-trial motions
are pending.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, nine Engle Progeny cases in which
RJR Tobacco and/or Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant were tried:

   * In Marchese v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 55% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 22.5% at fault, and the remaining defendant
22.5% at fault, and awarded $1 million in compensatory damages.
The jury also awarded $250,000 in punitive damages against each
defendant.

   * In Gordon v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 98% at fault
and RJR Tobacco 2% at fault, and awarded $5,000 in compensatory
damages. Punitive damages were not awarded.

   *In Robertson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

   * In Barbose v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 15% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 42.5% at fault and the remaining defendant
42.5% at fault, and awarded $10 million in compensatory damages
and $1 million in punitive damages against each defendant. The
damages are to be split equally.

   * In Fanali v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

   * In Shulman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

   * In Green v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

   * In Monroe v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 42% at fault
and RJR Tobacco 58% at fault, and awarded $11 million in
compensatory damages. No punitive damages were awarded.

   * In Ledoux v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 6% at fault,
RJR Tobacco 47% at fault and the remaining defendant 47% at fault,
and awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $12.5 million
in punitive damages against each defendant.

In addition, since the end of the fourth quarter of 2015, three
other Engle Progeny cases, in which RJR Tobacco and/or Lorillard
Tobacco were a defendant, were tried:

   * In Howles v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a
mistrial because the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

   * In Rounds v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

   * In Ewing v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 98% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 2% at fault and the remaining defendant 0% at
fault, and awarded $240,000 in compensatory damages. Punitive
damages were not awarded.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, no non-Engle Progeny individual
smoking and health cases, in which RJR Tobacco, B&W or Lorillard
Tobacco was a defendant, were tried.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 16 Tobacco PI Class Suits Pending at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015,
16 class-action cases, excluding shareholder cases, were pending
in the United States against Reynolds Defendants. These class
actions seek recovery for personal injuries (PI) allegedly caused
by cigarette smoking or, in some cases, for economic damages
allegedly incurred by cigarette or e-cigarette purchasers.

In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. American
Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-wide class of
persons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobacco
products. Since this ruling by the Fifth Circuit, most class-
action suits have sought certification of state-wide, rather than
nation-wide, classes. Class-action suits based on claims similar
to those asserted in Castano, claims that class members are at a
greater risk of injury or injured by the use of tobacco or
exposure to ETS, or claims that seek primarily economic damages
are pending against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, or their
affiliates or indemnitees in state or federal courts in Illinois,
Louisiana, Missouri, West Virginia, California, Florida, New York
and New Mexico.

The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the term
"lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under
state law or violates the federal RICO statute. Such suits are
pending in state or federal courts in Illinois and Missouri.

E-cigarette class-action cases are pending against RJR Vapor, RAI,
and other RAI affiliates in California. In general, the plaintiffs
allege that RJR Vapor, Lorillard Tobacco, and other RAI affiliates
made false and misleading claims that e-cigarettes are less
hazardous than other cigarette products or failed to disclose that
e-cigarettes expose users to certain substances. The cases are
typically filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related
statutes and seek recovery of economic damages.

Several class actions relating to claims in advertising and
promotional materials for SFNTC's NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
cigarettes are pending in federal courts. In general, these
plaintiffs allege that use of the words "natural," "additive-
free," or "organic" in NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT advertising and
promotional materials suggests that those cigarettes are less
harmful than other cigarettes and, for that reason, violated state
consumer protection statutes or amounted to fraud or a negligent
or intentional misrepresentation. The cases seek various
combinations of recovery, including economic damages, treble
damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief
(including medical monitoring), and attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses.

Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care cost
recovery actions in the form of class actions.

Few smoker class-action complaints have been certified or, if
certified, have survived on appeal. Eighteen federal courts,
including two courts of appeals, and most state courts that have
considered the issue have rejected class certification in such
cases. Apart from the Castano case, only two smoker class actions
have been certified by a federal court -- In re Simon (II)
Litigation, and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and were ultimately decertified.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: May 2 Fairness Hearing in Camel Cash Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a fairness hearing will
be held by the court on May 2, 2016, on the settlement reached in
the Camel Cash class action.

Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California relating to the termination of a series of
promotions by RJR Tobacco's CAMEL brand from 1991 to 2007 known as
"Camel Cash." The plaintiffs originally brought the case on behalf
of a putative class of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to
redeem Camel Cash certificates from October 1, 1991 through March
31, 2007, or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31,
2007. The plaintiffs alleged that RJR Tobacco failed to have any
rewards available during the final promotional period. The
plaintiffs alleged claims based on the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Law,
breach of contract and promissory estoppel, and the plaintiffs
sought injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and expenses.

In January 2010, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss. In
February 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In the
amended complaint, the proposed class definition changed to a
class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and tried
unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, also referred to
as C-Notes, from October 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs
also proposed a California subclass consisting of persons in
California meeting the same criteria.

In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for
failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend. The
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In July 2010, RJR
Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
granted with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and RJR Tobacco
filed a motion to dismiss in September 2010. In December 2010, the
district court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss with
prejudice and entered final judgment.

In January 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In July
2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, referred to
as the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs'
claims under the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal
of the plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of
contract.

In October 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied RJR Tobacco's motion for
rehearing or rehearing en banc. RJR Tobacco filed its answer to
the plaintiffs' third amended complaint in December 2012.
Following the completion of discovery in June 2014, RJR Tobacco
filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification.

On December 19, 2014, the district court denied RJR Tobacco's
motion for summary judgment, declined to certify a national class,
found that the plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claim could not be
tried on a class basis, and, on the plaintiffs' breach of contract
claim, certified a class of "all persons in California who, as
adult smokers, were assigned registration numbers by RJR Tobacco,
collected C-Notes, and held C-Notes as of October 1, 2006." RJR
Tobacco filed a motion to decertify the class and further
discovery was stayed. Subsequently, the parties agreed to a
settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, RJR Tobacco would
make available non-tobacco merchandise to class members for Camel
Cash that they held on October 1, 2006, and pay plaintiffs'
counsel $4.75 million in fees and costs.

On January 19, 2016, the court granted its preliminary approval
order for the settlement. A fairness hearing will be held by the
court on May 2, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Conditionally Approved "Feinman" Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has
conditionally approved the settlement agreement and dismissal of
the "Feinman" class action lawsuit.

In Feinman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a putative class action
filed in September 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, the plaintiff brought a case
against RJR Tobacco on behalf of a putative class of residents of
New York, Iowa and South Dakota who were excluded from the
California class in Sateriale; namely, all persons who resided in
New York, Iowa or South Dakota as of October 1, 2006, and who, as
adult smokers, purchased Camel-brand filtered cigarettes along
with C-Notes, collected C-Notes and held C-Notes as of October 1,
2006. The plaintiff alleges breach of contract claims based on the
termination of a series of promotions by RJR Tobacco's Camel brand
from 1991 to 2007 known as "Camel Cash."

On September 28, 2015, RJR Tobacco accepted service of process of
the complaint. On January 16, 2016, the court conditionally
approved the parties' settlement agreement and dismissal of the
case subject to the court in Sateriale granting its final approval
of that settlement agreement.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Diek" Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the
"Diek" class action lawsuit have filed an amended complaint naming
as defendants RAI, two RAI affiliates, Imperial Sub, and two
Imperial Sub affiliates.

In Diek v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in
April 2015, in the Superior Court of California, Orange County,
the plaintiff brought a case against Lorillard Tobacco and two
affiliated entities on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
one or more blu brand e-cigarettes, including e-juices, components
thereof, cartridges or accessories sold by the defendants. The
plaintiff alleges that certain advertising, marketing and
packaging materials for blu brand e-cigarettes made deceptive
claims and omitted material information. The plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief under California Civil Code Sec.1,750 et seq.,
injunctive and equitable relief under California Business &
Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq., injunctive relief and damages
under California Business and Professions Code Sec.17,500 et seq.,
and damages for purported breaches of express warranty.

On June 18, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase
Agreement, RAI tendered the defense of this action to, and sought
indemnification for this action from, Imperial Sub. On June 26,
2015, the defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

On October 2, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming as defendants RAI, two RAI affiliates, Imperial Sub, and
two Imperial Sub affiliates. Pursuant to the terms and conditions
of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Imperial Sub has agreed to defend
and indemnify RAI and its affiliates.

On June 12, 2015, a wholly owned subsidiary -- Imperial Sub -- of
Imperial Tobacco Group, PLC, acquired for approximately $7.1
billion certain assets (1) owned by RAI subsidiaries or affiliates
relating to the cigarette brands WINSTON, KOOL and SALEM, and (2)
owned by Lorillard subsidiaries or affiliates related to the
cigarette brand MAVERICK and the "e-vapor" brand blu (including
SKYCIG), as well as Lorillard's owned and leased real property,
and certain transferred employees, together with associated
liabilities, all in accordance with (a) an asset purchase
agreement, dated July 15, 2014, as amended, and for certain
provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement and as guarantor of
certain obligations of Imperial Sub, Imperial, and (b) a transfer
agreement, dated July 15, 2014, between Lorillard and Imperial
Sub.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Imperial to Indemnify RAI in "Whitney" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Imperial Sub, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco Group, PLC, has agreed to
defend and indemnify RAI and its affiliate in the "Whitney" class
action lawsuit.

In Whitney v. ITG Brands, LLC, a putative class action filed in
September 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, the plaintiff brought a case against RAI,
an RAI affiliate, Imperial Sub, and an Imperial Sub affiliate on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of blu brand e-
cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that certain advertising,
marketing and packaging materials for blu brand e-cigarettes
failed to advise purchasers and users that they potentially could
be exposed to formaldehyde. The plaintiff asserts claims under
California Business & Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq. and
California Civil Code Sec.1,750 et seq. and seeks declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and damages.

On September 18, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase
Agreement, RAI tendered the defense of this action to, and sought
indemnification for this action from, Imperial Sub. Pursuant to
the terms and conditions of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Imperial
Sub has agreed to defend and indemnify RAI and its affiliate.

On June 12, 2015, a wholly owned subsidiary -- Imperial Sub -- of
Imperial Tobacco Group, PLC, acquired for approximately $7.1
billion certain assets (1) owned by RAI subsidiaries or affiliates
relating to the cigarette brands WINSTON, KOOL and SALEM, and (2)
owned by Lorillard subsidiaries or affiliates related to the
cigarette brand MAVERICK and the "e-vapor" brand blu (including
SKYCIG), as well as Lorillard's owned and leased real property,
and certain transferred employees, together with associated
liabilities, all in accordance with (a) an asset purchase
agreement, dated July 15, 2014, as amended, and for certain
provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement and as guarantor of
certain obligations of Imperial Sub, Imperial, and (b) a transfer
agreement, dated July 15, 2014, between Lorillard and Imperial
Sub.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a decision is pending on
R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co.'s motion to dismiss the "Harris" class
action lawsuit.

In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co., a putative class action
filed in September 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, the plaintiff brought a case
against RJR Vapor on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
VUSE e-cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that certain advertising,
marketing and packaging materials for VUSE e-cigarettes failed to
advise purchasers and users that they potentially could be exposed
to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The plaintiff asserts claim
under California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17,200 et seq.
and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq. and seeks declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and damages.

RJR Vapor accepted service of process on September 23, 2015. An
amended complaint was subsequently filed alleging a violation of
Proposition 65. RJR Vapor filed a motion to dismiss on January 8,
2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lights Cases Pending in Illinois & Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that "lights" class-action
cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2). The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip
Morris USA Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims
are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Recall Mandate Denied in "Price"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the motion to recall
mandate filed by plantiffs in the case, Price v. Philip Morris,
Inc., was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.  Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion.

Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12
billion bond requirement. On December 15, 2005, the Illinois
Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the
case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the
case.

On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the defendant's
motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment. The case was
dismissed with prejudice the same day. In December 2008, the
plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment, stating that
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc.
rejected the basis for the reversal.

The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in February 2009. In
March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a
reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit
court.

On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order,
concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for
relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court
dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006. The
appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely,
reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court. On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court
denied Philip Morris's petition for leave to appeal and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

In December 2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' petition
for relief from the judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District.
In April 2014, the appellate court reinstated the 2003 verdict.

In May 2014, Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to
the Illinois Supreme Court and a motion for supervisory order.
Philip Morris has requested the Illinois Supreme Court to direct
the Fifth Judicial District to vacate its April 2014 judgment and
to order the Fifth Judicial District to affirm the trial court's
denial of the plaintiff's petition for relief from the judgment,
or in the alternative, grant its petition for leave to appeal.

On September 24, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear
Philip Morris's appeal. In November 2015, the Illinois Supreme
Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the
case without prejudice to allow the plaintiffs to file a motion to
recall the mandate. The plaintiffs filed a motion to recall the
mandate or for other appropriate relief in the Illinois Supreme
Court, which was denied on January 11, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 24 Status Conference in "Turner" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Turner v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February 2000, in Circuit
Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in
November 2001. In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court
granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final
appeal decision in the Price case. The stay subsequently expired,
and the court accordingly scheduled a series of status
conferences, all of which were continued by agreement of the
parties. The next status conference is scheduled for February 24,
2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Howard v. B&W Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Howard v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in February 2000 in Circuit
Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in
December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge issued an order
staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Price case
mentioned above. The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the
Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005. There is currently no
activity in the case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference in "Collora" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a "lights" class-action
case is pending against each of RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003.
In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general
division: Craft v. Philip Morris USA Inc. and Black v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., discussed below. In April 2008, the
court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v.
Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011 was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status
conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference in "Black" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Black v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in November 2000 in Circuit
Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, the trial court, in April
2008, stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v.
Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status
conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in "No Additive" Case in March or May
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the hearing before the
Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation is anticipated on the
Panel's March 31, 2016 or May 26, 2016 hearing dates related to
the "No Additive/Natural Claim" Cases against Santa Fe Natural
Tobacco Company, Inc.

Following the FDA's August 27, 2015, warning letter to SFNTC
relating to the use of the words "natural" and "additive-free" in
the labeling, advertising, and promotional materials for NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes, plaintiffs purporting to bring
claims on behalf of themselves and others have filed putative
class actions against SFNTC and RAI. There are currently a total
of seven such actions that are pending in the U.S. district courts
for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, Southern
District of New York, District of New Mexico, and Northern
District of California. The claims asserted in these actions are
based on alleged violations of state deceptive and unfair trade
practice statutes, state common law, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, and the cases seek
various combinations of recovery, including economic damages,
injunctive relief, interest, restitution, disgorgement, treble and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 6, 2016, the plaintiffs in one of these actions filed a
motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation
to consolidate these actions, referred to as the MDL Motion. SFNTC
and RAI responded to the motion on January 27, 2016, and the
hearing before the Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation is
anticipated on the Panel's March 31, 2016 or May 26, 2016 hearing
dates.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Sproule" Stayed Pending Bid to Consolidate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Sproule v. Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in September
2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, the plaintiff brought a case against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a nationwide putative class of purchasers of Natural
American Spirit brand cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that use
of the words "natural," "additive-free," "organic," and
"unadulterated tobacco product," suggests that Natural American
Spirit brand cigarettes are healthier than or present reduced
health risks as compared to other cigarettes. The plaintiff
asserts claims based on alleged violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and, as to
RAI, for aiding and abetting and vicarious liability. The
plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, including medical monitoring
and smoking cessation programs, compensatory damages, civil
penalties and statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and punitive damages. The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss on December 15, 2015. On January 26,
2016, the Sproule court stayed all proceedings pending resolution
of a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel On Multidistrict
Litigation to consolidate these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Brattain" Stayed Pending Bid to Consolidate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Brattain v. Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in October
2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, the plaintiff brought the case against SFNTC and RAI
on behalf of a putative class of California purchasers of Natural
American Spirit brand cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that use
of the words "natural," "100% additive free," and "organic"
suggests that Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes are
healthier than or present reduced health risks as compared to
other cigarettes. The plaintiff asserts claims based on alleged
violations of the California Business & Professions Code Sec.
17,500 et seq., California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17,200
et seq. and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq., and seeks
injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and prejudgment and post-judgment
interest. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 14,
2015. On January 22, 2016, the Brattain court stayed all
proceedings pending resolution of a motion before the U.S.
Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these
actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Rothman" Case Request Stay
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Rothman v. Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in November
2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, the plaintiff brought a case against SFNTC and RAI on behalf
of a putative class of New York purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that the use of the
words "natural" and "additive-free" suggest that NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT brand cigarettes present a lower risk of tobacco-related
disease and are less harmful than other commercially available
cigarettes. The plaintiff asserts claims based on alleged
violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349-50 and a
claim for unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, and
attorneys' fees and expenses. The defendants have not yet filed
their initial response. On January 25, 2016, the parties jointly
requested a stay of all proceedings pending resolution of a motion
before the U.S. Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation to
consolidate these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Dunn" Case Request Stay
------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Dunn v. Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in December
2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico,
the plaintiff brought a case against SFNTC on behalf of a
nationwide putative class (and Minnesota subclass) of purchasers
of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges
that the use of the word "natural" suggests that NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT brand cigarettes are less harmful than other commercially
available cigarettes. The plaintiff asserts claims based on
alleged violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minnesota
Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, Minnesota False Advertising Law, and New Mexico Unfair Trade
Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs. The defendants have not yet filed their initial
response. On February 1, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to
stay all proceedings pending resolution of proceedings pending
resolution of a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel On
Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Haksal" Case Request Stay
--------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Haksal v. Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in December
2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico,
the plaintiffs brought a case against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
nationwide putative class (and California, Illinois, Minnesota,
and New Mexico subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The plaintiffs allege that the use of the
words "natural," "additive-free," and "organic" and the use of
Native American imagery, suggests that NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT
brand cigarettes are less harmful than other commercially
available cigarettes. The plaintiffs further challenge use of the
description "natural" based on alleged use of artificial
fertilizers and tobacco produced from genetically modified
organism (GMO) tobacco, and allege false and misleading
environmental claims. The plaintiffs assert claims based on
alleged violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, New
Mexico False Advertising Act, California Unfair Competition Law,
California False Advertising Law, Minnesota Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act,
Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act, Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, deceit, negligent misrepresentation, quasi-
contract, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek compensatory
exemplary, treble, and punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief,
including recall of allegedly unlawfully labeled product. The
defendants have not yet filed their initial response. On February
1, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all proceedings
pending resolution of a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel On
Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Has Yet to Respond in "Cuebas" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Cuebas v. Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in January
2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, the plaintiff brought a case against SFNTC and RAI on behalf
of a nationwide putative class (and New York subclass) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The
plaintiff alleges that the use of the words "natural," "additive-
free," "100% additive free," "organic," and "unadulterated tobacco
product" suggest that NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes are
less harmful than other commercially available cigarettes. The
plaintiff asserts claims based on alleged violations of New York
General Business Law Sections 349-50, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory, treble and exemplary damages, civil penalties,
injunctive relief including medical monitoring and smoking
cessation programs, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and punitive
damages. The defendants have not yet filed their initial response.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Has Yet to Respond in "Okstad" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Okstad v. Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in January
2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, the plaintiffs brought a case against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a nationwide putative class and sixteen putative state-
based subclasses (Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin subclasses) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The
plaintiffs allege that the use of the words "natural," "additive
free," "100% additive free," "organic," and "unadulterated tobacco
product" suggests that NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes
are less harmful than other commercially available cigarettes. On
behalf of the putative nationwide class, plaintiffs assert common
law claims of alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and
unjust enrichment. On behalf of the 16 state-based subclasses,
plaintiffs assert claims based on alleged violations of the
Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act, California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, Colorado Consumer
Protection Act, Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act, Georgia's
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, Iowa Private Right of Action for
Consumer Frauds Act, Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, Maryland
Consumer Protection Act, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, North
Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act, Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act,
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Wisconsin Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, treble, and
exemplary damages, injunctive relief, including medical monitoring
and smoking cessation programs, civil penalties, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and punitive damages. The defendants have
not yet filed their initial response.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Young v. American Tobacco Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Young v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November 1997 in Circuit Court,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs brought an ETS class
action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco
and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, and parent companies
of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of all
residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette
smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes
which were manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly
suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek
to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive
damages. In March 2013, the court entered an order staying the
case, including all discovery, pending the implementation of the
smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The
American Tobacco Co.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. AC&S Remains Dormant
--------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Parsons v. A C & S,
Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County,
West Virginia, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corporation, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, seeking
to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both
compensatory and punitive damages. The case was brought on behalf
of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from
their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.
The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In December 2000, three
defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of
North America and Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy
petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to
section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically
stayed with respect to all defendants who filed for bankruptcy.
The case remains pending against the other defendants, including
RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco, but it has long been dormant.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jones v. American Tobacco Remains Dormant
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Jones v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December 1998 in Circuit Court,
Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in
February 1999. The action was brought against the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corporation, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, by
tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly
situated Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use
of the defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become
addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The case
was remanded to the Circuit Court in February 1999. There is
currently no activity in this case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lorillard Faces 64 Filter Cases at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that claims have been brought
against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard by individuals who seek
damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers
that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of
cigarettes manufactured by a predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for
a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. As of
December 31, 2015, Lorillard Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a
defendant in 64 Filter Cases. Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard
Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of
approximately $51.8 million in settlements to resolve 187 claims
asserted in Filter Cases.

Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Oral Argument Held in Lorillard Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the jury in DeLisle v.
A. W. Chesterton Company, a case tried in the Circuit Court for
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, found on
September 13, 2013, in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims
for negligence and strict liability, and awarded $8 million.
Lorillard Tobacco is responsible for 44%, or $3.52 million.
Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed
its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013. Briefing is complete.
Oral argument was scheduled for February 16, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI Assumes Defense of 7 Canadian Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that RJR Tobacco has tendered
the defense of seven class action lawsuits in Canada to JT
International Holding BV. Subject to a reservation of rights, JTI
has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current or former
affiliates in these actions.

Seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against various
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in courts in the Provinces of
Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and
Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively
pursuing only Bourassa, the action pending in British Columbia, at
this time:

     * In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench, Winnepeg
Judicial Centre against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related
entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma and lung
disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, and their dependents and family members, who purchased or
smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, as well as
restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure
for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco
products.

     * In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta,
Judicial Centre of Calgary against Canadian and non-Canadian
tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its
affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own
addiction and chronic bronchitis resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals,
including their estates, dependents and family members, who
purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or
distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits
and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care
benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

     * In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia,
Halifax against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related
entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
individuals, including their estates, dependents and family
members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed,
manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants for the
period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt-out period
as set by the court, as well as restitution of profits and
reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care costs
allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

     * In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre
of Regina, against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related
entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals
who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who
currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or
distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have
brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan
court.

     * In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case
filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia,
Victoria Registry against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-
related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates,
the plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleging that the
deceased was addicted to and suffered emphysema resulting from the
use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic
respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or
distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the
claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a
challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. The
plaintiff filed a motion for certification in April 2012, and
filed affidavits in support in August 2013. An amended claim was
filed in December 2014.

     * In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case
filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia,
Victoria Registry against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-
related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates,
the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction
and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered,
or who currently suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its
affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the
British Columbia court.

     * In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
St. Catherines, against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related
entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after
having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed,
manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the
defendants, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement
of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly
caused by the use of tobacco products.

In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of
rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current
or former affiliates in these actions.

On January 13, 2016, RAI, through various subsidiaries, completed
the sale of the international rights to the NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT brand name and associated trademarks, along with the
international companies that distribute and market the brand
outside the United States, to JT International Holding BV,
referred to as JTI Holding, a subsidiary of Japan Tobacco Inc.,
referred to as JTI, in an all-cash transaction with a value of
approximately $5 billion.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motions Pending in ERISA Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a district court will
address pending motions in the ERISA Litigation in due course.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as
ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently
renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin
off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food
business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the
previously related entities had to be divided into two separate
plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the
defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in
the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as
Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan
approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts
that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that
eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on
January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the
defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after
January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion
was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff
requests, among other things, that the court require the
defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.

In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in
part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The remaining
defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and
affirmative defenses in June 2007. The plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted in September
2008. The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of
the case was reached. In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs
and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in
January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class.

A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no resolution
of the case was reached. The district court overruled the motions
for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial. On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the district court
dismissed the case with prejudice finding that a hypothetical
prudent fiduciary could have made the same decision and thus the
plan's loss was not caused by the procedural prudence which the
court found to have existed. On March 8, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.

On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, referred
to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district court
applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants did
not cause any loss to the plan, determined the test was whether a
hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision
and remanded the case back to the district court to apply the
"would have standard." On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On
June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants'
petition for writ of certiorari.

On November 19, 2014, the district court held a hearing and
ordered briefing on various issues that remain pending on remand.
The parties filed briefs addressing (1) the application of the
different prudence standard, the "would have standard" adopted by
the Fourth Circuit and (2) the merits of the defendants'
affirmative defense related to releases executed by many class
members and to the claims by class members who voluntarily sold
their Nabisco shares while their accounts were frozen. The
defendants also filed a renewed motion to decertify the class. The
district court will address these pending motions in due course.


RINCON PROGRESENO: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Castillo" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Nohemi Acosta Castillo and all others similarly situated v.
Rincon Progreseno II Corp. and Nora G. Bueso, Case No. 1:16-cv-
20225-KMW (S.D. Fla., January 19, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


RITE-AID: Does Not Provide Workers Rest Periods, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ogura, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public v. Rite-Aid
Corporation and Does 1000, Case No. BC605968 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
provide employees rest periods as required by the California Labor
Code.

Rite-Aid Corporation owns and operates drugstore chains within the
state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Crate Clark, Esq.
      James M, Treglio, Esq.
      Dawn M. Berry, Esq.
      CLARK & TREGLIO
      205 West Date Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-1321
      Facsimile: (888) 273-45S4

         - and -

      Walter Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
      5500 Bolsa Avenue/Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (562) 256-1047
      Facsimile: (562) 256-4554


ROTHMAN FOOD: Faces "Veronese" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Veronese, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Rothman Food Group, LLC, and Does 1-
100 Inclusive, Case No. BC606097 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 6,
2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Rothman Food Group, LLC operates Fishbar restaurant in the city of
Manhattan Beach.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carol L. Gillam, Esq.
      Sara Heum, Esq.
      THE GILLAM LAW FIRM
      10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 203-9977
      Facsimile: (310)203-9922
      E-mail: carol@gillamlaw.com
              sara@gillamlaw.com

         - and -

      Steven S. Elster, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ELSTER
      785/E2 Oak Grove Road, #201
      Concord, CA 94518-3617
      Telephone: (925) 324-2159
      E-mail: steve.elster.law@gmail.com


SAN FRANCISCO: "Lofton" Suit Alleges Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Lofton and Almudena Martin Marcos, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The City And
County Of San Francisco, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. CGC-15-549595 (Cal. Super., San Francisco County,
December 23, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction
against the City, back pay, front pay, and other monetary relief
according to proof, general, exemplary and punitive damages
sustained, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest for violation of the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, Government Code Sec. 12940, et seq.

Lofton is an African-American female while Almudena Martin-Marcos
is a Hispanic female. Both are over the age of 40 and were
allegedly denied the opportunity to bid on better positions with
the City because of their race and age as well as in retaliation
for their previous complaints about Department policies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Russell L. Goodrow, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RUSSELL GOODROW
      Law Chambers Building
      345 Franklin St.
      San Francisco, CA 94102
      Tel: (415) 655-9478
      Fax: (415) 241-7340
      Email: russ@goodrowlaw.com

           - and -

      Burke Hansen, Esq.
      345 Franklin St.
      San Francisco, CA 94102
      Tel: (415) 863-1520
      Fax: (415) 263-1510


SANTANDER CONSUMER USA: Violated FUTCL, "Jones" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lecora Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80082 (S.D. Fla., January 15,
2016), seeks to recover damages incurred as the result of a
deceptive and fraudulent scheme conducted by Defendant of taking
title to vehicles that have been declared a total loss by an
insurer and then reselling the "totaled" vehicles at auction
without disclosing the salvage history or classification of the
vehicle, and without "rebranding" the title as "salvage
certificate title", pursuant to the Florida Uniform Traffic
Control Law.

Santander Consumer USA, a consumer finance company, provides
vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The
company offers new and used car loans, and auto and cash-back
refinance services. It provides products through dealers in the
United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based
in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          Mark F. Fistos, Esq.
          Brittany N. Henderson, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
          EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
          425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524 2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524 2822
          E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com
                  mark@pathtojustice.com
                  brittany@pathtojustice.com

               - and -

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Vlad Hirnyk, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW L.L.C.
          1100 Summer Street, Third Floor
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
                  vhirnyk@lemberglaw.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER USA: "Jones" Suit Seeks Damages Under FUTCL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lecora Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-14012-RLR (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2016), ), seeks to
recover damages incurred as the result of a deceptive and
fraudulent scheme conducted by Defendant of taking title to
vehicles that have been declared a total loss by an insurer and
then reselling the "totaled" vehicles at auction without
disclosing the salvage history or classification of the vehicle,
and without "rebranding" the title as "salvage certificate title",
pursuant to the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law.

Santander Consumer USA, a consumer finance company, provides
vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The
company offers new and used car loans, and auto and cash-back
refinance services. It provides products through dealers in the
United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based
in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          Mark F. Fistos, Esq.
          Brittany N. Henderson, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
          EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
          425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524 2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524 2822
          E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com
                  mark@pathtojustice.com
                  brittany@pathtojustice.com

               - and -

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Vlad Hirnyk, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW L.L.C.
          1100 Summer Street, Third Floor
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
                  vhirnyk@lemberglaw.com


SINGER FINANCIAL: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, KHS Says
---------------------------------------------------------
KHS Corp., a Delaware Corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. Singer Financial Corporation, Paul Singer and John
Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00055-AB (E.D. Pa.,
January 7, 2016), seeks equitable and injunctive relief, including
injunctions enjoining further violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Section 227).

Defendants sent unsolicited fax messages to market their services,
often without the prior express consent of the persons using those
cellular telephone numbers in order to promote their products and
services.

Plaintiff is a corporation registered in the State of Delaware,
with its principal place of business in Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania.

Singer Financial Corp. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
and is into loans and other financial services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      James M. Smith, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 658-5500


SINGING RIVER: Sued Over Failure to Fund Workers Retirement Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dolly Ann Montgomery, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Singing River Health System Foundation,
a/k/a Singing River Hospital System, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00017-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss., January 19, 2016) is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' failure to adequately fund
the Singing River Health System Employee Retirement Plan and
Trust.

Singing River Health System Foundation operates a community
hospital located in Jackson County, Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary M. Yarborough Jr., Esq.
      YARBOROUGH LAW FIRM, PLLC
      845-B Highway 90
      Bay Saint Louis, MS 39520
      Telephone: (228) 467-5771
      E-mail: ylf@garyyarborough@att.net


SING SONG: "Tang" Suit Seek Overtime Pay Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ai H. Tang, Jing G. Jiang, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sing Song Inc. d/b/a BARNACLE
Bill's, Todd Sherman, George P. Gill Jr., John Doe and Jane Doe
No. 1-10, Defendants, Case. No. 3:16-cv-00085-FLW-DEA (D.N.J.,
January 7, 2016), seeks injunction against Defendants, recovery of
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
and/or punitive damages, and attorney's and expert fees and
further legal and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et. seq.  and New Jersey State
Wage and Hour Law.

Ai H. Tang was hired by Defendants as a kitchen helper while Jing
G Jiang worked as a chef. They claim to have rendered in excess of
40 hours per work week without overtime compensation.

Sing Song Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of New Jersey, with a principal place of business located
at #1 1st St, Rumson, NJ 07760. It operates a restaurant under the
name Barnacle Bill's.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: kliu@hanglaw.com


SKINDER-STRAUSS: 3rd Cir. Affirms Junk Fax Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf, Shayna Posses and Nathan Hale, writing for Law360,
report that the Third Circuit on Feb. 16 affirmed a $625,000 class
action settlement between legal publisher Skinder-Strauss
Associates and law firm Landsman & Funk PC over the publisher's
transmission of unsolicited faxes, finding a magistrate judge
properly handled the settlement and fee determinations despite the
arguments of a lone objector.

The decision upholds U.S. Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor's May
2015 approval of a deal to end a 6 1/2 year-old Telephone Consumer
Protection Act suit on behalf of a proposed class of consumers
alleging the New Providence, New Jersey-based legal publisher sent
them thousands of unsolicited faxes.  With her approval, Judge
Waldor denied a challenge by Philadelphia-based Lightman &
Manochi, which objected to the deal for not adequately providing
for potential claimants who may not recall or have proof of
receiving a fax.

The circuit court on Feb. 16 rejected Lightman's arguments that
the settlement excludes a large number of potential claimants,
miscalculates class counsel attorneys' fees at around $208,000 and
unfairly reverts a majority of settlement funds back to the
defendant once class members are paid out approximately $58,000.

The panel observed that Lightman was the only objector out of
thousands of potential claimants, that Judge Waldor properly
relied on the appropriate benchmark for assessing the size of the
fund, and that she appropriately determined the reverter element
of the settlement was fair and reasonable because there were "no
indicia of self-dealing by counsel" and "counsel has met its
responsibility to seek an award that adequately prioritizes direct
benefit to the class."

"It appears uncontested that class counsel are highly skilled and
experienced in this type of litigation, they devoted hundreds of
hours of work to what was a complex and heavily litigated case,
they settled this case well before trial, and there was only a
single objection to the fee award," the panel said.

Landsman's attorney Aytan Yehoshua Bellin of Bellin & Associates
LLC told Law360 on Feb. 16 that his client is gratified with the
court's decision, and added that the panel's approval of a
settlement with a reverter element is significant.

"It's not a basis to say that a settlement is no good," he said.
"You can have a reverter as part of your settlement as long as you
made funds available to class members."

An attorney for Lightman did not immediately respond to a request
for comment on Feb. 16.

The suit, which survived a trial court dismissal after the Third
Circuit reversed and remanded the case, hinged on a debate over
whether the TCPA's right-of-private-action clause required it to
consider New York law, which prohibits class actions seeking
statutory penalties.  The appellate panel found that there was no
federal-question jurisdiction, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court
rulings and saying federal class action law applied.

In December 2012, U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden rejected
a second motion to dismiss the claims on remand, saying that
because federal law applies in this case, the defendant's motion
to dismiss based on limitations imposed by a state law fails.

The deal allows for the statutory maximum recovery of $500 per fax
received and retained, as well as a sliding scale down to $175 per
fax for those who did not retain faxes but declared that they
received them.

Lightman appealed the decision, arguing the claims process
required claimants to jump through "extremely high hurdles" and
that it was unreasonable to ask claimants to remember receiving
faxes more than six years ago.  As such, the settlement value was
"illusory" because only a low number of claimants would qualify.

On appeal, Landsman blasted Lightman's argument that the
attorneys' fee award should be reduced to reflect the amount of
the fund that's actually claimed rather than the entire common
fund, saying the contention goes against Supreme Court precedent.
It also said Lightman can't challenge the deal since it is not a
class member.

Landsman is represented by Aytan Y. Bellin of Bellin & Associates
LLC.

Lightman is represented in-house by Glenn A. Manochi --
gmanochi@lightmanlaw.com -- and Gary P. Lightman --
garylightman@lightmanlaw.com

Skinder-Strauss is represented by Michael R. McDonald --
mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- and Jeffrey A. Palumbo --
jpalumbo@gibbonslaw.com -- of Gibbons PC.

The case is Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Associates et
al., case number 15-2485, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.


SKULLCANDY INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah
-----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on Feb. 16 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Utah on behalf of all persons or entities who
acquired Skullcandy, Inc. (NASDAQ:SKUL) securities between
August 7, 2015 and January 11, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and
failed to disclose that: (1) Skullcandy's revenue and net income
guidance for the third quarter and full year 2015 were
unattainable; (2) Skullcandy's revenue and net income guidance for
the fourth quarter and full year 2015 were unattainable; (3)
Skullcandy faced challenges with its largest Chinese distributor;
(4) defendant Rick Alden and Ptarmagin, an entity controlled by
Alden, engaged in insider selling and realized proceeds in excess
of $4 million with knowledge of undisclosed materially adverse
facts; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about
Skullcandy's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.

On January 11, 2016, Skullcandy issued a press release updating
the company's financial outlook for the fourth quarter of 2015 and
announcing that the company had missed its quarterly net sales
projections. Following this news, Skullcandy stock fell $1.29,
more than 28%, to close at $3.26 per share on January 12, 2016.

If you purchased Skullcandy securities during the Class Period,
have information or would like to learn more about these claims,
or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters please contact J.
Brandon Walker, Esq. by email at investigations@bespc.com, or
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation.


SKULLCANDY INC: April 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 16 issued the following statement:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Skullcandy, Inc. ("Skullcandy") between August 7,
2015 and January 11, 2016.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action has been
commenced in the USDC for the District of Utah, Central Division.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Skullcandy securities
between August 7, 2015 and January 11, 2016, your rights may be
affected by this action.  To get more information go to:
http://zlk.9nl.com/skullcandy

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose material facts, including: (a) that the
Company issued false and misleading earnings guidance and (b) that
the Company was experiencing challenges with its largest Chinese
distributor.  The complaint further alleges that the
aforementioned omissions and/or misleading statements led
Skullcandy to trade at artificially inflated prices, permitting
certain insiders to engage in unusual insider selling and the
realization of proceeds in excess of $4 million.

If you suffered a loss in Skullcandy you have until April 12, 2016
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/skullcandy

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.  The
firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation involving
financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.


SOCAL GAS: Pleads Not Guilty to Criminal Charges Over Leak
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Southern California Gas Co.
pleaded not guilty on Feb. 17 to misdemeanor criminal charges
stemming from a weeks-long leak of gas from a storage well that
led thousands of nearby Los Angeles residents to relocate.

The utility's attorneys entered the pleas in Los Angeles County
Superior Court in suburban Santa Clarita.

"We do not believe a criminal prosecution is warranted here,"
SoCalGas spokesman Mike Mizrahi said outside court.

The complaint brought by the county district attorney includes
three counts of failing to report the release of a hazardous
material and one count of discharge of air contaminants.

If convicted, the company could be fined up to $1,000 per day for
air pollution violations and up to $25,000 for each of the three
days it didn't notify the state Office of Emergency Services of
the leak.

The company said it discovered the leak Oct. 23 and notified state
regulators.

But it failed to let state emergency officials know until
Oct. 26, California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in one of
more than two dozen lawsuits filed against SoCalGas.

Residents of the nearby Los Angeles community of Porter Ranch
began complaining of symptoms ranging from nosebleeds to nausea.

Nearly 6,500 families have temporarily relocated to short-term
housing such as hotels and rental houses.

The leak was recently stopped, but the families won't start moving
back until state authorities have certified that cement pumped
into the well has permanently plugged it.

The well that ruptured was more than 60 years old and was
originally drilled to pump oil from deep underground.  It was
reused in the 1970s to pump natural gas into the empty oil wells
for storage and withdraw it when demand spiked.


SPOTIFY: Seeks Dismissal of $150MM Copyright Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Blistein, writing for RollingStone, reports that Spotify has
filed legal motions to halt a $150 million class action lawsuit
over copyright infringement fronted by Camper Van Beethoven and
Cracker frontman David Lowery, Pitchfork reports.

The streaming giant submitted two motions on February 12th, one
asking a judge to dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction,
the other requesting the case be barred from being treated as a
class action.

In regards to the motion to dismiss, Spotify noted that Lowery
lives in Georgia, but filed his initial suit last December in
California, while Spotify is a Delaware corporation based in New
York.  They requested the judge move the case to New York if it is
not dismissed on these grounds.

As for the class action component, Lowery positioned his suit so
that it could encompass a wide swath of musicians who believed
they had been similarly wronged by Spotify.  Listing several of
his own tunes, Lowery accused the streaming service of both
failing to find and pay the composers and songwriters of tracks
provided to its users; and knowingly reproducing and distributing
copyrighted music without a proper license. Members of the class,
the suit claimed, could be easily identified by searching
Spotify's own database files and records.

In their motion, however, Spotify called Lowery's suit "a fatally
flawed candidate for class treatment."  The company claimed there
was "no way to determine who qualifies as a class member" because
of the "thorny and often intractable" questions of identifying the
owner of a song's mechanical rights (i.e. the right to reproduce
it), and determining if Spotify "distributed those compositions
without license or authorization."

The streaming service also argued that Lowery did not prove "that
common issues predominate over individual ones," or that a class
action made more sense than individual adjudication in a
copyright-based case.  They argued each potential class member
would have to be given their own "mini-trial" centered around the
various ownership specifics of each song.

Mona Hanna -- mhanna@mrllp.com -- a partner in the law firm
representing Mr. Lowery, Michelman & Robinson, LLP, told Pitchfork
that Spotify's motions were "a standard defense maneuver to try to
avoid dealing with the merits of the complaint and trying to see
if they can get a dismissal on procedural grounds." She added: "We
are very confident that this is just a delay tactic and we are
going to get to the merits."


SUMMIT COLLECTION: Faces "McGeehan" Suit Over Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pat McGeehan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Summit Collection Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-00045-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., January 5, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Summit Collection Services, Inc. operates a debt collection agency
in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNGENTA AG: 3,929 U.S. Suits Filed Over VIPTERA and DURACADE
-------------------------------------------------------------
Syngenta AG said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that since September 12, 2014, a total of
3,929 lawsuits (as of January 25, 2016) have been filed against
Syngenta in state and federal courts in the United States by
plaintiffs seeking damages from Syngenta for commercializing its
AGRISURE VIPTERA(R) (MIR162) and DURACADE(TM) corn seed in the
U.S. without having obtained import approval from China for those
products. Virtually all of the lawsuits were filed by individual
plaintiffs (including growers, grain elevators and exporters such
as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland), and approximately 70 by
putative classes of growers and of exporters, ethanol plants, and
others affected, on the theory that China's 2013 rejection of U.S.
corn based on the alleged presence of MIR162 caused increased
costs and U.S. commodity prices to drop. The cases are pending in
multiple jurisdictions, including:

     (1) a federal court multi-district litigation ("MDL") in
         the District of Kansas;

     (2) a consolidated state court proceeding in Hennepin
         County, Minnesota;

     (3) federal court in the Southern District of Illinois; and

     (4) various state courts in Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and
         Ohio.

Certain of these cases also name additional defendants including
ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus and Gavilon. Certain of the
cases currently pending in state court may be removed to federal
court.

The allegations include claims that Syngenta issued misleading
statements concerning the status of or timetable for approval of
import of VIPTERA(TM) corn into China and that the public had a
right to expect that corn sold to the general public was free from
"contamination" with VIPTERA(TM) corn. The Cargill lawsuit refers
to damages of in excess of $90 million and one of the exporter
lawsuits specifies damages of $41 million.

The federal court presiding over the MDL in Kansas issued a
Scheduling Order on October 21, 2015, setting the first case for
trial in June 2017. The court presiding over the consolidated
state court proceeding in Minnesota issued a Scheduling Order on
November 4, 2015, anticipating that the first trial will occur in
March 2017.

No other trial dates have been set. Syngenta strongly believes
that the claims in these cases are without merit and will
vigorously defend the lawsuits, and has filed counterclaims
against ADM, Cargill and other grain companies.


SYNGENTA AG: Faces Ontario Class Action Over VIPTERA and DURACADE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Syngenta AG said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that a claim was filed on December 1,
2015, in Ontario, Canada by a proposed representative plaintiff on
behalf of a putative class comprising all farmers in Canada
against Syngenta Canada Inc. and Syngenta AG seeking damages from
Syngenta for commercializing its AGRISURE VIPTERA(R) (MIR162) and
DURACADE(TM) corn seed in the North American corn market without
having obtained import approval from China for those products.

Syngenta Canada Inc. has been served with the claim. Syngenta AG
has not been served with the claim to date.

The causes of action referred to in the lawsuit include negligence
and negligent misrepresentations. The allegations include claims
that Syngenta actively misled farmers about the importance of the
Chinese market, the timing and substance of the application for
approval in China, its ability to channel VIPTERA(TM) corn into
non-Chinese markets and its ability to contain the infiltration of
VIPTERA(TM) corn to the North American corn supply. The proposed
representative plaintiff is seeking on behalf of the putative
class general and special damages of 300 million Canadian dollars
($216 million at the December 31, 2015 exchange rate), punitive
and aggravated damages of 100 million Canadian dollars ($72
million at the December 31, 2015 exchange rate), the costs of
distributing all monies awarded to class members, pre-judgment
interest, and costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

No steps have been taken in the action except for the service of
the claim on Syngenta Canada Inc. After Syngenta AG is served with
the claim, and subject to any preliminary motions that Syngenta
determines should be brought, the next step in these proceedings
will be a certification motion brought by the proposed
representative plaintiff. Syngenta strongly believes that the
claims in this action are without merit and will vigorously defend
the action.


SYNGENTA AG: Motion to File Class Suit in Montreal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Syngenta AG said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that no date has been scheduled for the
Motion for Authorization in the Canada Beekeeper Lawsuits.  The
Motion seeks permission to bring a similar class proceeding in in
Montreal, Quebec.

In September 2014, a claim was filed in Ontario, Canada by two
proposed representative members on behalf of a putative class
comprising all beekeepers who have owned or continue to own and
operate honey producing, pollinating, and/or queen bee rearing
businesses in Canada since January 1, 2006, against a number of
Syngenta legal entities together with certain entities of a second
manufacturer of neonicotinoid insecticides. Plaintiffs allege
negligence through the sale by that manufacturer and by Syngenta
of products containing such insecticides in the knowledge that
they would be injurious to bees and by virtue of
misrepresentations and concealment relating thereto. Plaintiffs
claim 400 million Canadian dollars ($288 million at the December
31, 2015 exchange rate) general and 50 million Canadian dollars
($36 million at the December 31, 2015 exchange rate) punitive
damages.

The pleadings in the Ontario proceedings have subsequently been
amended by plaintiffs' counsel to add waiver of tort and unlawful
conspiracy to the single cause of action, negligence, which was
previously pleaded. Both of the additional causes of action are
ancillary to and largely dependent on the negligence claim.

The Syngenta defendant legal entities (Syngenta Canada Inc. and
Syngenta International AG) have filed appearances in the
proceedings. Subject to any preliminary motions, the next step in
these proceedings will be a certification motion brought by the
proposed representative plaintiffs. No dates have been scheduled
for any motions at this time.

In October 2014, a Motion for Authorization was filed by the same
firm of plaintiffs' counsel in Montreal, Quebec seeking permission
to bring a similar class proceeding in that province. The proposed
representative plaintiff operates a family business specialized in
the breeding of queen bees. The Quebec litigation closely
resembles the original Ontario lawsuit claiming negligence except
that, rather than a nationwide class, it alleges a class limited
to Quebec.

At this preliminary motion stage damages are unspecified. Notices
of appearance have been entered on behalf of the Syngenta
defendant legal entities in Quebec. A case management judge has
been appointed in the Quebec proceedings.

No date has been scheduled for the Motion for Authorization. A
preliminary motion will be scheduled early in 2016 to address
evidentiary issues related to any Motion for Authorization.
Syngenta believes the claims in these cases are without merit and
will vigorously defend the lawsuits.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Violated Securities Act, "Patel" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mitesh Patel, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Terraform Global, Inc., Sunedison,
Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Ahmad Chatila, Martin Truong, Carlos
Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, 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, Itaij BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko
Securities America, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, Kotak
Mahindra, Inc., And Does 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
CIV 536788 (Cal Super. Ct., County of San Mateo, January 4, 2016),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933.

TerraForm Global owns and operates renewable energy generation
assets worldwide. It generates electricity through solar, wind,
and hydro-electric projects with a total combined capacity of
987.8 megawatts. The company serves utility, commercial,
industrial, and governmental customers. The company was founded in
2014 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. TerraForm Global,
Inc. is a subsidiary of SunEdison, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683)
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


TRICAN WELL SERVICE: "Alawar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rawad Alawar, Plaintiff, v. Trican Well Service, LP, Defendant,
Case No. 5:16-cv-00014 (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division, January
8, 2016), seeks all unpaid and/or underpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment
interest on all amounts awarded and other and further relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Alawar was employed by the Defendant as a field engineer and
claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without
overtime compensation.

Trican is an independent oilfield services contractor that
provides various specialized products, equipment, services and
technology for use in the drilling, completion, stimulation
and reworking of oil and gas wells in Canada and the United States
to include acidizing and production enhancement, cementing, coil
tubing, fracturing and coal bed methane fracturing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos A. Solis, Esq.
      310 S. St. Mary's St., Suite 2900
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Tel: (210) 446-5000
      Fax: (210) 446-5001
      Email: csolis@hilley-solis.com


TWENTY-FIRST: Wilder Litigation Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. continues to defend the class
action lawsuit, Wilder v. News Corp., et al., it said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2015.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were
issued regarding the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The
News of the World. The suit names as defendants the Company,
Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks
compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs.
On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court
issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint
shall be filed by July 31, 2012.

Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012,
which among other things, added as defendants NI Group Limited
(now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and
expanded the class period to include February 15, 2011 to July 18,
2011.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were
granted by the court on March 31, 2014.

On April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, which generally repeats the allegations of the amended
consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to July
8, 2009 to July 18, 2011.

Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint, and on September 30, 2015, the court granted
defendants' motions in their entirety and dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims.

On October 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's memorandum, opinion and order, which defendants
have opposed. The Company's management believes the claims in the
Wilder Litigation are entirely without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend this action.


UGI CORP: Appeal by Direct Customers Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal by direct
customers of propane gas is still pending with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.  In July 2015, the
Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all
claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect
customers.

The direct customers filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit,
which is still pending.

The indirect customers filed an amended complaint claiming
injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and
Vermont law. In January 2016, the District Court dismissed the
remaining injunctive relief claims for the indirect purchasers.

As a result, the only claims remaining with respect to indirect
purchasers involve alleged violations of Wisconsin, Maine and
Vermont state antitrust laws.

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

UGI Corporation ("UGI") is a holding company that, through
subsidiaries and affiliates, distributes, stores, transports and
markets energy products and related services.


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Sued in Ill. Over Alleged Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard S. Neft, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United
Airlines, Inc. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00765 (N.D. Ill., January 19, 2016) is brought on behalf of all
consumers who purchased a Silver Wings Plus program lifetime
membership against the Defendants  for breach of contract arising
from United's failure to provide the bargained-for benefits to the
Silver Wings lifetime members, in violation of the express terms
of the contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

The Defendants own and operate an airline company headquartered in
the Willis Tower in Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Stein III, Esq.
      ALVARADO SMITH, A.P.C.
      1 MacArthur Pl., Suite 200
      Santa Ana, CA 92707
      Telephone: (714) 852-6800
      E-mail: rstein@alvaradosmith.com

         - and -

      Anthony S. DiVincenzo, Esq.
      DIVINCENZO SCHOENFIELD SWARTZMAN
      33 N. LaSalle St., 29th Fl.
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 334-4800
      E-mail: adivincenzo@dsschicagolaw.com


UNITED DEVELOPMENT: "Anderson" Sues over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
James and Jennifer Anderson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United Development
Funding IV, Hollis M. Greenlaw, and Cara D. Obert, Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00009-Y (N.D. Tex., January 7, 2015), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and other relief for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5.

According to the complaint, the Company's share prices dropped
after published reports alleged United Development Funding of
engaging in a "Ponzi-like real estate scheme."

Plaintiffs acquired and held shares of the Company at artificially
inflated prices and lost significantly by the revelation of the
Company's material misrepresentations and omissions, says the
complaint.

United Development Funding IV is a Maryland corporation organized
as a real estate investment trust, with its principal place of
business in Grapevine, Texas. It is a real estate investment trust
under the larger United Development Funding umbrella. The Company
primarily originates, purchases, participates in and holds for
investment secured loans made directly by the Company or
indirectly through its affiliates to persons and entities for the
acquisition and development of parcels of real property as single-
family residential lots or mixed-use master planned residential
communities, for the construction of single family homes and for
completed model homes. Hollis M. Greenlaw is Chief Executive
Officer while Cara D. Obert is Chief Financial Officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Tel: (214) 239-4568
      Fax: (281) 254-7789
      Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com


UNITED SERVICES: Judge Set to Decide on Attorney Sanctions
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an
Arkansas federal judge soon will decide whether to sanction
attorneys for their dismissal of a class action settlement in his
court and subsequent refiling in a state court.

Chief Judge Paul K. Holmes III for the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas said in a December show-cause order
that the counsel appeared to have dismissed the action "for the
purpose of evading this Court's review of their negotiated
settlement."

"This forum shopping is inimical to our system of justice and
violates the spirit of the laws governing the jurisdictions of the
state and federal sovereigns," Judge Holmes wrote in the seven-
page order, which the judge filed a week after an Arkansas
business journal ran an article on the state court settlement.

Judge  Holmes, in a notice, has set a show-cause hearing for Feb.
18, allowing all counsel of record to show cause as to why he
should not sanction them.

"Counsel will be given the opportunity to respond through argument
of their own attorneys, presentation of testimony, and/or the
admission of other evidence, as counsel and their attorneys deem
appropriate and advisable, and at the discretion of the Court,"
the chief judge wrote.

"If the Court ultimately determines that sanctions should be
imposed, the Court will give notice of the nature of sanctions it
intends to impose and will give counsel an opportunity to respond,
at a second hearing, to the propriety of the specific sanctions
before any final order imposing sanctions is entered."

The plaintiffs in Adams et al. v. United Services Automobile
Association et al. originally filed their class action in state
court, claiming their insurer improperly applied depreciation when
adjusting claims for structural losses under their homeowners
insurance policies.

Allegedly, the defendant -- United Services Automobile
Association, USAA Casualty Insurance Company and USAA General
Indemnity Co. -- applied depreciation to labor and other non-
material items, such as taxes and general contractor overhead and
profit.

USAA removed the case to the federal court in January 2014, and
then moved for partial judgment on the pleadings in April 2014.
Soon after, the parties jointly moved to stay the case pending
mediation.

Later, the stay was lifted and the parties filed a stipulation of
dismissal on June 19, 2015. An order of dismissal was entered on
June 22.

According to Judge Holmes' show-cause order, the matter was re-
filed in Polk County Circuit Court, together with a motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement one day later.

The chief judge noted in his December order that "although this
matter was pending in this Court until June 22, the stipulation of
settlement was signed by counsel on June 16, 2015, and
specifically defines 'Court' as 'the Circuit Court of Polk County,
Arkansas.'"

"The clear inference to be drawn from the fact that counsel filed
a stipulation of settlement in Polk County the day after
dismissing the case that had been pending with this Court for over
17 months is that counsel wished to evade the federally-mandated
review of the class and the proposed settlement by this Court in
particular," Judge Holmes wrote.  "This inference is supported by
the fact that on May 13, 2015, this Court held a hearing in a
separate case brought by 'Mark and Kathy Adams' (also of Mena,
Arkansas, and presumably the same Plaintiffs in this matter) on
preliminary approval of a class-action settlement of claims
identical to those raised in the instant matter and brought by
many of the same plaintiffs' counsel."

According to the chief judge's show-cause order, he had expressed
concerns about that settlement's structure and attorneys' fee
award.  The settlement was ultimately approved in federal court,
but only after both parties had to make revisions to address
Holmes' concerns.

"Having experienced or otherwise been made aware of the Court's
scrutiny of the settlement in Adams 1, counsel had the benefit of
knowing the Court's views on the issues that would be raised by
the stipulation of settlement filed with the Circuit Court of Polk
County upon dismissal of this case.  Counsel likely believed that,
given the almost identical nature of Adams 1 and this case, the
Court would not approve a settlement so strikingly different from
that entered into in Adams 1," Judge Holmes wrote.  "The Court can
only conclude that counsel anticipated that this Court would be
diligent in its duty to protect the interests of absent class
members and would be unlikely to approve a settlement that
advanced the interests of class counsel (a large fee award with a
clear sailing provision) and defense counsel (a claims made
settlement with onerous claims requirements and a reversionary
fund) while largely failing to protect the interests of the class,
whose members would otherwise be entitled to collect potentially
substantial sums of money from Defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel
likely also anticipated that the Court would look with skepticism
at a request for a large sum of attorneys' fees for negotiation of
a claims-made settlement, and that recovery of fees would likely
have to bear some relationship to the amount ultimately recovered
on behalf of the class.

"Counsel therefore chose to dismiss the action from this Court to
evade this review. The ethical problem presented by this case is
compounded by counsel's abuse of process in using this Court and
its exercise of jurisdiction as a bargaining chip in the
negotiation of the ultimately questionable settlement."

Plaintiffs' counsel argued in their Jan. 14 response that they
"have acted in good faith and pursued a legitimate course of
action."

"Given that Plaintiffs initially filed their case in Arkansas
state court and always believed that it was the appropriate forum,
Counsel ultimately negotiated a settlement that appropriately took
the matter back to its forum of inception," lawyers for the
plaintiffs' counsel wrote.  "Such actions were in no way
detrimental to the class nor were they in any other manner
improper."

W.H. Taylor -- whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com -- Stevan E. Vowell
-- svowell@taylorlawpartners.com -- William B. Putman and Timothy
J. Myers of Fayetteville law firm Taylor Law Partners LLP and Matt
Keil and John C. Goodson of Keil & Goodson PA in Texarkana
represented the plaintiffs.

Mitchell Williams Selig Gates & Woodyard PLLC in Little Rock
represented the defendant.

The defendant's counsel said in its Jan. 19 response to Holmes'
show-cause order that it "always intended to litigate the case in
this Court to finality if settlement discussions were
unsuccessful."

"After lengthy settlement negotiations assisted by a prominent
national mediator who is a former federal judge, spanning more
than six months, USAA agreed to settle in state court because it
could not reach an acceptable settlement agreement with Plaintiffs
otherwise," they explained.

"Prior to receiving this Court's recent order, USAA's counsel had
no knowledge of the concerns this Court expressed in May of 2015
concerning a proposed class action settlement in Adams v. Cameron
Mutual Ins. Co."

Counsel for both parties noted in their responses that in two
recent, similar class actions, Arkansas federal courts didn't take
issue with the cases being removed from state court before
returning there for settlement approval.

"If this Court were to reach a conclusion that a decision to
dismiss a federal case and enter into a state court settlement is
improper, it appears this Court would be the first court ever to
do so," lawyers for the defendant's counsel wrote.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Jacobs" Suit Seeks Relief Under ERISA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELINA N. JACOBS v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; VERIZON
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP.; THE VERIZON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE; MARC C. REED; MARTHA DELEHANTY; ANDREW H. NEBENS;
CONNIA NELSON; SHANE SANDERS; ROBERT J. BARISH; DONNA C.
CHIFFRILLER; FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY; AND FIDELITY
INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., Case 1:16-cv-
01082 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2016), seeks to recover financial
losses allegedly suffered by the Verizon Plans and participants
and beneficiaries of the Verizon Plans, and to obtain injunctive
and other equitable relief pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon) is a holding company that,
acting through its subsidiaries, provides communications,
information and entertainment products and services to consumers,
businesses and governmental agencies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
     Peter W. Overs, Jr., Esq.
     HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
     488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 935-7400
     Fax: (212) 753-3630
     E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com
             povers@hfesq.com

        - and -

     John F. Edgar, Esq.
     Michael D. Pospisil, Esq.
     Boyce N. Richardson, Esq.
     EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
     1032 Pennsylvania Avenue
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Phone: (816) 531-0033
     Fax: (816) 531-3322
     E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
             mdp@edgarlawfirm.com
             bnr@edgarlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
     Michael McKay, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270
     Scottsdale, AZ 85253
     Phone: (480) 428-0145
     Fax: (866) 505-8036
     E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
             mmckay@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
     Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
     Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
             mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com


VICTORIA FINE FOODS: Violated CPL, "Shmidt" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Ulyana Shmidt and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Victoria Fine Foods,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. CV16-00230 (E.D.N.Y., January 15,
2016), seeks to recover damages and relief as a result of
Defendants' deceptive practice of marketing Victoria Premium Vodka
Sauce product as containing "No Preservatives"" when it contains
the non-natural, chemically processed ingredient and preservative
Citric Acid, pursuant to the Consumer Protection Laws.

Victoria Fine Foods produces and sells pasta sauces, specialty
sauces, artichokes, olives, peppers, marinated vegetables, other
specialties, gourmet spreads, and herbs and spices. The company
also offers private label products for several various supermarket
chains and for select specialty food companies. Its products are
sold through supermarkets, club stores, specialty shops, and its
e-store; specialty distributors and brokers; and co-pack products
for companies, such as Fortune 100 companies and small
manufacturers in the United States. Victoria Fine Foods, LLC was
founded in 1929 and is based in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Martin" Files Suit Over Defeat Device
--------------------------------------------------------
Janice Martin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Veritas Auto Finance,
LLC, and John Does 1-25,the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20195-JLK
(S.D. Fla., January 15, 2016), seeks legal and equitable relief in
the form of damages, specific performance, rescission, attorneys'
fees, costs of suit, and other relief as a result of Defeat Device
in VW automobiles purchased by the Plaintiff from the Defendants.

Volkswagen Group designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in
the United States and internationally. The company houses
operations of a family of brands worldwide, including Audi,
Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini and Volkswagen, as well as VW
Credit, Inc. It sells its vehicles through a network of dealers in
the United States. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. was founded
in 1955 and is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. It has a
manufacturing plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Noggle" Suit in Id. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Noggle, individually and on behalf of others similarly
suited v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00031-BLW (D. Id., January 19, 2016) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged installation of defeat devices in approximately 482,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles manufactured and sold and
leased in the United States since 2009, to switch engines to a
cleaner mode during official emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard H. Greener, Esq.
      Fredric V. Shoemaker, Esq.
      Loren K. Messerly, Esq.
      GREENER BURKE SHOEMAKER OBERRECHT P.A.
      950 West Bannock Street, Suite 950
      Boise, ID 83702
      Telephone: (208) 319-2600
      Facsimile: (208) 319-2601
      E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com
              fshoemaker@greenerlaw.com
              lmesserly@greenerlaw.com


WAL-MART: Supreme Court to Review "Stacked" Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether
to review a circuit court decision that petitioner Wal-Mart said
endorses "stacked" class actions thanks to a timeout in the
statute of limitations.

The retail giant is challenging a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals' ruling that allowed former members of the landmark Dukes
v. Wal-Mart class action to proceed with their gender
discrimination case on a regional basis after the Supreme Court
rejected the nationwide class in 2011.


WEDGEWOOD VILLAGE: Violated JFPA, Noah's Ark Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noah's Ark, Inc. d/b/a Winchester Animal Clinic, a Massachusetts
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Wedgewood Village
Pharmacy, Inc. And John Does 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-10068-LTS (D. Mass., January 15, 2016), seeks relief including
injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, their employees, agents,
representatives, contractors, affiliates, and all persons and
entities acting in concert with them, from sending unsolicited
advertisements under the Junk Fax Prevention Act (JFPA); and an
award of statutory damages in the minimum amount of $500 for each
violation of the JFPA.

Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, doing business as Wedgewood Pharmacy,
operates as a compounding pharmacy in the United States. The
company provides human health compounded preparations for urology,
ophthalmology and retina, obsterics/gynecology, addiction,
dentistry, endocrinology, and dermatology applications; veterinary
compounded preparations for companion animals, such as dogs, cats,
birds, pocket pets, and horses, as well as amphibians,
hippopotamus, and reptiles; and veterinary specialties in
ophthalmology, performance horses, reproduction, and oncology. It
serves human health and veterinary markets. The company was
founded in 1980 and is based in Swedesboro, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan L. Cantor, Esq.
          SWARTZ & SWARTZ
          10 Marshall Street
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 742 1900
          Facsimile: (617) 367 7193

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued Over Misleading Proxy Statement
--------------------------------------------------------
City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Williams
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00017-UNA (D. Del.,
January 19, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for breaches
of fiduciary duties and the dissemination of a materially false
and misleading proxy statement in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act.

The Williams Companies, Inc. is a provider of the large-scale
infrastructure responsible for connecting North America's natural
gas supply and natural gas products to the growing global demand
for clean fuels and feedstock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pamela S. Tikellis, Esq.
      A. Zachary Naylor, Esq.
      Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      222 Delaware Avenue, 11th Floor
      P.O. Box 1035
      Wilmington, DE 19899
      Telephone: (302) 656-2500
      Facsimile: (302) 656-9053
      E-mail: pst@chimicles.com
              zn@chimicles.com
              tjc@chimicles.com

         - and -

      Joseph E. White III, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
      Adam Warden, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE, P.A.
      5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 394-3399
      Facsimile: (888) 458-9055
      E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
              jstein@saxenawhite.com
              awarden@saxenawhite.com


WORLD SECURITY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL GARCIA v. WORLD SECURITY BUREAU, INC. d/b/a) WORLD SECURITY
AGENCY, and IBRIHAM KISWANI, Case: 1:16-cv-02130 (N.D.Ill.,
February 11, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

World Security Bureau is a detective and armored car service
located in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com
             zflowerree@flsalaw.com


XL FOODS: Court Approves E. Coli Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP of London, Ontario, James H. Brown and Associates of
Edmonton, Alberta and D'Arcy & Deacon LLP of Calgary, Alberta on
Feb. 17 announced the court approval of a protocol for the
distribution of settlement funds in the XL Foods class action. The
class action was commenced in connection with the fall 2012 recall
of beef products processed at the XL Foods facility in Brooks,
Alberta.  The recall was issued as a result of a possible E. coli
contamination and is the largest food recall in Canadian history.

A settlement in the amount of $4 million has been reached with XL
Foods to resolve the litigation in its entirety.  XL Foods do not
admit any wrongdoing or liability.  The Alberta court approved the
settlement and a protocol for distribution of the settlement
funds.

Daniel Bach, a lawyer with Siskinds LLP, states: "The result of
this case highlights the importance of food safety and holding
companies accountable where they have failed to implement safe
food processing and testing techniques."

Persons in Canada or the United States who purchased and/or
consumed recalled XL beef or who purchased beef that could not be
positively identified as not being recalled XL beef are eligible
to claim settlement benefits.  Claims can be filed online at
www.xlbeefclassaction.com on or before August 17, 2016.  More
information about the settlement, the distribution of settlement
funds and the claims process can be found online at
www.xlbeefclassaction.com or by calling the claims administrator
at 1-800-951-3201.

                     About Class Counsel

Siskinds LLP is a full-service law firm with offices in Toronto
and London, and affiliate offices in Montreal and Quebec City.
Siskinds LLP is Canada's leading class action law firm.

James H. Brown and Associates is based in Western Canada and
carries out an active class action, serious injury and fatality
litigation practice.

D'Arcy & Deacon LLP, with offices in Winnipeg and Calgary, is a
full service law firm, with extensive experience in class actions.


ZIMMER INC: Faces "Gallagher" Suit in Cal. Over Durom Cup Design
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Gallagher, Nona F. Daniel- Marycholet, Detlef Moeller,
Debra Neundorf and Shirley Wilson v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., Case
No. BC606098 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 6, 2016) arises out of the
Defendants' negligence in designing, manufacturing, testing,
inspecting, packaging, labeling, distributing, and marketing the
Zimmer Metasul(R) Durom(R) Acetabular Component (Durom Cup).

Zimmer Metasul(R) Durom(R) Acetabular Component (Durom Cup) is a
medical device for implantation in the human hip.

Zimmer, Inc. is a producer of orthopedic devices, and it does a
substantial amount of business in Los Angeles County, including
marketing and sales of the orthopedic device at issue in this
case.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin R. Heim, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
      525 S. Douglas St., Suite 260
      EI Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 331-8224
      Facsimile: (310) 736-2877
      E-mail: JHeim@napolilavv.com


* Justice Scalia's Death May Complicate Two Pending Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Marcus and William McConnell, writing for The Street, report
that the death of Justice Antonin Scalia may complicate nearly a
dozen significant business pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The absence of the conservative icon from the panel creates a
greater likelihood that contentious cases will result in a 4-4 tie
among the justices.  The lack of a clear majority will leave the
previous rulings by lower courts intact.

One key case is a challenge to new Environmental Protection Agency
rules governing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.  On
Feb. 9 the Supreme Court blocked their implementation pending the
outcome of a legal challenge to the climate change rules by more
than two dozen states.  If an appeals court upholds the rules, the
regulations would remain on hold pending a Supreme Court ruling
expected to come no sooner than 2017.  Justice Scalia was among
the 5-4 majority voting for the stay.  In previous opinions
addressing climate change Scalia argued that climate change was a
distinct issue from air pollution.

Other business-related cases likely to be affected by his absence
or the potential for a 4-4 split on the court:

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

The legal question in this case, argued before the justices Jan.
11, is whether "agency shop" agreements for public employees
violate the First Amendment.  Prompted by efforts to limit the
political influence of public-sector unions, conservative groups
that helped bring the case argued a teacher's free-speech rights
were violated by a requirement that she pay union fees.  A ruling
on behalf of the teacher would overturn a 1977 decision upholding
public-sector union agency fees.  During oral argument Justice
Scalia was "dubious" of the need to charge non-members.  If the
union's work was valuable to teachers it should be able to get
them to sign up willingly, he said.

Spokeo v. Robins

Argued on Nov. 2, the justices must consider whether plaintiffs
may sue even if they have no concrete injuries.  A plaintiff
argued that people search Web site Spokeo posted inaccurate
information about him and is seeking to represent a class of
people with similar complaints.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act
provides up to $1,000 in damages for inaccurate reports.  The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce argued that allowing standing to be based
solely on a technical statutory violation would render traditional
class-certification requirements meaningless and would invite
class action abuse.

Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo

In another case involving class actions, the court on Nov. 10
heard whether a certified class may include people who suffered no
injuries.  This case examines the certification by a lower court
of a class action against Tyson Foods on behalf of 3,000 hourly
workers who seek pay for time putting on and removing protective
gear.  Walmart, Dow Chemical and other companies urged the court
to reject class actions unless specific legal claims predominate
among the entire class.


                            *********

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  * * *