CAR_Public/160316.mbx
             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 16, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 54


                            Headlines


24 HOUR FITNESS: "Borders" Sues over Club Membership Downgrade
ADROIT LLC: "Byrd, Jr." Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES: Violated Sherman Act, "Shain" Suit Asserts
AIXTRON SE: Faces Securities Action in New York
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Snowmobile 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk

AVON PRODUCTS: "Brockton" Settlement Awaits Final Judgment
AVON PRODUCTS: Documentation Pending in ERISA Case Accord
AXON US CORP: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Inked Agreement to Settle Customer Action
BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in Stock Purchasers Suit

BAKER HUGHES: Faces "McCulloch" Labor Suit in Calif.
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Parties in Merger Suit Entered Into MOU
BENCO DENTAL: "PJCC" Sues Over Dental Supply Price Fixing
BENCO DENTAL: Howard Files Suit Over Dental Supplies Pricing
BENCO DENTAL: Indianola Family Sues for Price Fixing

BENCO DENTAL: Violated Sherman Act, Indianola Suit Claims
BLOUNT INC: Retirement System Sues Over Proposed Buyout
BLUE BAY ENTERPRISES: "Mejia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BLUE BIRD: Recalls Vision School Bus 2016 Models
BLUESTEM BRANDS: Faces "Morgan" Class Action in N.Y.

BMW: Faces Class Action in Georgia Over Turbo Engine Defect
BOB COOK CONSTRUCTION: "Ambrose" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
BOEING COMPANY: April 22 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
BONAVISTA SPECIALTY: Recalls Cured Pork Products
BOSTON PADS: "Patterson" Suit seeks Minimum Wage, Commissions

BRIGHT HOUSE: Faces "Cruz" Suit for Failure to Pay OT
BRONX MAGIC: Faces "Barry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CALIBRATE PROPERTY: "DeVito" Suit Seeks Security Deposit Rules
CALIFORNIA LABOR: "Zepeda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CARA GROUP: Violated FLSA & IMWL, "Ross" Suit Claims

CARGURUS INC: "Serban" Suit Seeks to Stop Illegal Text Messages
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Administration of Settlement Ongoing
CASH NET USA: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Damages & Remedies Under TCPA
CHEVRON CORP: "White" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
COMSCORE INC: May 9 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

COOPER TIRE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Complaint
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Boswell" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
DOLLAR GENERAL CORP: "Oren" Sues Over Obsolete Engine Oil
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Berg" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cadapan" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL

DRAFTKINGS INC: "Champagne" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "DeGroot" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Franco" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Defending Suits Over San Onofre Facility
ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Cook" Files Suit Over TCPA Violation

EVERQUOTE INC: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages
EXECUTIVE CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FACEBOOK INC: Canada Supreme Court to Consider Privacy Suit
FIFTH STREET: "Craig" Suit Seeks to Block Investment Termination
FIVEFOUR GROUP: Violated Cal. Civil Code, "Santoyo" Suit Claims

FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Still Face DBCP Claims in Costa Rica
FRESH DEL MONTE: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration in Phils. Case
FRESH DEL MONTE: 3rd Cir. Appeal in DBCP Case Pending
FTS USA: 6th Cir. Refuses to Apply Stricter FLSA Cert. Standard
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violated Sherman Act, Phoenixville Suit Claims

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Class Action Over Paroxetine Drug
GOPRO INC: "Giavara" Files Securities Class Action in Cal.
GULF ATLANTIC: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
GULF STREAM: Recalls Multiple Motorhome Models Due to Injury Risk
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Need Time for Pretrial Statement

HAWAIIAN GRILL: "Ecoquij-Tzep" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: "Donohoe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HOLIDAY RAMBLER: Recalls Ambassador Motorhomes Due to Injury Risk
HOME DEPOT: Recalls White and Alabaster Aluminum Blinds
HOME DEPOT: Recalls 3-Pack Candy Cane Light Stakes Set

HOT TOPIC: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
IKEA CANADA: Recalls Lattjo Drum Sticks Due to Choking Hazard
IMPRIVATA INC: Faces "Coyer" Securities Class Action in Mass.
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Violated Exchange Act, "DiDonato" Suit Claims
IOVATE HEALTH: Recalls Health Product Due to Noncompliant Label

J.B. HUNT: Drivers' Class Action Remains Pending in Calif.
JAYCO: Recalls Motorhome 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk
JJ LINDEN STREET: Violated FLSA, "Hunt" Suit Claims
JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of ERISA Action Under Appeal
JPMORGAN CHASE: Says Settlement of CDS Litigation Still Pending

JPMORGAN CHASE: Consumer and ERISA Suits Over FX Rates Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: FX Dealers Face Class Actions in Canada
JPMORGAN CHASE: Oral Arguments Heard in LIBOR Case Appeal
JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Florida Case
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Hearing This Month to Approve Purchaser Deal

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Revised Class Cert. Bid Okayed in ODD Case
KRUGER INC: Court Hears Arguments in Deer Lake Canal Suit
LAST GLUE: Recalls Skin-Bonding Adhesives Due to Noncompliance
LIFELOCK INC: Inked Comprehensive Settlement Agreement with FTC
MDL 1566: ONEOK Still Defends Gas Index Pricing Litigation

MDL 2657: "Ellington" Personal Injury Suit Filed
MDL 2657: "Alvarez" Personal Injury Suit Filed
MEDBOX INC: May 16 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
MEDTRONIC XOMED: Recalls HydroDebrider System - Handpiece
MESSARA IMPORTS: Recalls Honey Products

MICRO BIRD: Recalls 2015 Model School Buses Due to Crash Risk
MOBILEIRON INC: Amended "Panjwani" Suit Tossed
MOBILEIRON INC: 3 California Class Actions Consolidated
MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss FX Rates Antitrust Suit Pending
MORGAN STANLEY: Canada Class Suits Target FX Dealers

MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement in CDS Antitrust Case Await Final OK
MR BRUNO'S PIZZA: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
NAVISTAR INT'L: Fire Officials to Sue Over MaxxForce Engines
NEW JERSEY: Drivers Fight Bid to Dismiss Bridgegate Class Action
NISSAN: Faces Complaints Over Melting Dashboards

NORTHEAST LANDSCAPE: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Taveras" Suit Claims
OFFICE DEPOT: Final Settlement Approval Expected by Mid-2016
OFFICE DEPOT: Still Defending "Rivet" Case in N.J.
OREGON: Linn County Commissioners to File Breach of Contract Suit
OUTSET MEDIA: Recalls Mirari Wee Keys(R) Due to Choking Hazard

OVERSEAS PATENT AGENCY: Violated FLSA, "Delmonico" Suit Claims
PAPA JOHN'S: Court Granted Final Approval to "Perrin" Settlement
PASTA MIA LTD: Violated FLSA, "Aguilar Escobar" Suit Claims
PETRO HOME: Faces "Donnefeld" Suit in New Jersey District Court
PIER 1: Recalls Chairs and Stands Due to Fall Hazard

PILOT CORP: "Darby" Suit Alleges Credit Hold Scam
POLISH TRADE: Recalls Fish Salad Product Due to Wheat
PROFESSIONAL DETAILERS: "Miller" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
PTC INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Bids to Nix Securities Suit Still Pending

SAKURA 7 QUEENS: "Martono" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NY Law
SAPUTO INC: Recalls Skimmed Microfiltered Milk Products
SCHWARZ PARTNERS: "Aguayo" Suit Removed to Florida District Court
SCOTIAN ISLE: Recalls Chicken Curry Pie Due to Mustard
SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Frozen Pre-Fried Fish Cake Due to Egg

SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Frozen Fish Products Due to Egg
SITEL WORLDWIDE CORP: Violated FLSA, "Gaffers" Suit Claims
SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Transfer "Huang" Case Remains Pending
SPIROS PARTNERS: "Moore" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Says Settlement in Riata Case Fully Funded

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Says Riata Plaintiffs in Canada Inactive
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: July 14 Deadline to File Dispositive Motions
STELLA & CHEWY'S: Recalls Beef Dinner Morsels Due to Listeria
SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Begins in Suit Over 401(k) Plan
SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Actions Pending

SUNTRUST BANKS: 2 Cases Remanded to D.C. Court
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Thurmond" Action Stayed Pending 3rd Cir. Case
SUZUKI: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Injury Hazard
TFI FOODS: Recalls Shrimp Flavored Ball Products Due to Egg
TFI FOODS: Updates Seafood Product Recall

TGI FRIDAY'S: Workers File Class Action Vacation Pay Policy
THIRD AVENUE: Faces Inter-Marketing Securities Suit in Cal.
TJX CANADA: Recalls Dark Chocolate Covered Cranberries
TRUE NORTH: Recalls Salmon Products Due to Extraneous Material
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Court Hears Arguments in Fraud Class Action

TRUSTMARK CORP: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Ruling May Narrow Class Action Certification
UNITIL: Mass. Court Hears Appeal in Customers' Class Action
US FED LOAN: "Weisberg" Suit Seeks Damages & Remedies Under TCPA
VECTREN CORP: Bid to Dismiss SIGECO Employees Suit Still Pending

VIGILANT CANINE: McGuire" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
WAL-MART STORES: Misrepresentation of Products "Davies" Suit Says
WAYFAIR INC: Violated FTCA & Cal Civil Code, "Carson" Suit Claims
WEB.COM GROUP: Faces "Mohorne" Suit Over Data Breach
WENDY'S COMPANY: "Torres" Sues over Credit Card Data Breach

WEST ELM: Recalls Saddle Counter Stools
WILSON: Recalls Grain Trailer 2013 & 2014 Models
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Plaintiff Counsel to File Fee Application
WYNN LAS VEGAS: "Abebe" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
XTREME DRILLING: "Blanco" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages, Back Pay

YING XIANG: Recalls Frozen Seafood Products Due to Egg


                            *********


24 HOUR FITNESS: "Borders" Sues over Club Membership Downgrade
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Borders, Eli Charne and Jennifer Horta, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
24 Hour Fitness USA, INC., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case RG16802314 (Cal. Super., Alameda County, February
1, 2016), seeks actual damages, restitution and disgorgement,
attorneys' fees and expenses, costs of suit and such other and
further relief for breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing and for violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

The Defendant implemented a downgrade scheme to reduce the club
membership inclusions yet maintaining the rates. Plaintiffs are
members of the club and claim to have been short-changed by this
change in scheme.

24 Hour Fitness is a fitness center chain that operates more than
400 clubs nationwide, including approximately 223 clubs in
California. 24 Hour Fitness is a California corporation, with its
principal place of business located at 12647 Alcosta Blvd., 5th
Floor, San Ramon, CA 94583-4439, Contra Costa County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
      Dominic R. Valerian, Esq.
      GALLO LLP
      1299 ??Fourth St., Suite 505
      3 San Rafael, CA 94901
      Phone: 415-257-8800
      Fax: 415-257-8844
      Email: rgallo@gallo-law.com
             dvalerian@gallo-law.com


ADROIT LLC: "Byrd, Jr." Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Thomas Byrd, Jr., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Adroit Field Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00201-MHW-TPK (S.D. Ohio, March 4,
2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Adroit is an oilfield service company that provides a variety of
oil and gas related services, including blasting, hydro and nitro
testing and heavy equipment operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES: Violated Sherman Act, "Shain" Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W. Curtis Shain, Scott Irwin, Robert Spillman, Cedric Myles, and
Anthony Calabro, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Advanced Technologies Group, LLC and
Sandisk Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-10367-LVP-
APP (S.D. Mich., Southern Division, February 02, 2016), seeks to
recover damages and other forms of monetary relief, and injunctive
relief, as a result of Defendants' violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unjust enrichment, conversion, unconscionability,
and violations of state consumer protection laws.

Advanced Technologies Group was founded in 1991. The company's
line of business includes providing computer related services and
consulting. The Company is based in West Des Moines, Indiana.
SanDisk Corporation designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
data storage solutions in the United States and internationally.
The company offers solid state drives (SSDs) for client computing
applications, which include desktop computers, notebook computers,
tablets, and other computing devices, as well as offers enterprise
SSD solutions for various storage interface protocols. It offers
client SSDs in industry-standard and custom forms under SanDisk,
SanDisk Ultra II, SanDisk ReadyCache, SanDisk SSD Plus, SanDisk
Extreme, and SanDisk Extreme PRO brand names. The company is a
Delaware corporation with its principal office in Milpitas,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Richard L. Merpi, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: 248 841 2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  rlm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Brian S. Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10 East 40th Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 726 4436
          Email: brian@cohenlg.com

               - and -

          Andrew L. Lee, Esq.
          ALL COUNSEL, P.C.
          21 West 45th Street, Suite 301
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 541-2429
          Email: alee@all-counsel.com


AIXTRON SE: Faces Securities Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------
Aixtron Se said in its Form Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company on January
4, 2016, was named as a defendant in a putative class action
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between September 25, 2014
and December 9, 2015. The complaint is making reference to an
announcement AIXTRON published on December 9, 2015 regarding a
substantial reduction in order volume from Chinese customer San'an
Optoelectronics from 50 down to three AIX R6 MOCVD systems which
caused a strong decline of the price of the Companies' shares and
ADS's. The complaint claims in part that the Company made false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects in connection with the order. AIXTRON disputes the
allegations and intends to contest the allegations vigorously.

Based on an initial assessment from legal counsel, AIXTRON
believes that the mentioned claim will not be successful. However,
it cannot be ruled out that decisions of the above mentioned court
as well as settlements could potentially cause expenses, which may
have a material adverse effect on AIXTRON's business, financial
condition and results of operations.

AIXTRON provides deposition equipment to the semiconductor
industry.


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Snowmobile 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 11, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Snowmobile
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 802
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016012TC
ID number: 2016012

On certain snowmobiles, the brake line could wear against the
driven clutch pulley when the clutch shifts fully open. This could
cause a loss of brake function, increasing the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
inspect brake hose routing and reposition if necessary. Brake
hoses showing evidence of contact with the pulley will be
replaced.

  Make         Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----     ----------------------
  ARCTIC CAT             2016, 2016, 2016


AVON PRODUCTS: "Brockton" Settlement Awaits Final Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has not yet
entered a final judgment approving the settlement in the lawsuit
by City of Brockton Retirement System.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the
Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset
Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June
14, 2012.

On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including
October 26, 2011.

The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and
two individuals and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the
Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the
Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
November 21, 2014.

The parties have reached an agreement on a settlement of this
class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members
of the class of claims against the Company and the individual
defendants and payment of $62 million. Under the terms of the
settlement, approximately $60 million of the settlement was paid
by the Company's insurers and approximately $2 million was paid by
the Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the
Company's applicable insurance policy) into escrow.

On August 21, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and on December 1, 2015 the court held a hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement and expressed an intent
to grant final approval. However, the court has not yet entered a
final judgment approving the settlement.

"If the settlement is not approved by the court, or is otherwise
terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be unable to
predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore, in that event, it
is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in
connection with this matter, which the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate," the Company said.


AVON PRODUCTS: Documentation Pending in ERISA Case Accord
---------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a $6 million settlement
in the case, In re 2014 Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation,
remains pending as certain documentation relating to the
settlement has not yet been finalized.

Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York -- Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the Company, the
Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment committee, and
certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan fiduciaries.

On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and
recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products,
Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083). On May 8, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, asserting claims for
alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor under
ERISA on behalf of a purported class of participants in and
beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in and/or held shares of
the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and May 1, 2014
and between December 14, 2011 and the present.  Plaintiffs seek,
inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory,
injunctive and other equitable relief.

On July 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

The parties have reached an agreement on a settlement of this
class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members
of the class of claims against the Company and the individual
defendants and payment of approximately $6 million. Under the
terms of the settlement, approximately $5 million of the
settlement will be paid by the Company's insurer and approximately
$1 million will be paid by the Company (which represents the
remaining deductible under the Company's applicable insurance
policy).

Certain documentation relating to the settlement has not yet been
finalized, and the settlement is subject to court approval. If the
settlement is not approved by the court, or is otherwise
terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be unable to
predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore, in that event, it
is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in
connection with this matter, which the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate.

Avon is a global manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related
products.


AXON US CORP: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------
Andy Chorng-Jiin Chen and Yi Yu Wen, Plaintiffs, individually and
on behalf of all others employees similarly situated v. Axon US,
Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01103 (E.D.N.Y., March
4, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Axon US, Corp. owns and operates a seafood wholesale business
located at 270 West 38th St. Rm 2002, New York, NY 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
     136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Tel: 718-353-8588
     Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Inked Agreement to Settle Customer Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Bank on January 5,
2016, entered into an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit
filed on May 18, 2010 by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit
challenged the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the
policies related to the posting order of debit card and ATM
transactions. The suit also made a claim under Arkansas' consumer
protection statute. The plaintiff was seeking to recover damages
in an unspecified amount and equitable relief.  As a result of
this agreement, the Company recorded an expense of $16.5 million
in the fourth quarter of 2015, representing amounts to be paid in
connection with the settlement net amounts the Company had already
accrued for this legal proceeding in previous periods.  The
proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and final court
approval. The Company can provide no assurance that such approval
will occur in any specific time frame or at all.

BancorpSouth, Inc. is a financial holding company incorporated in
1982.  Through its principal bank subsidiary, BancorpSouth Bank
(the "Bank"), originally chartered in 1876, the Company conducts
commercial banking and financial services operations in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee,
Texas and Illinois.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in Stock Purchasers Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that no class has been
certified in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of certain
purchasers of the Company's common stock.

On July 31, 2014, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock.  The complaint has subsequently been amended to add
the former President and Chief Operating Officer.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made misleading statements concerning
the Company's expectation that it would be able to close two
merger transactions within a specified time period and the
Company's compliance with certain Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money
laundering requirements.

On July 10, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims concerning
the Company's expectations about the closing of the mergers.  The
plaintiff seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of
damages and awards of costs and attorneys' fees and such other
equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

No class has been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit,
management cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable
outcome to the Company.  Although it is not possible to predict
the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to
this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the
outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results
of operations.

BancorpSouth, Inc. is a financial holding company incorporated in
1982.  Through its principal bank subsidiary, BancorpSouth Bank
(the "Bank"), originally chartered in 1876, the Company conducts
commercial banking and financial services operations in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee,
Texas and Illinois.


BAKER HUGHES: Faces "McCulloch" Labor Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------
Marc McCulloch, individually, on behalf of others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff,
v. Baker Hughes Inteq Drilling Fluids, Inc., Baker Hughes, Inc.,
and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00157-
DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal., February 3, 2016), seeks damages in the amount
of all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages as
provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor
Code, interest, and such other legal and equitable relief as the
Court deems just and proper.

Baker, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Texas,
headquartered at Houston, Texas. Baker Hughes Inteq Drilling
Fluids, is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Texas and is a
subsidiary of Baker Hughes, Inc. Inteq is an oilfield services
company that designs, manufactures, and supplies wellbore-related
products and services for drilling, formation evaluation,
completion and production, and reservoir technology. The
Defendants' gross annual sales made or business done has been
$500,000.00 or greater.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 277 7235
          Facsimile: (415) 277 7238
          E-mail: dbrome@nka.com

               - and -

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256 3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215 6870


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Parties in Merger Suit Entered Into MOU
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, that
the parties to the class action lawsuit related to the company's
merger agreement with C1 Financial, Inc., have entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU").

As disclosed in the proxy statement/prospectus dated February 1,
2016 (the "Merger Proxy") relating to the proposed merger (the
"Merger") of C1 Financial, Inc. ("C1") with and into Bank of the
Ozarks, Inc. ("Ozarks" or the "Company"), pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of
November 9, 2015, by and among Ozarks, Ozarks' wholly owned
subsidiary, Bank of the Ozarks, C1 and C1's wholly owned
subsidiary, C1 Bank, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of the Sixth Circuit in Pinellas
County, Florida (the "Court") against C1 and the individual
members of C1's board of directors, and Ozarks (the "Action"). The
Action generally alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty by
the individual directors of C1 and also alleges that C1 and Ozarks
have aided and abetted the C1 board members' breaches of their
fiduciary duties.

On January 22, 2016, the plaintiff in the Action filed an amended
complaint adding, among other things, allegations of material
misstatements and omissions concerning the content of the
preliminary Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Ozarks on
January 5, 2016. The Action requests, among other things, that the
Merger be enjoined.

On February 22, 2016, the parties to the Action entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting the terms of an
agreement, subject to final approval by the Court and certain
other conditions, to settle the Action. Pursuant to the MOU, and
without admitting any wrongdoing or that these supplemental
disclosures are material or required to be made, defendants agreed
to make certain supplemental disclosures requested by plaintiffs
in the Action. The MOU further provides that, among other things:

     (a) after the completion of reasonable confirmatory discovery
         the parties will negotiate a definitive stipulation of
         settlement (the "Stipulation") and will submit the
         Stipulation to the Court for review and approval;

     (b) the Stipulation will provide for dismissal of the Action
         with prejudice;

     (c) the Stipulation will include a general release of
         defendants of claims relating to, among other things,
         the Merger and the Merger Agreement; and

     (d) the settlement is conditioned on, among other things,
         consummation of the Merger, class certification and final
         approval by the Court after notice to C1's shareholders.

Defendants believe that the allegations and claims in the
litigation are without merit and, if the settlement does not
receive final approval, intend to defend them vigorously.
Defendants are entering into the settlement solely to eliminate
the burden and expense of further litigation and to put the claims
that were or could have been asserted to rest. The settlement will
not affect the timing of the Merger or the amount of consideration
to be paid in the Merger.


BENCO DENTAL: "PJCC" Sues Over Dental Supply Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
PJCC Dental PC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Patterson Companies, Schein, Inc., and
Benco Dental Supply Company, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00662 (E.D.
N.Y., February 8, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.

Defendants are the three dominant dental product distributors in
the United States. Plaintiff alleges that they are illegally
engaging in a conspiracy to boycott competitor dental product
distributors and other entities to maintain and extend their
market dominance.

PJCC Dental PC is a private dental practice with five offices in
the Chicago, Illinois area and one office in Boston,
Massachusetts. It purchased dental supplies from one or more
Defendants at inflated prices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Radice, Esq.
      Kenneth Pickle, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM, RC.
      34 Sunset Blvd
      Long Beach, NJ 08008
      Tel: (646) 245-8502
      Fax: (609) 385-0745
      Email: jradice@radieelawfirm.com
             kpickleg@radicelawfirm.com

           - and -

      Roberta Liebenberg, Esq.
      Donald Perelman, Esq.
      Jeffrey Istvan, Esq.
      Gerard Dever, Esq.
      FINE KAPLAN & BLACK
      One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 567-6565
      Fax: (215) 568-5872
      Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
             dperelmang@finekaplan.com
             jistvan@finekaplan.com
             gdever@finekaplan.com


BENCO DENTAL: Howard Files Suit Over Dental Supplies Pricing
------------------------------------------------------------
Howard M. May, DDS, P.C., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Patterson Companies, Inc.,
Henry Schein, Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Company, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00548-NG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., February 2,
2016), seeks to put an end to an alleged anticompetitive
conspiracy to boycott competitor full line dental supplies
distributors, thus permitting Defendants to maintain their
collective market power and to impose supracompetitive prices on
customers for dental supplies and equipment.

Henry Schein, Inc. is the largest distributor of dental supplies
in the United States. Henry Schein is incorporated in Delaware,
and its principal place of business is in Melville, Long Island,
New York. Patterson Companies, Inc. is the second largest
distributor of dental supplies in the United States. Patterson is
incorporated in Minnesota, and its principal place of business is
in St. Paul, Minnesota. Benco is incorporated in Delaware, and its
principal place of business is in Pittston, Pennsylvania. The
Defendants sell dental supplies to dental practices and
laboratories nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc D. Grossman, Esq.
          SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 741 5600
          Facsimile: (516) 741 0128
          E-mail: mgrossman@thesandersfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          Linda P. Lam, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350 9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350 9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  mls@classlawgroup.com
                  lpl@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          George W. Sampson, Esq.
          SAMPSON DUNLAP LLP
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 414 8340
          Facsimile: (206) 260 1318
          E-mail: george@sampsondunlap.com


BENCO DENTAL: Indianola Family Sues for Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------
Indianola Family Dentistry, P.L.C. on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Patterson Companies,
Inc., Henry Schein, Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Company,
Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-00658 (E.D. N.Y., February 8, 2016),
seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees under Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust
Act.

Benco Dental Supply Company, Henry Schein, Inc. and Patterson
Companies, Inc. are the largest distributors of dental supplies
and equipment in the United States. Plaintiff is a direct
purchaser of dental supplies and equipment from Defendants. Bemus
Point Dental accuses the Defendants of blocking the entry and
expansion of lower-priced and higher quality rival dental
distributors.

Indianola Family Dentistry, P.L.C. is a general practice dentistry
firm located at 2000 North 4th Street in Indianola, Iowa. It
purchased dental supplies from one or more Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      Benjamin D. Elga, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Tel: (202) 789-3960
      Fax: (202) 789-1813
      Email: tasen@cuneolaw.com
             belga@cuneolaw.com

           - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      Joel Davidow, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Tel: (202) 789-3960
      Fax: (202) 789-1813
      Email: JonC@cuneolaw.com
             Joel@cuneolaw.com

             - and -

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      Craig S. Davis, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             rkshelquist@locklaw.com
             csdavis@locklaw.com

             - and -

      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
      HUDSON MALLANEY & SHINDLER, PC
      5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
      West Des Moines, IA 50265
      Telephone: (515) 223-4567
      Fax: (515) 223-8887
      Email: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net


BENCO DENTAL: Violated Sherman Act, Indianola Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Indianola Family Dentistry, P.L.C. on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Patterson Companies,
Inc., Henry Schein, Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Company, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-00240-SRN-HB (D. Minn., February 2,
2016), seeks treble damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees
from Defendants for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Henry Schein, Inc. is the largest distributor of dental supplies
in the United States. Henry Schein is incorporated in Delaware,
and its principal place of business is in Melville, Long Island,
New York. Patterson Companies, Inc. is the second largest
distributor of dental supplies in the United States. Patterson is
incorporated in Minnesota, and its principal place of business is
in St. Paul, Minnesota. Benco is incorporated in Delaware, and its
principal place of business is in Pittston, Pennsylvania. The
Defendants sell dental supplies to dental practices and
laboratories nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 587 5065
          E-mail: JonC@cuneolaw.com
                  Joel@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER &
          ANDERSON, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223 4567
          E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net


BLOUNT INC: Retirement System Sues Over Proposed Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------
Chester County Retirement System, Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. Blount International,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 12072 (Del. Ch., March 4,
2016), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Blount
International, Inc., to enjoin the merger transaction in which
private equity firm American Securities LLC and P2 Capital
Partners, Blount's second largest stockholder, will acquire the
Company's stock at an unfair price at "a cyclical low point in the
Company's stock trading price".

Defendant Blount International, Inc. is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business 4909 SE International Way, Portland,
Oregon 97222. Blount has a global manufacturing and distribution
footprint and sells its products in more than 115 countries around
the world.

American Securities is a U.S. private equity firm with
approximately $15 billion under management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq.
     Pamela S. Tikellis, Esq.
     Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
     Zachary Naylor, Esq.
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1100
P.O. Box 1035
Wilmington, DE 19899
Tel: (302) 656-2500
     Fax: (302) 656-9053


BLUE BAY ENTERPRISES: "Mejia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Mejia and Ricardo Garcia, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Blue Bay Enterprises, LLC, and Michael Krikorian, an individual,
Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-00678-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., February 8, 2016),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, punitive damages, emotional distress damages,
costs and disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert
witness fees and other costs, service payment and further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law.

Mejia and Garcia worked for the Defendants as kitchen staff and
claims to have worked 60-73 hours per work week without overtime
premium.

Blue Bay operates a restaurant called "The Copper Canyon" located
at 51 First Avenue, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael G. Radigan, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Blvd., Suite 328
      Great Neck, New York 11021
      Tel: (516) 248-5550
      Fax: (516) 248-6027


BLUE BIRD: Recalls Vision School Bus 2016 Models
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 12, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 26
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016014TC
ID number: 2016014
Manufacturer recall number: R16YK-C

Certain school buses may not conform to Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (CMVSS) 131 - School Bus Pedestrian Safety
Devices. The STOP decal may not adhere properly to the stop sign
and could peel off without warning, which could cause it to fail
to meet the requirements of the standard. This could increase the
risk of injury for the passengers exiting the school bus.
Correction: Specialty Manufacturing Inc. will provide owners with
a replacement stop sign blade assembly. If owners are not
comfortable installing the blade assembly themselves, they can
take their vehicle to a Blue Bird dealer for the installation.

  Make          Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----                ----------------------
  BLUE BIRD     VISION SCHOOL BUS    2016


BLUESTEM BRANDS: Faces "Morgan" Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
Usher Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00530-ENV-RER (E.D.N.Y., February 02, 2016),
seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory and
injunctive relief brought on behalf of all persons who placed
orders through Defendant's online marketplace, Fingerhut.com, and
who paid a per item fee for express shipping, which Defendant
allegedly promised, but failed or refused to provide.

The Defendant, which reports "over $2 billion in annual sales,"
holds itself out as the parent company to 16 fast-growing,
dynamic, e-commerce retail brands, including Fingerhut, which in
turn, purports to "offer low monthly payment options that help
people afford what they want and need.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          Christopher J. Moreland, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          1650 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605 4098
          Facsimile: (612)605 4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
                  moreland@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          George V. Granade
          ggranade@reesellp.com
          Telephone: (212) 643 0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253 4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

               - and -

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


BMW: Faces Class Action in Georgia Over Turbo Engine Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe, writing for Law360, reports that in a putative class
action removed to Georgia federal court on March 10, BMW is
accused of installing software in a number of its vehicle models
meant to fix a turbo engine defect that instead allegedly led to
dangerous acceleration delays, sudden loss of power and decreased
gas mileage.

According to the suit, BMW of North America in 2013 implemented a
widespread campaign -- without the consent of vehicle owners -- to
update the engine control unit, or ECU, software in eight models
of its vehicles equipped with 3-liter twin turbo engines, but
instead of fixing the problem, the change led to more engine
performance issues.  Atlanta resident Shawn B. McCullers claims
his 2009 BMW 535i has been in the repair shop 21 times since June
2013 as a result of the alleged problems.

Mr. McCullers' complaint says that BMW refused to acknowledge the
software update led to engine performance issues and instead
misled customers to believe that their reported problems were
imagined or non-existent.

"Owners were faced to resolve these problems with numerous
unfruitful service visits, extended periods of loss of uses, and
by obtaining an aftermarket ECU flash update that effectively cost
thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses and voided the BMW
warranty," he alleged.

Mr. McCullers is suing the automaker on behalf of all owners and
lessees in the state of Georgia of 2007- 2011 BMW 135i, 335i,
335xi, 535i, 535xi, XS, X6 and 24 sDrive 3.5i models with N54 3.0
liter twin turbo inline-6 engines.

According to the complaint, the vehicles in question continued to
exhibit a noticeable performance reduction despite the ECU
software updates, which it says "detuned" the vehicles to mask
underlying problems with their turbo system.

"BMW eventually changed problematic hardware and/or introduced new
engine control units in its newly manufactured vehicles, but
customers of the vehicles in question remain saddled with vehicles
that possessed underlying defects, exhibited turbo lag and other
potentially dangerous and/or deadly problems, and did not possess
the performance characteristics that were advertised, bargained
and paid for," the complaint said.

Mr. McCullers is accusing BMW of violating the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, breach of express and implied warranty, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent
concealment, negligent misrepresentation, defamation, and slander.

The parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment on
March 10.

Mr. McCullers is represented by Sean Raymond Campbell of Champion
Law Group LLC.

BMW is represented by Franklin P. Brannen Jr. --
Robert.Lewis@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

The case is McCullers v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., case
number 1:16-cv-00767, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.


BOB COOK CONSTRUCTION: "Ambrose" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Ambrose and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Bob Cook Construction, Inc. and Bob Cook, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01019-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn., Eastern
Division February 2, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
Tennessee law.

Bob Cook Construction, Inc. is a business engaged in commercial
enterprise. Defendant Bob Cook is the owner of Bob Cook
Construction, Inc. He has operational control over this entity,
decides wage and hour policies, implements wage and hour policies,
and is the ultimate decision maker regarding Defendant Bob Cook
Constructions, Inc.'s wage and hour practices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Russell, Esq.
          Emily Emmons, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER
          SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354 1144
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
                  eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


BOEING COMPANY: April 22 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors of class
action against The Boeing Company ("Boeing" or "the Company").
The class action has been filed in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Boeing
securities between February 9, 2012 and February 11, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Boeing Company is an American multinational corporation that
designs, develops, manufactures, sells, services and supports
airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets and satellites.  It also provides
leasing and product support services. The Company operates in five
principal segments: Commercial Airplanes, Boeing Military
Aircraft, Network & Space Systems, Global Services & Support, and
Boeing Capital.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding Boeing's
business, operational and compliance policies, to disclose that:
(i) Boeing's use of program accounting for the Company's 787
Dreamliner and/or 747 jumbo aircrafts relied on inflated sales
forecasts; (ii) Boeing's use of program accounting for the
Company's 787 Dreamliner and/or 747 jumbo aircrafts relied on
understated estimates of production costs; and (iii) as a result
of the foregoing, Boeing's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 11, 2016, Bloomberg News released that the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating
whether Boeing correctly accounted for the costs, budgets and
expected sales of the 787 Dreamliner and 747 Jumbo aircraft.
Following this news, Boeing stocks have dropped $14.26, or 12.3%,
to just $102.10 per share during intraday trading on February 11,
2016.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint and join the action, visit the
firm's website: http://www.bgandg.com/#!ba/u1crr

To discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact
Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael
Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or
via email info@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in
Boeing you have until April 22, 2016 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


BONAVISTA SPECIALTY: Recalls Cured Pork Products
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 5, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Bonavista Specialty Foods, Inc.
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10273

  Brand        Common        Size      Code(s)          UPC
  name         name          ----      on product       ---
  ----         ------                  ----------
  Bonavista    Cured Pork    1741 kg   Nov. 30, 2015    None
  Foods, Inc.  Fatback Salt            306
               Added


BOSTON PADS: "Patterson" Suit seeks Minimum Wage, Commissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Latoya Patterson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Boston Pads, LLC, Jacob Realty LLC,
Nextgen Realty, Inc., RENTMYUNIT.COM, Inc. d/b/a Boardwalk
Properties, Demetrjos Salpoglou and Yuan Huang, Defendants, Case
16-0351G (Super. Ct. Mass., January 28, 2016), seeks payment of
wages for all work performed, reimbursement of improper pay
deductions, unpaid commissions, treble damages, interests, costs
and attorneys' fees and all other relief pursuant to Massachusetts
Labor Laws and for breach of contract and/or of implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.

Boston Pads, LLC, Jacob Realty, LLC, NextGen Realty, Inc. and
RentMyUnit.Com, Inc., d/b/a Boardwalk Properties are corporations
involved in the sale and leasing of apartments and other real
estate in Massachusetts. All of these offices operate under the
Boston Pads umbrella.

Demetrios Salpoglou and Yuan Huang are owners and operators of
Boston Pads, LLC, Jacob Realty, LLC, NextGen Realty, Inc. and
RentMyUnit.Com, Inc.

Latoya Patterson was employed as a real estate agent for
Defendants and claims to have been misclassified as contractors
thus deprived of the mandatory benefits and compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hillary Schwab, Esq.
      Brant Casavant, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Tel: (617) 607-3261
      Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
             brant@fairworklaw.com


BRIGHT HOUSE: Faces "Cruz" Suit for Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Cruz, and all others similarly-situated vs. Bright House
Networks, LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-00275-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla., February
17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bright House Networks, LLC, is a cable company with a principal
place of business in East Syracuse, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
       RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
       7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
       Davie, FL 33314
       Tel: (866) 344-9243
       Fax: (954) 337-2771
       E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


BRONX MAGIC: Faces "Barry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------
Kandioura Sekou Barry, Mahamadou Camara, Nazario Silvas and
Gaoussou Sisse, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other
employees similarly situated v. Bronx Magic Enterprises, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. CV161094 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bronx Magic is engaged in the business of washing cars, oil
change, and repairing vehicles.  It is based at 504 Utica Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York 11203.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jalila A. Bell, Esq.
     11 Broadway, Suite 715
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (347) 596-1875
     Email: jalilaabell@gmail.com


CALIBRATE PROPERTY: "DeVito" Suit Seeks Security Deposit Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle DeVito, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Calibrate Property Management,
LLC, OCP-RSRC Morgan, LLC, Lux24, Origin Holding Company, LLC, and
Randolph Street Realty Capital LLC, Defendants, Case 2016CH011442
(Ill. Cir, Cook County, February 1, 2016), seeks separate summary
describing the respective rights, obligations and remedies of
landlords and tenants with respect to security deposits that was
prepared by the Chicago Commissioner of the Department of housing
as explicitly required by Section 5-12-170 of the Residential
Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

Defendants failed to attach the required Security Deposit Summary
to the lease agreement for the residential unit in 24 S. Morgan
St, Chicago, Illinois, Cook County.

OCP-RSRC Morgan, LLC owns the said property, while Calibrate
Property Management, LLC is the authorized entity to act in its
behalf. OCP-RSRC Morgan, LLC is a joint venture between Origin
Capital Partners and Randolph Street Realty Capital LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      JSLAW
      29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 756-1330
      Email: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


CALIFORNIA LABOR: "Zepeda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huber R. Zepeda, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. California Labor Force and
Restoration Management Company and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
RG16802121 (Cal. Super., Alameda County, January 29, 2016), seeks
unpaid wages, and interest for off-the-clock work, waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages, wage penalties,
injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the California Labor Law.

California Labor Force subcontracts labor for Restoration
Management Company, a California Corporation located in Union City
providing restoration services to owners of homes and other
structures as well as asbestos remediation services. Plaintiff is
an office staff for their Hayward, California office.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay premium pay
when they missed meal and break periods that were automatically
deducted, for hour rendered driving in between job sites in the
same day, for overtime rendered in excess of 40 hours per work
week.  They were also not issued wage statements reflecting all
wages due.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari E. Moss, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS
      15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Tel: (310) 982-2984

           - and -

      Sahug Majariun, II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
      18520 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Tel: (818) 609-0807


CARA GROUP: Violated FLSA & IMWL, "Ross" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Debra Lynn Ross, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. The Cara
Group, Inc. the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01856 (N.D. Ill.,
Eastern Division, February 2, 2016), seeks to recover earned
overtime pay and other hourly paid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL).

The Cara Group is a Chicago area based "human performance
consulting firm specializing in custom learning, change management
and technical communication services for Fortune 500
organizations". CARA provides employees and staff, to third-party
client companies on a project basis.

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 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419 1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  sarendt@flsalaw.com
                  zflowerree@flsalaw.com


CARGURUS INC: "Serban" Suit Seeks to Stop Illegal Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iarina Serban, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. CarGurus, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2016CH01023 (Ill. Circuit Ct.
of Cook County, County Department, Chancery Division, January 25,
2016), seeks to stop Defendant's alleged practice of directing the
transmission of unsolicited text message calls to consumers'
cellular telephones and to obtain redress for all persons injured
by its conduct, pursuant to Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

CarGurus is a Delaware corporation and has its principal place of
business in Massachusetts. Defendant operates an automotive
listing service through its website, cargurus.com, advertises its
customers' vehicles to consumers throughout Illinois and the rest
of the nation, and solicits customers from Illinois and the rest
of the nation to use its automotive listing service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          Paul Geske, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  eturin@mcgpc.com
                  pgeske@mcgpc.com


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Administration of Settlement Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the claims
administrator is now administering the settlement in the case,
Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al.,
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case
No. 4:07-cv-137, in accordance with its terms.

The Company said, "On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a
putative class action against the current and past owners of
Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana, including our subsidiaries
that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on
behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods
and services at Grandview Cemetery. Plaintiffs sought monetary
damages and claim that the cemetery owners performed burials
negligently, breached Plaintiffs' contracts and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery. The Plaintiffs also
allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after we owned
the cemetery."

On October 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County
Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana. On
April 24, 2009, shortly before the Defendants had been scheduled
to file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add
new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to
abandon other claims.

"We, as well as several other Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs'
motion to amend their complaint and add parties," the Company
said.

In April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs'
counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this action. On
June 30, 2010, the court granted Defendants' motion to disqualify
Plaintiffs' counsel. On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition
for writ of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
seeking relief from the trial court's order of disqualification of
counsel. On May 19, 2010, the Defendants responded to the petition
of mandamus.

On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition
for writ of mandamus. Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order,
Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010 in which to retain
new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf. Plaintiffs
retained new counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel moved for leave to
amend both the class representatives and the allegations stated
within the complaint.

Defendants filed oppositions to such amendments. The court issued
an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the
class representatives and a portion of their claims; however,
certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed. The parties
reached a proposed class settlement, and the court granted its
preliminary approval of such settlement by order dated March 19,
2014. Notice of the class settlement was provided pursuant to the
Preliminary Order Approving Class Action Settlement, and no
settlement class members opted out of the class nor objected to
the terms of the settlement. The court issued its final approval
of the settlement on June 23, 2014.

"Pursuant to the terms of the final settlement agreement, we have
funded our obligations to the settlement class members by
transferring the necessary funds to a settlement account; and the
designated claims administrator is now administering the
settlement in accordance with its terms," the Company said.

Carriage Services, Inc. is a provider of deathcare services and
merchandise in the United States.


CASH NET USA: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Damages & Remedies Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Ramos, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cash Net USA, CNU Online Holdings,
LLC, and Does 1-50 Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No3:16-cv-
00279-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal., February 2, 2016), seeks to recover
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the alleged 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 (TCPA).

Cash Net USA operates in the financial industry. The Company
provides cash advance loans based on pay checks. Cash Net USA
offers short-term and medium-term loans for individuals. The
Company is based in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, 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@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


CHEVRON CORP: "White" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Charles E. White, Jr., John P. Jacobs, Verlan D. Hoopes, Nora L.
Pennington, James A. Ray, and Jeannette A. Finley, individually
and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons of
the Chevron Employee Savings Investment Plan, Plaintiffs v.
Chevron Corporation, Chevron Investment Committee, and John Does
1-20, Case No. 3:16-cv-00793-MEJ (N.D. Cal., February 17, 2016),
seeks to reform the Investment Plan to comply with the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Chevron Corporation is a for-profit domestic corporation organized
under Delaware law with its principal place of business in San
Ramon, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Jerome J Schlichter, Esq.
       SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON
       100 S 4th St #900
       St Louis, MO 63102
       Tel: (314) 621-6115
       Fax: (314) 621-7151
       E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com

       SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON
       Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
       Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
       Troy A. Doles, Esq.
       Heather Lea, Esq.
       100 South Fourth Street
       St. Louis, MO 63102
       Telephone: (314) 621-6115
       Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
       E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
               mwolff@uselaws.com
               tdoles@uselaws.com
               hlea@uselaws.com

            - and -

       FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP
       Jamie L. Dupree, Esq.
       Jaime G. Touchstone, Esq.
       180 Sansome Street, 17TH Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94104
       Telephone: (415) 399-3906
       Facsimile: (415) 399-3838
       E-mail: jdupree@fddcm.com
               jtouchstone@fddcm.com


COMSCORE INC: May 9 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until May 9, 2016 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
comScore, Inc., if they purchased the Company's securities between
May 5, 2015 and March 7, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of comScore and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 9, 2016.

                        About the Lawsuit

comScore and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On March 7, 2016, comScore disclosed that on February 19, 2016,
the Audit Committee "received a message regarding certain
potential accounting matters," which were being investigated.  As
a result, comScore has been unable to finalize its financial
statements pending completion of the review, and therefore has to
delay filing its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2015 until after the
Audit Committee completes its review.  The Company has also
suspended its share buyback and has moved back its investor day
indefinitely.

On this news, the price of comScore's shares plummeted by over
33%.

                   About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- whose partners include the
Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law
firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions,
along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation
against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders.  The
firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.


COOPER TIRE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal by
plaintifs in the federal securities litigation of the order
dismissing their amended complaint remains pending.

On January 17, 2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against the Company and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware relating to the terminated merger agreement with
subsidiaries of Apollo Tyres Ltd. That lawsuit, captioned OFI Risk
Arbitrages, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 1:14-
cv-00068-LPS, generally alleges that the Company and certain
officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly
misleading disclosures in connection with the terminated
transaction and seeks, among other things, damages. The Company
and its officers believe that the allegations against them lack
merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On July 1,
2015, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint and
closed the case. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the
dismissal order.

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company with its subsidiaries is a
manufacturer and marketer of replacement tires.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Boswell" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Boswell, et al. v. Costco
Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 30-2016-00830927-CU-BT-CXC, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00278 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that Costco misleadingly labels and markets
its Kirkland Coconut Oil as both inherently healthy, and a healthy
alternative to butter and other oils, despite that it is actually
inherently unhealthy, and a less healthy alternative.

Costco Wholesale Corporation is a Washington Corporation with its
principal place of business in Seattle, Washington.  Costco is the
manufacturer, distributor, and marketer of Kirkland Signature
Organic Coconut Oil.  Costco has over 100 stores in California and
is registered to do business in California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          4125 W. Point Loma Blvd. # 206
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 767-0356
          Facsimile: (619) 331-2943
          E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Frank J. Broccolo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FRANK J. BROCCOLO
          7083 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 4014
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (310) 694-1795
          E-mail: frank@broccololaw.com


DOLLAR GENERAL CORP: "Oren" Sues Over Obsolete Engine Oil
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Oren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dollar General Corporation, Defendants,
Case 4:16-cv-00105-GAF (W.D. Mo., February 8, 2016), seeks
restitution, enjoinment, compensatory economic damages, punitive
damages, restitution and equitable disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive
relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit and such other and further relief for violation
of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

Dollar General Corporation is a Tennessee corporation marketing
and selling its company-branded motor oil. Plaintiff purchased
Dollar General's DG SAE 10W-30 motor oil from Dollar General's
store at 7525 Wornall Rd, Kansas City, Missouri 64114 and claims
it to be obsolete and unusable oil.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
      Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
      Colin W. McClain, Esq.
      HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
      221 West Lexington Ave., Ste. 400
      Independence, MO 64051
      Tel: (816) 836-5050
      Fax: (816) 836-8966
      Email: kbm@hfmlegal.com
             kds@hfmlegal.com
             cwm@hfmlegal.com

           - and -

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Conlee Whiteley, Esq.
      Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 524-5777
      Fax: (504) 524-5763
      Email: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
             c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
             c.stamant@kanner-law.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Berg" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Berg v. Fanduel, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-08612, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10319-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 627-5610
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9685
          E-mail: paul@paulwhalen.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cadapan" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Cadapan v. DraftKings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08719, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10320-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Arthur Toomey, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          425 Park Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 688-0782
          Facsimile: (212) 688-0783
          E-mail: mtoomey@barrack.com

Defendant FanDuel Inc. is represented by:

          Jamie Levitt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Champagne" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Champagne v. Fanduel, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08399, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10316
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, HAUDER, BLOCK, GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, HAUDER, BLOCK, GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: mltuccillo@pomlaw.com

Defendant FanDuel Inc. is represented by:

          Jamie Levitt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com

Defendant Matthew Boccio is represented by:

          Jennifer Quinn-Barabanov, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8027
          Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
          E-mail: jquinnba@steptoe.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "DeGroot" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled DeGroot v. DraftKings, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-01122, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10314-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Freedman, Esq.
          David H. Urias, Esq.
          Frank T. Davis, Jr., Esq.
          FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A.
          20 First Plaza, Suite 700
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 842-9960
          Facsimile: (505) 842-0761
          E-mail: daf@fbdlaw.com
                  dhu@fbdlaw.com
                  ftd@fbdlaw.com

               - and -

          Floyd D. Wilson, Esq.
          MYERS, OLIVER & PRICE, P.C.
          12480 Hwy. 14 No., Suite 105
          Cedar Crest, NM 87008
          Telephone: (505) 948-0004
          E-mail: fwilson@moplaw.com

               - and -

          Kameron Barnett, Esq.
          Tye Christopher Harmon, Esq.
          HARMON BARNETT & MORRIS, PC
          119 S. Main St.
          Clovis, NM 88101
          Telephone: (575) 763-0077
          Facsimile: (575) 742-0077
          E-mail: kbarnett@hbmlaw.org
                  tharmon@hbmlaw.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          John R. Cooney, Esq.
          Nathan T. Nieman, Esq.
          MODRALL SPERLING ROEHL HARRIS & SISK PA
          Post Office Box 2168
          Albuquerque, NM 87103
          Telephone: (505) 848-1800
          Facsimile: (505) 848-1889
          E-mail: jcooney@modrall.com
                  ntn@modrall.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Franco" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Franco v. FanDuel Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-09902, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10324-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 627-5610
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9685
          E-mail: paul@paulwhalen.com


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Defending Suits Over San Onofre Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International and Southern California Edison Company said
in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 23, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that the Company is defending:

     -- a purported securities class action lawsuit filed in
        July 2015 alleging that the defendants violated the
        securities laws by failing to disclose that Edison
        International had ex parte contacts with CPUC decision
        -makers regarding the San Onofre OII that were either
        unreported or more extensive than initially reported; and

     -- a purported securities class action lawsuit filed in
        November 2015 alleging claims under the Employee
        Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

San Onofre is a retired nuclear generating facility located in
south San Clemente, California, in which SCE holds a 78.21%
ownership interest.

A federal lawsuit challenging the authority of the California
Public Utilities Commission to permit rate recovery of San Onofre
costs and an application to the CPUC for rehearing of its decision
approving the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement -- the deal by
and among The Utility Reform Network, the CPUC's Office of
Ratepayer Advocates, San Diego Gas & Electric, the Coalition of
California Utility Employees, and Friends of the Earth, dated
November 20, 2014 -- were filed in November and December 2014,
respectively.

In April 2015, the federal lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice
and the plaintiffs in that case appealed the dismissal to the
Ninth Circuit in May 2015. Both the appeal and the application for
rehearing remain pending.

Also in April 2015, the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
("A4NR") filed a petition to modify the CPUC's decision approving
the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement based on SCE's alleged
failures to disclose communications between SCE and CPUC decision-
makers pertaining to issues in the San Onofre OII. The petition
seeks the reversal of the decision approving the San Onofre OII
Settlement Agreement and reopening of the OII proceeding.
Subsequently, TURN and ORA filed responses supporting A4NR's
petition to reopen the San Onofre OII proceeding. In August 2015,
ORA filed its own petition to modify the CPUC's decision approving
the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement seeking to set aside the
settlement and reopen the San Onofre OII proceeding. SCE and SDG&E
responded to this petition in September 2015. Both petitions
remain pending before the CPUC.

In July 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal court against Edison International, its Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and was later
amended to include SCE's former President as a defendant. The
lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the securities laws
by failing to disclose that Edison International had ex parte
contacts with CPUC decision-makers regarding the San Onofre OII
that were either unreported or more extensive than initially
reported. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class
of persons who acquired Edison International common stock between
March 21, 2014 and June 24, 2015.

Subsequently and also in July 2015, a federal shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed against members of the Edison
International Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duty and
other claims. The federal derivative lawsuit is based on similar
allegations to the federal class action securities lawsuit and
seeks monetary damages, including punitive damages, and various
corporate governance reforms.

An additional federal shareholder derivative lawsuit making
essentially the same allegations was filed in August and was
subsequently consolidated with the July 2015 federal derivative
lawsuit.

In October 2015, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in
California state court against members of the Edison International
Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duty and other claims,
making similar allegations to those in the federal derivative
lawsuits.

In November 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal court against Edison International, its Chief
Executive Officer and Treasurer by an Edison International
employee, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA"). The complaint purports to be filed on
behalf of a class of Edison International employees who were
participants in the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and invested in the
Edison International Stock Fund between March 27, 2014 and June
24, 2015. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties because they knew or should have known that
investment in the Edison International Stock Fund was imprudent
because the price of Edison International common stock was
artificially inflated due to Edison International's alleged
failure to disclose certain ex parte communications with CPUC
decision-makers related to the San Onofre OII.

SCE has produced documents and is otherwise cooperating with
criminal investigations being conducted by the California Attorney
General and the U.S. Department of Justice. While the full scope
of the investigations is not known to SCE, SCE's document
production and cooperation have included information relating to
the settlement of the San Onofre OII and interactions between SCE
executives and CPUC decision-makers.

Edison International and SCE cannot predict the outcome of these
proceedings.

Edison International is the parent holding company of SCE. SCE is
a public utility primarily engaged in the business of supplying
and delivering electricity to an approximately 50,000 square mile
area of southern California.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Cook" Files Suit Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Sheron Cook, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, Defendant, Case
2:16-cv-00248-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal., February 8, 2016), seeks
injunctive relief, treble damages, statutory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs and such other relief pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The complaint says the Defendant called Plaintiff using an auto-
dialer without her prior express written consent, to collect a
debt that she never incurred.

Enhanced Recovery Company is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business at 8014 Bayberry Road, Jacksonville,
FL 32256. It is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
      Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              apersinger@bursor.com
              ykrivoshey@bursor.com

           - and -

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 989-9113
      Fax: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com


EVERQUOTE INC: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California attorney known for frequently filing lawsuits over
unwanted telephone solicitations is at the center of a class
action complaint alleging similar violations.

Todd M. Friedman filed, as a plaintiff, a class action complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Mr. Friedman, a Beverly Hills-based consumer protection attorney,
alleges in his Feb. 24 complaint that defendant EverQuote Inc.,
doing business as CheaperAutoCoverage.com, "negligently and
knowingly" contacted him on his cell phone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, invading his privacy.

According to Mr. Friedman's nine-page complaint, the defendant
began sending text messages with spam advertisements and
promotional offers to his cell phone on or about Feb. 9.

One of the text messages read, Friedman claims: "REMINDER: You
still qualify for 19.00/Month Auto Insurance. Click Below.
http://po.st/WTFIga.Reply STOP to stop or HELP for help."

In response, Friedman says he replied "Stop."

Mr. Friedman claims he never contacted nor conducted any business
with the defendant in "any fashion" -- including having never
visited any of its online websites -- prior to the Feb. 9 text
message.

"Plaintiff did not provide Defendant or its agents with prior
express consent to receive unsolicited text messages, pursuant to
47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (b)(1)(A)," the complaint states.

The TCPA restricts telephone solicitations, i.e. telemarketing,
and the use of automated telephone equipment.

In particular, the law limits the use of automatic dialing
systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text
messages and fax machines.  It also specifies several technical
requirements for fax machines, autodialers and voice messaging
systems -- principally with provisions requiring identification
and contact information of the entity using the device to be
contained in the message.

Generally, the act makes it unlawful "to initiate any telephone
call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express
consent of the called party" except in emergencies or in
circumstances exempted by the Federal Communications Commission.

The law permits any "person or entity" to bring an action to
enjoin violations of the statute and/or recover actual damages or
statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per violation.

Friedman states in his complaint he does not know the number of
members in the proposed class -- described as "those persons
within the United States who received any unsolicited text
messages and/or any other unsolicited text messages from the
defendant without prior express consent" -- but believes they
number "in the tens of thousands, if not more."

"A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy," the complaint states.

Joseph Miskabi, also a Beverly Hills lawyer, is representing
Mr. Friedman in the proposed class action.

According to the complaint, the lawsuit seeks only damages and
injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury on behalf of the
class.

Mr. Friedman, in his role as an attorney, has filed nearly 100
lawsuits since January, according to a recent search of PACER, an
online service that provides access to federal court documents.
Many of the lawsuits he has filed are TCPA-related.

So, are there any ethical issues in Friedman filing a TCPA action
as the plaintiff, given his extensive knowledge of the consumer
protection statute?

Christine Nielsen Czuprynski, a Chicago-area attorney who focuses
her practice specifically in the area of data privacy and
security, as well as telecommunications and marketing, said in a
previous interview with Legal Newsline there is nothing that
prevents a class action lawyer from filing his own case as a
plaintiff.

"A TCPA attorney may have an advantage in that he or she already
understands the nuances of the law," noted Ms. Czuprynski, who
works in Reed Smith LLP's Information Technology, Privacy and Data
Security Group.

But Ms. Czuprynski said there is nothing per se unethical about
such an individual filing his or her own TCPA case.

"The TCPA is a consumer protection statute meant to protect an
individual's privacy while balancing commercial speech and trade
interests.  There are specific sections that place restrictions on
autodialed calls to cell phones, and the ubiquitous nature of cell
phones means that practically anyone can be a 'victim' of TCPA
violations," she said.

"That means that anyone, even a class action plaintiff's attorney
who specializes in bringing suits under the TCPA, can file a suit
on his or her own behalf for alleged violations of the TCPA."

Ms. Czuprynski, who often provides regulatory advice on the TCPA,
pointed out that attorneys are also consumers.

"An attorney can receive a telephone call in his or her capacity
as a 'consumer' that might violate the TCPA," she explained.
"Whether the case has any merit does not rise or fall on the
identity of the plaintiff, but the facts of the case."


EXECUTIVE CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Dickon, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Executive Credit Management, Inc., and John Does 1 to 10, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00896-ES-MAH (D.N.J., February 18, 2016), alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Based in Stanhope, New Jersey, Executive Credit Management, Inc.,
is a full service debt collection and applicant screening agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Canada Supreme Court to Consider Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glen Korstrom, writing for Business Vancouver, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) announced March 10 that it will
consider a case that hinges on whether Facebook's online terms and
conditions trump B.C.'s Privacy Act.

The case arose in 2014 when B.C. resident Deborah Douez sued
Facebook for compensation after the social networking giant used
her photo in a now-defunct advertising format known as "sponsored
stories."

Essentially that advertising format enabled Facebook advertisers
to use in marketing material the likeness of Facebook users who
had clicked the company's "like" buttons.

Facebook applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing that case
should not be heard in B.C. because its terms and conditions,
which all users must agree to, stipulate that all legal actions
and disputes must be heard in California.

British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC) Justice Susan Griffin ruled
that the case could indeed be heard in B.C. because the province's
Privacy Act has a clause that says all cases regarding the privacy
of B.C. residents are to be heard in B.C.

She also ruled that the case could proceed as a class action
lawsuit.

Facebook, which disclosed in court filings that 1.8 million
British Columbians were featured in its "sponsored stories,"
appealed her ruling.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCOA) sided with Facebook
in 2015, when it ruled that the case should be heard in
California.

Ms. Douez' lawyer, Branch McMaster partner Christopher Rhone, told
Business in Vancouver on March 10 that he believes that the SCC
decided to hear the case because it has ramifications far beyond
disputes about Facebook.

"These sorts of terms and conditions are fairly common" he said.

"The SCC doesn't give reasons why they're hearing cases but my
suspicion is that they are concerned about this particular issue
of whether these online terms can be used to trump statutory
protection [from provincial legislatures.]"

Facebook lawyer, Osler partner Tristam Mallett, did not return
BIV's calls by press time.

While the SCC will decide the jurisdiction of the lawsuit, it may
punt the case back to the BCCOA to confirm the BCSC ruling that
the case should be a certified class action lawsuit.  That's
because Facebook appealed both on the jurisdiction and on whether
the case should be certified. The BCCOA made no ruling on whether
the case should be certified because it first deemed the case to
be in the wrong jurisdiction.

The SCC is extremely unlikely to determine if damages are
warranted.  The likely place for that to be decided -- if the case
is deemed to be heard in Canada and the case is certified as a
class action -- will be back in the BCSC.


FIFTH STREET: "Craig" Suit Seeks to Block Investment Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Craig, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of Fifth Street Finance Corp., Plaintiff, V. Bernard
D. Berman, James Castro-Blanco, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Brian S. Dunn,
Richard P. Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, Sandeep K. Khorana, Todd G.
Owens, Douglas F. Ray, Fifth Street Management LLC, Fifth Street
Asset Management, Inc., Fifth Street Finance Corp., and Fifth
Street Holdings L.P., Defendants, Case 11947 (Del. Ch., January
29, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent enjoinment, damages for
breach of fiduciary duties, attorneys', accountants' and experts'
fees and other and further relief as is just and equitable.

Fifth Street Finance Corp. is a specialty finance company that
provides financing to small and mid-sized companies, primarily in
connection with investments by private equity sponsors. It is
externally managed and advised by Fifth Street Management pursuant
to an investment advisory agreement which is threatened to be
terminated by River North Capital Management, its largest
unaffiliated stockholder.

Plaintiff claims that this move was initiated under questionable
circumstances of which they- are misinformed or under-informed of
the justification as well as its merits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Zagar, Esq.
      Christopher M. Windover, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (610) 667-7706

            - amd -

      Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
      Spencer Oster, Esq.
      David Tejtel, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
      240 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Tel: (888) 529-1108

            - and -

      Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
      Bruce E. Jameson, Esq.
      Eric J. Juray, Esq.
      PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
      1310 N. King Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 888-6500


FIVEFOUR GROUP: Violated Cal. Civil Code, "Santoyo" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Santoyo, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FiveFour Group LLC, a
California limited liability company, and Does 1-100, inclusive
the Defendant, Case No. BC607401 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los
Angeles, January 25, 2016), seeks damages, restitution,
declaratory relief, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs as a result of Defendant's alleged illegal
automatic renewal agreements, pursuant to California Civil Code,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, and Code of Civil Procedure.

FiveFour Group LLC is a privately-held online personal fashion
company located in California that sells clothing items to
consumers through its website at www.fivefourclub.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derrick F. Coleman, Esq.
          R. Jeffrey Neer, Esq.
          COLEMAN FROST LLP
          429 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 576 7312
          Facsimile: (310) 899 4016
          E-mail: derrick@colemanfrost.com.
                  jeff@colemanfrost.com


FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Still Face DBCP Claims in Costa Rica
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2016, that the Company's
subsidiaries continue to defend injury claims filed with the
courts of Costa Rica related to exposure to dibromochloropropane.

"Beginning in December 1993, certain of our U.S. subsidiaries were
named among the defendants in a number of actions in courts in
Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the Philippines involving
claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs alleging that they were
injured as a result of exposure to a nematocide containing the
chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") during the period 1965 to
1990," the Company said. "As a result of a settlement entered into
in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP claims against our
U.S. subsidiaries are pending or subject to appeal in Hawaii,
Louisiana, California, Delaware and the Philippines."

"On October 14, 2004, two of our subsidiaries were served with a
complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et al. v. Dole Food
Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of more than 2,600 Costa
Rican banana workers who claim injury from exposure to DBCP.

"On January 2, 2009, three of our subsidiaries were served with
multiple complaints in related actions styled Jorge Acosta Cortes,
et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of
461 Costa Rican residents.

"An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca and Cortes
actions found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were
claimants in prior DBCP actions in Texas and may have participated
in the settlement of those actions.

"On June 27, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of 1,329
plaintiffs who were parties to prior DBCP actions. On June 30,
2008, our subsidiaries moved to dismiss the claims of the
remaining Abarca plaintiffs on grounds of forum non conveniens in
favor of the courts of Costa Rica.

"On September 22, 2009, the court granted the motion to dismiss
and on November 16, 2009 entered an order conditionally dismissing
the claims of those remaining plaintiffs who allege employment on
farms in Costa Rica exclusively affiliated with our subsidiaries.

"Those dismissed plaintiffs re-filed their claim in Costa Rica on
May 17, 2012. On January 18, 2013, all remaining plaintiffs in
California filed Requests for Dismissal effecting the dismissal of
their claims without prejudice. On September 25, 2013, our
subsidiaries filed an answer to the claim re-filed with the courts
of Costa Rica."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Fresh Del Monte is one of the world's vertically integrated
producers, marketers and distributors of high-quality fresh and
fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a leading producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks in Europe, Africa and the Middle East.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration in Phils. Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2016, that a motion for
reconsideration remains pending in a lawsuit in the Philippines.

"Beginning in December 1993, certain of our U.S. subsidiaries were
named among the defendants in a number of actions in courts in
Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the Philippines involving
claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs alleging that they were
injured as a result of exposure to a nematocide containing the
chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") during the period 1965 to
1990," the Company said. "As a result of a settlement entered into
in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP claims against our
U.S. subsidiaries are pending or subject to appeal in Hawaii,
Louisiana, California, Delaware and the Philippines."

"In February 2011, a group of former banana cooperative workers
from the Philippines filed a complaint in the Philippines against
two of our subsidiaries claiming injury from exposure to DBCP. The
trial court dismissed the complaint against our subsidiaries on
October 3, 2011. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the
Court of Appeals. On March 9, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court's dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiffs have
filed a motion for reconsideration which remains pending."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Fresh Del Monte is one of the world's vertically integrated
producers, marketers and distributors of high-quality fresh and
fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a leading producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks in Europe, Africa and the Middle East.


FRESH DEL MONTE: 3rd Cir. Appeal in DBCP Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2016, that an appeal before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit involving claims
over exposure to dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") remains pending
after the appeals court granted Plaintiffs' motion for rehearing
en banc.

On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one
of the Company's subsidiaries in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000
plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala.

"We and our subsidiaries have never owned, managed or otherwise
been involved with any banana growing operations in Panama and
were not involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador
during the period when DBCP was in use," the Company said. "The
plaintiffs include claimants who had cases pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which
were dismissed on September 17, 2012."

"On August 30, 2012, our subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the
claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-
filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion was granted on March 29,
2013.

"On September 21, 2012, our subsidiary filed an answer with
respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already
filed in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the court granted a motion
made by a co-defendant and entered summary judgment against all
plaintiffs based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the
dismissal of related cases by the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.

"On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary joined in a motion for summary
judgment as to all plaintiffs on the basis of the court's May 27,
2014 ruling. Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in favor
of all defendants for the claims still pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of
the summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district
court entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs' claims on
September 22, 2014.

"On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but the notice
expressly limited the appeal to the claims of 57 (out of the more
than 2,400) plaintiffs. On August 11, 2015, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal of the claims of these plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Rehearing en Banc with the Third
Circuit, which was granted on September 22, 2015.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Fresh Del Monte is one of the world's leading vertically
integrated producers, marketers and distributors of high-quality
fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a leading
producer and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa and the Middle East.


FTS USA: 6th Cir. Refuses to Apply Stricter FLSA Cert. Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary C. Ankers, Esq. -- gankers@littler.com -- of Littler
Mendelson PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that in
concluding that the proper standard for certifying Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions is whether the plaintiffs
are "similarly situated," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit ruled on March 2, 2016, that the Seventh Circuit's
application of the stricter Federal Rule 23 class action standard
to an FLSA collective action was inappropriate.  According to the
Sixth Circuit in Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC and UniTek USA, LLC,
Congress did not import the Rule 23 predominance requirement into
the FLSA, and doing so "would undermine the remedial purpose of
FLSA collective actions."

Background

The plaintiffs in Monroe were all "similarly situated" cable
technicians, installing cable for FTS and its cable company
clients.  They shared similar job duties and were subject to the
same compensation plan and company-wide timekeeping system.
Plaintiffs sought to bring an FLSA collective action for alleged
unpaid overtime compensation that stemmed from the timekeeping
system.

The district court authorized notice and granted conditional
certification of the technician's FLSA collective action.  The
notice defined the class as any and all technicians employed at
any location across the country who were compensated on a piece-
rate basis who did not receive overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 per week for the past three years.  A total of 293
technicians opted in to the collective action.

After discovery, the district court denied the company's motion to
decertify the class and for summary judgment, finding that the
class members were similarly situated.  At trial, a representative
number of the technicians were called as witnesses to establish
the plaintiffs' case and the jury returned a verdict on behalf of
the entire collective opt-in class.

The Court of Appeals' Decision

The company appealed the verdict arguing, among other things, that
the technicians should not have been certified as a class under 29
U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district
court's class certification, relying upon O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly
Enterprises, Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009).  There, as here,
the Sixth Circuit concluded that an overly restrictive application
of the FLSA's "similarly situated" standard is not warranted, as
Congress passed the FLSA with "broad remedial intent" to address
"unfair method[s] of competition in commerce" inconsistent with
the standard of living necessary for "health, efficiency, and
general well-being of workers."  Keller v. Miri Microsystems LLC,
781 F.3d 799,806 (6th Cir. 2015).

In O'Brien, the Sixth Circuit held that the stringent Rule 23
class certification analysis (which focuses on individualized
questions for each potential plaintiff) was not applicable to FLSA
collective actions because Congress did not import the more
stringent criteria for FLSA collective actions as such a standard
"undermines the remedial purpose of the collective action device."
In reaching this conclusion, the Sixth Circuit rejected the
analysis of the Seventh Circuit in Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA,
LLC, 705 F. 3d 770 (7th Cir. 2013).

In Espenscheid, the Seventh Circuit decertified an FLSA collective
action for a class of workers bringing similar FLSA claims for
another subsidiary of the Monroe defendants.  The Seventh Circuit,
although recognizing the inherent differences between FLSA
collective actions and Rule 23 class actions, as well as the
conflict with settled Sixth Circuit law, ruled that "there isn't a
good reason to have different standards for the certification of
the two different types of action."  The Sixth Circuit
specifically rejected this analysis, concluding that the Seventh
Circuit's decertification in Espenscheid conflicts with Sixth
Circuit precedent.

The Sixth Circuit concluded that certification in Monroe was
proper as the plaintiffs were "similarly situated" for purposes of
the broad application of the FLSA's opt-in features and
congressional intent.  Both the factual and employment settings
articulated by the technicians and the degree of fairness and
procedural impact of certifying the case favored upholding the
certification for which Espenscheid was unpersuasive.

Implications for Employers

Unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court definitively decides on
this split between the circuits,1 it will remain much easier for
Sixth Circuit plaintiffs to keep their collective actions
certified under the FLSA, as the courts will not apply the more
stringent Rule 23 class certification standard, favoring instead
the more liberal -- and apparently broader and inclusive --
standard articulated in O'Brien.  Such an application will allow
courts to conclude that more workers are "similarly situated"
based on their job duties, compensation and claims under the FLSA.


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violated Sherman Act, Phoenixville Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Borough of Phoenixville, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Frank Reichl, General
Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC,
Gentk, 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, Case No. 2:16-cv-00582-SRC-CLW (D. N.J., February 2, 2016),
seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants alleged
conspiracy in fixing, stabilizing, and maintaining the price of
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate (LAS), pursuant to the Sherman Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew A. Green
          OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP
          Woodland Falls Corporate Park
          200 Lake Drive East, Suite 110
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 795 3300
          Facsimile: (856) 795 8843
          E-mail: mattew.green@obermayer.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Class Action Over Paroxetine Drug
--------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Hall, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a
Sydney law firm has launched a class action on behalf of people
who as children and adolescents were prescribed the anti-
depressant drug Paroxetine.

Drayton Sher Lawyers has called for expressions of interest from
people who were prescribed the drug, commonly known as Aropax in
Australia, when they were 18 or younger.

Solicitor Tony Nikolic said hundreds of people had indicated they
would join the class action, which he expects to file in the
Federal Court at the end of May.

Paroxetine was a commonly-prescribed anti-depressant more than a
decade ago and for a time was the most commonly used anti-
depressant in Australia.

In 2001, GlaxoSmithKline (then SmithKline Beecham) funded a
randomized trial of the drug that showed Paroxetine was safe for
use in adolescents.

But concerns about its use persisted.  In 2004 the Therapeutic
Goods Administration's Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee
said there was international concern about the risk of increased
suicidal ideation and self-harm among children and adolescents
using Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI)
antidepressants.

"It should be noted that none of the SSRIs is approved for the
treatment of MDD [major depressive disorder] in children or
adolescents in Australia, but these drugs are being used for this
purpose."

A team led by the University of Adelaide's Professor Jon Jureidini
re-examined the GlaxoSmithKline research last year and found there
were "quite striking" rises in the suicidal thoughts experienced
by those taking the drug compared with those taking a placebo.

The review team found that 11 people who took the drug in 2001
experienced experienced suicidal thoughts or behaviors, compared
with one person who took the placebo.

Mr. Nikolic said one person joining the class action had been
prescribed Paroxetine as a six-year-old, and soon began having
suicidal thoughts.

"Now, if someone is assisted by this, fine. But they know that
these things have suicidal thoughts or ideations attached to
them."

Mr. Nikolic is calling for anyone who was, as a minor, prescribed
Paroxetine - which also traded under a number of generic names
including Chemmart Paroxetine, Extine, GenRx Paroxetine,
Paroxetine Actavis and Terry White Chemists Paroxetine -- to come
forward if they experienced side effects.

These side effects could include suicidal feelings, attempted
suicide, and causing others an injury.

Fairfax contacted GlaxoSmithKline for comment.


GOPRO INC: "Giavara" Files Securities Class Action in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Giavara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff v. Gopro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman, Jack
Lazar, Michael Marks, John Ball, Edward Gilhuly, Kenneth Goldman,
Anthony Bates, Peter Gotcher, JP Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays
Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Allen & Company LLC,
Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, MCS Capital Markets LLC,
Robert W. Baird & Co., Incorporated, Piper Jaffray & Co., Raymond
James & Associates, Inc., and Does 1-25, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. CIV587077 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of San
Mateo, January 25, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933 against the Defendants, Company's officers
and directors, and the investment banks that underwrote the
Company's Class A common stock initial public offering (IPO).

On June 11, 2014, GoPro filed an amended registration statement
for the IPO, which was declared effective on June 25, 2014. On
June 26, 2014, GoPro filed with the SEC the prospectus for the IPO
and, together with the Registration Statement.

GoPro develops and manufactures wearable and gear mountable
cameras along with related accessories. The Company's products are
designed for use in activities ranging from action sports to
professional videography. GoPro also offers mobile applications
and software to enable users to edit, manage, and share their
photo and video files.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


GULF ATLANTIC: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Carlos Gonzales, on his own behalf and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gulf Atlantic Asset Management, Inc.,
Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-00132-TJC-MCR (M.D, Fla., February 8,
2016), seeks payment for all overtime hours rendered, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs of suit and such further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff was a maintenance and construction services worker for
the Defendants and claims to have not been compensated for
overtime rendered.

Gulf Atlantic is a Florida corporation based in Duval County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yolando A. Howling, Esq.
      FARAH AND FARAH, PA.
      10 West Adams St
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Tel: (904) 396-5555
      Fax: (904) 358-2424
      Email: yhewling@farahandfarah.com


GULF STREAM: Recalls Multiple Motorhome Models Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 12, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer, Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 165
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016013TC
ID number: 2016013
Manufacturer recall number: CS110116

On certain motorhomes equipped with Lippert Components Inc.
electric entry steps, an internal bolt on the steps that attaches
the fan gear assembly to the steps could fracture. This results in
the fan gear disengaging from the steps, which could cause the
steps to stop in an unexpected position and appear to be loose or
unstable. If the steps become unstable, it could cause a person to
fall, resulting in injury. Correction: Dealers will install a step
retainer bracket to reinforce the operating mechanism, and all
bolts of the mechanism will also be replaced.

  Make          Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----                ----------------------
  GULF STREAM   YELLOWSTONE          2008, 2009, 2010, 2009, 2008
  GULF STREAM   CONQUEST             2009
  GULF STREAM   INDEPENDENCE         2008, 2009, 2010
  GULF STREAM   TOUR MASTER          2008, 2009, 2010
  GULF STREAM   CRESCENDO            2008, 2009, 2010
  GULF STREAM   B TOURING CRUISER    2009, 2010, 2011
  GULF STREAM   CARRIBBEAN           2008, 2009
  GULF STREAM   SUPER NOVA           2009, 2010


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Need Time for Pretrial Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., and Hawaiian Electric Company,
Inc., said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit related to the Company's merger with NextEra Energy, Inc.,
on February 9, 2016, filed an ex parte motion for second extension
of time to file the pretrial statement in the state consolidated
action from February 15, 2016 to August 15, 2016.

Since the December 3, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement
with NextEra Energy, Inc., eight purported class action complaints
were filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit for the State
of Hawaii by alleged stockholders of HEI against HEI, Hawaiian
Electric (in one complaint), the individual directors of HEI, NEE
and NEE's acquisition subsidiaries. The lawsuits are captioned as
follows: Miller v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 14-1-2531-12 KTN (December 15, 2014) (the Miller Action);
Walsh v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-
1-2541-12 JHC (December 15, 2014) (the Walsh Action); Stein v.
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2555-12
KTN (December 17, 2014) (the Stein Action); Brown v. Hawaiian
Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2643-12 RAN
(December 30, 2014) (the Brown Action); Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2642-12 KTN (December 30,
2014) (the Cohn State Action); Guenther v. Watanabe, et al., Case
No. 15-1-003-01 ECN (January 2, 2015) (the Guenther Action);
Hudson v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-
1-0013-01 JHC (January 5, 2015) (the Hudson Action); Grieco v.
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-1-0094-01
KKS (January 21, 2015) (the Grieco Action).

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs in the Miller Action, the Walsh
Action, the Stein Action, the Brown Action, the Guenther Action,
and the Hudson Action filed a motion to consolidate their actions
and to appoint co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Cohn
State Action was voluntarily dismissed.

On January 27, 2015, Cohn filed a purported class action captioned
Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Civil No. 15-
00029-JMS-RLP in the United States District Court for the District
of Hawaii against HEI, the individual directors of HEI, NEE, and
NEE's acquisition subsidiaries (the Cohn Federal Action).

On February 13, 2015, the state court orally granted the
plaintiffs' motions to consolidate the seven state court actions
and appoint co-lead counsel and entered a written order granting
the motions on March 6, 2015.

On March 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first consolidated complaint
in state court that added as a defendant J.P. Morgan Securities,
LLC (JP Morgan), the financial advisor to HEI for the Merger, and
deleted Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. as a defendant and
concurrently served a first request for production of documents on
HEI and the individual directors. On March 17, 2015, plaintiffs
filed a motion for limited expedited discovery in the consolidated
state action and thereafter on March 25, 2015 withdrew their
request for limited discovery and first request for production of
documents as a result of the parties' agreement to conduct certain
specified limited discovery which included a stipulated
confidentiality agreement and protective order protecting the
confidentiality of certain information exchanged between the
parties in connection with discovery in the consolidated action
that was filed on April 6, 2015.

On April 15 and 17, 2015, a deposition of a representative of HEI
and a representative of JP Morgan were taken, respectively. On
April 21, 2015, plaintiffs confirmed the cancellation of the
preliminary injunction hearing that had been scheduled for May 5,
2015 in the consolidated action and on April 23, 2015, the state
court entered a stipulation and order to extend indefinitely the
time to answer or otherwise respond to the first amended
consolidated complaint. On April 30, 2015, the state court entered
a consolidated case management order confirming the consolidated
treatment of the state actions for purposes of case management,
pretrial discovery, procedural and other matters.

On May 27, 2015, the federal court entered a stipulation and order
approving the stipulation of the parties to stay the Cohn Federal
Action pending the resolution of the state court consolidated
action and administratively closing the Cohn Federal Action
without prejudice to any party. On May 29, 2015, the state court
entered a stipulated order amending the consolidated caption to
read IN RE Consolidated HEI Shareholder Cases, Master File No.
Civil No. 1CC15-1-HEI, to add JP Morgan as a named defendant in
each individual action, add the caption for the Grieco Action, and
remove Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. from the caption in the
Brown Action.

In October 2015, several depositions of HEI representatives were
taken in the state consolidated action.

The actions allege, among other things, that members of HEI's
Board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction, and that the Merger Agreement involves an
unfair price, was the product of an inadequate sales process, and
contains unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
preclude competing offers. The complaints further allege that HEI,
NEE and/or its acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that the
Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of HEI's directors'
fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction enjoining the HEI Board from
consummating the Merger, (iii) an order directing the HEI Board to
exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best
interests of HEI's stockholders, (iv) a rescission of the Merger
to the extent that it is consummated, and/or (v) damages suffered
as a result of the defendants' alleged actions. Plaintiffs in the
consolidated state action also allege that JP Morgan had a
conflict of interest in advising HEI because JP Morgan and its
affiliates had business ties to and investments in NEE. The
consolidated state action also alleges that the HEI board of
directors violated its fiduciary duties by omitting material facts
from the Registration Statement on Form S-4.

In addition, the Cohn Federal Action alleges that the HEI board of
directors violated its fiduciary duties and federal securities
laws by omitting material facts from the Registration Statement on
Form S-4.

HEI and Hawaiian Electric believe the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.


HAWAIIAN GRILL: "Ecoquij-Tzep" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Pacual Ecoquij-Tzep, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Hawaiian Grill a/k/a MW Hawaiian
Grill, Case No. 3:16-cv-00625-M (N.D. Tex., March 4, 2016), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay wage and overtime
for work performed in excess of 40 hours pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Hawaiian Grill a/k/a MW Hawaiian Grill owns and operates a
restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert Manteuffel, Esq.
     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
     6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
     Dallas, TX 75240
     Tel: (972) 233-2264
     Fax: (972) 386-7610
     Email: zabogado@aol.com
            rlmanteuffeel@sbcglobal.net
            josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: "Donohoe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Donohoe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Harvard University, the Defendant,
Case No. l6-9193 (Commonwealth of Mass., Super. Ct., Dept.,
January 25, 2016), seeks to recover wages as a result of alleged
unlawful misclassification of the employees as independent
contractors in violation of Mass. Gen. Law.

The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Wakefield, Rhode Island.
She has worked as a massage therapist at Harvard University Health
Services' Center for Wellness since 2004.

Harvard University is an educational institution located primarily
in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
     Jill Kahn, Esq.
     LIGHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Telephone: (617) 994 5800
     Facsimile: (617) 994 5801


HOLIDAY RAMBLER: Recalls Ambassador Motorhomes Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 14, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 387
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016019TC
ID number: 2016019
Manufacturer recall number: 151216REV

On certain motorhomes equipped with Lippert Components Inc.
electric entry steps, an internal bolt on the steps that attaches
the fan gear assembly to the steps could fracture. This results in
the fan gear disengaging from the steps, which could cause the
steps to stop in an unexpected position and appear to be loose or
unstable. If the steps become unstable, it could cause a person to
fall, resulting in injury. Correction: Dealers will install a step
retainer bracket to reinforce the operating mechanism, and all
bolts of the mechanism will also be replaced.

  Make          Model           Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----           ----------------------
  HOLIDAY       AMBASSADOR      2011, 2010, 2010, 2010,
  RAMBLER                       2012, 2010, 2011


HOME DEPOT: Recalls White and Alabaster Aluminum Blinds
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 11, 2016
Posting date: January 11, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56554

This recall involves the Hampton Bay 24" x 48" 1 3/8" white and
alabaster aluminum blinds.

The blinds have a sticker on the inside head rail that states
"Home Depot Toronto, Ontario. Canada" and "Made in
Cambodia/NM/2015".

If the sticker cannot be located, consumers should contact 1-844-
882-5743.

The recalled blinds have accessible inner cords. Young children
may pull the inner cords around their neck, posing a risk of
strangulation.

Neither Health Canada nor Home Depot has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these blinds
in Canada.

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

Approximately 2,000 units were sold in Canada at Home Depot
locations.

Time period sold

The recalled blinds were sold between May 2015 and November 2015.

Manufactured in Cambodia.

Importer: The Home Depot of Canada Inc.
          Toronto
          Ontario
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Nien Made Enterprise Co., Ltd of Santa Fe Springs
              Santa Fe Springs
              California

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blinds and
contact Home Depot to receive a free replacement or refund.

For more information, consumers can contact Nien Made Enterprise
Co. at 1-844-882-5743 Monday to Friday, from 8 am to 5 pm PST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/oYx70M


HOME DEPOT: Recalls 3-Pack Candy Cane Light Stakes Set
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 15, 2016
Posting date: January 15, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56640

This voluntary recall involves Home Accents Holiday 3-Pack Candy
Cane Light Stakes Set.   The stakes are 2 feet 4 inches (71
centimetres) long and are identified by model number XHD89939 with
UPC number 758440274818. The product has CSA file number 224823
which can be found on the white tag affixed to the wire.

Testing by Home Depot has determined that the candy cane light
stakes may pose an electric shock, overheating and/or fire hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Home Depot of Canada Inc. has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of these products.

Approximately 17,808 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from October 18, 2015 to December
22, 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Zhejiang Kaifu Lamp Co., Ltd.
              Taizhou City, Zhejiang
              CHINA

Importer: The Home Depot of Canada Inc.
          Toronto
          Ontario
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
return them to a Home Depot store for a full refund.

For additional information, consumers can visit the Home Depot
Canada website.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/yecP9f


HOT TOPIC: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Cristhian Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Hot Topic, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01256-JMF (S.D.N.Y.,
February 18, 2016), is brought over alleged violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Hot Topic, Inc., based in Los Angeles, California, operates as a
mall and Web-based specialty retailer in the United States.  The
Company operates Hot Topic, Torrid, and Blackheart store concepts.
The Company's Hot Topic stores sell music/pop culture-licensed
merchandise, including tee shirts, hoodies, hats, jewelry, novelty
items, CDs/vinyl LPs, and DVDs; and denim, shorts, jewelry,
sunglasses, belts, bags, and beauty products for young men and
women.  The Company's Torrid stores sell casual and dressy jeans
and pants, fashion and novelty tops, sweaters, skirts, jackets,
dresses, hosiery, shoes, intimate apparel, and fashion accessories
for plus-size young women.  The Company's Blackheart stores sell a
collection of bras, panties, corsets, hosiery and others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


IKEA CANADA: Recalls Lattjo Drum Sticks Due to Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 14, 2016
Posting date: January 14, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56638

This recall involves the LATTJO Drum Sticks, which were sold as a
set of 3 pairs of drum sticks in a case. The product includes 1
pair of brush tip sticks, 1 pair of mallet tip sticks, 1 pair of
standard drum sticks and a roll-up case.

The rubber ball on the mallet tip sticks can detach or be
unscrewed to create a small part that could pose a choking hazard
to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor IKEA Canada has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these drum
sticks in Canada.

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

There were 212 of the recalled drum stick sets sold at IKEA stores
across Canada.

The recalled drum sticks were sold from November 2015 to December
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Happy Arts & Crafts (Ningbo) Co., Ltd.
              Ningbo
              Zhejiang
              CHINA

Distributor: IKEA Canada Limited Partnership
             Burlington
             Ontario

Customers should immediately stop using the LATTJO drum sticks and
return them to any IKEA store for a full refund. Proof of purchase
(a receipt) is not required by IKEA for the return.

For more information, consumers may contact IKEA Canada by
telephone toll-free at 1-800-661-9807 or visit IKEA's website.

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


IMPRIVATA INC: Faces "Coyer" Securities Class Action in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Coyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v Imprivata, Inc., Omar Hussain,
Jeffrey Kalowski, General Catalyst Group II, L.P., Highland
Capital Partners Vi Limited Partnership, and Polaris Venture
Partners III, L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10160-LTS (D.
Mass., February 2, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Imprivata is an IT security company that provides authentication
and access management technology solutions for the healthcare
industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The Company had more than 25 million shares
issued and outstanding. Imprivata was founded in 2001 and is
headquartered in Lexington, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255 1856
          E-mail: FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com
                  MichaelF@JohnsonandWeaver.com


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Violated Exchange Act, "DiDonato" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Di Donato, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc.,
Michael L. Babich, Darryl S. Baker, and John N. Kapoor, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00302-NVW (D. Ariz., February 2,
2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes supportive care products primarily
designed to assist patients with pain management attributable to
their disease, treatment, or therapy. The Company's principal
product and source of revenue is Subsys, sublingual fentanyl spray
designed to treat breakthrough cancer pain in opioidtolerant
patients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274 1100
          Fascimile: (602) 274 1199
          E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
                  afriedman@bffb.com


IOVATE HEALTH: Recalls Health Product Due to Noncompliant Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 20, 2016
Posting date: February 2, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56944

Non-compliant label with non medicinal ingredient (coconut oil) in
product name.

Wholesaler, retailers

Affected products:
Purely Inspired Coconut Oil Plus Green Coffee
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80056276
Dosage form: Softgel Capsules
Strength: 200 mg
Lot or serial number: 502665
                      507885

Recalling Firm: Iovate Health Sciences Inc.
                381 North Service Road West
                Oakville
                L6M 0H4
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Iovate Health Sciences Inc.
                                381 North Service Road West
                                Oakville
                                L6M 0H4
                                CANADA


J.B. HUNT: Drivers' Class Action Remains Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company is a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in which
the plaintiffs are current and former California-based drivers who
allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, and other items.

During the first half of 2014, the Court in the lead class-action
granted judgment in our favor with regard to all claims. The
plaintiffs have appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals where it is currently pending. The overlapping claims in
the remaining action have been stayed pending a decision in the
lead class-action case.

"We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may arise from these lawsuits," the
Company said.

J.B. Hunt Transport Services is one of the largest surface
transportation, delivery, and logistics companies in North
America.


JAYCO: Recalls Motorhome 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 6, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 2
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016007TC
ID number: 2016007

Certain motorhomes may fail to conform to Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. The seatbelts
for the forward and rear facing dinette seats may have been
installed with an incorrect attachment plate and may therefore
fail to meet the attachment strength requirements of the standard.
This could result in seat belts detaching from the vehicle in a
crash, thereby failing to properly restrain occupants during a
crash, and increasing the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will
install a new back plate to each seat belt bracket (2 per seat)
with new bolts and fasteners. Note: Owners are advised not to sit
in either of the Dinette Booth seats while the motor home is
moving until the recall remedy has been performed on all four seat
belts.

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


JJ LINDEN STREET: Violated FLSA, "Hunt" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hunt, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. J.J. Linden Street, L.L.C., d/b/a The
Blind Pig Pub, and James Wells, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00247-MEH (D. Col., February 2, 2016), seeks to recover damages
and back pay as a result of Defendants violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, (FLSA), the Colorado Wage Claim Act (Wage
Claim Act), and Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

J.J. Linden Street, L.L.C. is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of Colorado, which owns and operates the
The Blind Pig Pub located at 214 Linden Street, Fort Collins,
Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
          Fort Collins, CO 80524
          Telephone: (970) 212 4665
          Facsimile: (303) 539 9812
          E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of ERISA Action Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Firm has been sued
in a consolidated shareholder class action, a consolidated
putative class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") and seven shareholder derivative actions
brought in Delaware state court and in New York federal and state
courts relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic credit portfolio
managed by the Firm's Chief Investment Office ("CIO"). A
settlement of the shareholder class action, under which the Firm
will pay $150 million, has been preliminarily approved by the
court. The putative ERISA class action has been dismissed, and
plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. Six of the seven
shareholder derivative actions have been dismissed.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., is a global financial services firm and one
of the largest banking institutions in the United States of
America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Says Settlement of CDS Litigation Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlements of
Credit Default Swaps litigation are subject to court approval.

In July 2013, the European Commission (the "EC") filed a Statement
of Objections against the Firm (including various subsidiaries)
and other industry members in connection with its ongoing
investigation into the credit default swaps ("CDS") marketplace.
The EC asserted that between 2006 and 2009, a number of investment
banks acted collectively through the International Swaps and
Derivatives Association ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited
("Markit") to foreclose exchanges from the potential market for
exchange-traded credit derivatives. In December 2015, the EC
announced the closure of its investigation as to the Firm and
other investment banks.

Separately, the Firm and other defendants have entered separate
agreements to settle a consolidated putative class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers and sellers of CDS. The complaint in
this action had alleged that the defendant investment banks and
dealers, including the Firm, as well as Markit and/or ISDA,
collectively prevented new entrants into the market for exchange-
traded CDS products. These settlements are subject to Court
approval.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., is a global financial services firm and one
of the largest banking institutions in the United States of
America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Consumer and ERISA Suits Over FX Rates Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that consumer actions and
ERISA actions related to foreign exchange rates remain pending.

The Firm is one of a number of foreign exchange dealers defending
a class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York by U.S.-based plaintiffs,
principally alleging violations of federal antitrust laws based on
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates (the
"U.S. class action").  In January 2015, the Firm entered into a
settlement agreement in the U.S. class action.

Following this settlement, a number of additional putative class
actions were filed seeking damages for persons who transacted FX
futures and options on futures (the "exchanged-based actions"),
consumers who purchased foreign currencies at allegedly inflated
rates (the "consumer actions"), and participants or beneficiaries
of qualified ERISA plans (the "ERISA actions").

In July 2015, the plaintiffs in the U.S. class action filed an
amended complaint, and the Court consolidated the exchange-based
actions into the U.S. class action. The Firm has entered into a
revised settlement agreement to resolve the consolidated U.S.
class action, including the exchange-based actions, and that
agreement is subject to Court approval. The consumer actions and
ERISA actions remain pending.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., is a global financial services firm and one
of the largest banking institutions in the United States of
America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: FX Dealers Face Class Actions in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in September 2015, two
class actions were filed in Canada against the Firm as well as a
number of other FX dealers, principally for alleged violations of
the Canadian Competition Act based on an alleged conspiracy to fix
the prices of currency purchased in the FX market. The first
action was filed in the province of Ontario, and seeks to
represent all persons in Canada who transacted any FX instrument.
The second action seeks to represent only those persons in Quebec
who engaged in FX transactions.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., is a global financial services firm and one
of the largest banking institutions in the United States of
America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Oral Arguments Heard in LIBOR Case Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit has heard oral argument on
remand in the consolidated LIBOR-related class actions.

JPMorgan Chase has received subpoenas and requests for documents
and, in some cases, interviews, from federal and state agencies
and entities, including the Department of Justice, the U.S.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"), the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and various state attorneys
general, as well as the Europoean Commission, the U.K. Financial
Conduct Authority ("FCA"), the Canadian Competition Bureau, the
Swiss Competition Commission and other regulatory authorities and
banking associations around the world relating primarily to the
process by which interest rates were submitted to the British
Bankers Association ("BBA") in connection with the setting of the
BBA's London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") for various
currencies, principally in 2007 and 2008. Some of the inquiries
also relate to similar processes by which information on rates is
submitted to the European Banking Federation ("EBF") in connection
with the setting of the EBF's Euro Interbank Offered Rates
("EURIBOR") and to the Japanese Bankers' Association for the
setting of Tokyo Interbank Offered Rates ("TIBOR"), as well as
processes for the setting of U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates and other
reference rates in various parts of the world during similar time
periods. The Firm is responding to and continuing to cooperate
with these inquiries. The Firm has resolved EC inquiries relating
to Yen LIBOR and Swiss Franc LIBOR.

In May 2014, the EC issued a Statement of Objections outlining its
case against the Firm (and others) as to EURIBOR, to which the
Firm has filed a response and made oral representations. Other
inquiries have been discontinued without any action against
JPMorgan Chase, including by the FCA and the Canadian Competition
Bureau.

The Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a
series of individual and putative class actions filed in various
United States District Courts, in which plaintiffs make varying
allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later,
defendants either individually or collectively manipulated the
U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR
and/or EURIBOR rates by submitting rates that were artificially
low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans,
derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are
affected by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc
LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR or EURIBOR and assert a variety of claims
including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. These matters
are in various stages of litigation.

The U.S. dollar LIBOR-related putative class actions and most U.S.
dollar LIBOR-related individual actions were consolidated for pre-
trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Court dismissed certain claims,
including the antitrust claims, and permitted other claims under
the Commodity Exchange Act and common law to proceed. Certain
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the antitrust claims, and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In January 2015, the United States Supreme Court reversed the
decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that plaintiffs have the
jurisdictional right to appeal, and remanded the case to the Court
of Appeals for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals heard
oral argument on remand in November 2015.

The Firm also disclosed that it is one of the defendants in a
number of putative class actions alleging that defendant banks and
ICAP conspired to manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates.
Plaintiffs primarily assert claims under the federal antitrust
laws and Commodities Exchange Act.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., is a global financial services firm and one
of the largest banking institutions in the United States of
America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Florida Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal by plaintiffs
from the dismissal of a Florida class action lawsuit related the
Madoff litigation remains pending.

Various subsidiaries of the Firm, including J.P. Morgan Securities
plc, have been named as defendants in lawsuits filed in Bankruptcy
Court in New York arising out of the liquidation proceedings of
Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma Limited, so-called
Madoff feeder funds.  These actions seek to recover payments made
by the funds to defendants totaling approximately $155 million.
All but two of these actions have been dismissed.

In addition, a putative class action was brought by investors in
certain feeder funds against JPMorgan Chase in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, as was a
motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to add claims
against the Firm and certain subsidiaries to an already pending
putative class action in the same court. The allegations in these
complaints largely track those previously raised -- and resolved
as to the Firm -- by the court-appointed trustee for Bernard L.
Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

The District Court dismissed these complaints and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
District Court's decision. The United States Supreme Court denied
plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari in March 2015.
Plaintiffs subsequently served a motion in the Court of Appeals
seeking to have the Court reconsider its prior decision in light
of another recent appellate decision. That motion was denied in
June 2015.

The Firm is also a defendant in five other Madoff-related
individual investor actions pending in New York state court. The
allegations in all of these actions are essentially identical, and
involve claims against the Firm for, among other things, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust
enrichment. In August 2014, the Court dismissed all claims against
the Firm. In January 2016, the Appellate Court affirmed the
dismissal.

A putative class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who were net
winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money out of
their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff's Ponzi scheme
and were not included in a prior class action settlement. These
plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities law,
federal and state racketeering statutes and multiple common law
and statutory claims including breach of trust, aiding and
abetting embezzlement, unjust enrichment, conversion and
commercial bad faith.

A similar action was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, although it was not styled as a
class action, and included claims pursuant to Florida statutes.

The Firm moved to transfer both the Florida and New Jersey actions
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The Florida court denied the transfer motion, but
subsequently granted the Firm's motion to dismiss the case in
September 2015. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, which is
pending. In addition, the same plaintiffs have re-filed their
dismissed state claims in Florida state court.

The New Jersey court granted the transfer motion to the Southern
District of New York, and the Firm has moved to dismiss the case
pending in New York.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., is a global financial services firm and one
of the largest banking institutions in the United States of
America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Hearing This Month to Approve Purchaser Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the indirect
purchaser settlement in the class action complaints related to
cathode ray tubes is still subject to court approval with a
hearing on the final approval scheduled for March 2016.

Certain Philips Group companies were named as defendants in class
action antitrust complaints by direct and indirect purchasers of
CRTs filed in various federal district courts in the United
States. These actions alleged anticompetitive conduct by
manufacturers of CRTs and sought treble damages on a joint and
several liability basis. In addition, sixteen individual
plaintiffs, principally large retailers of CRT products who opted
out of the direct purchaser class, filed separate complaints
against the Company and other defendants based on the same
substantive allegations. All these actions have been consolidated
for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.

The Company reached settlements with both the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs fully resolving all
claims of the direct and indirect purchaser class. The direct
purchaser settlement was approved by the court in 2012, while the
indirect purchaser settlement is still subject to court approval
with a hearing on the final approval scheduled for March 2016.

In the past years the Company also reached settlements with a
number of the individual plaintiffs resolving all claims by those
retailers on a global basis. The settlements reached to date
represent the vast majority of CRT sales attributed to the Company
by the individual plaintiffs. In effect, all cases originally
scheduled for trial in the Northern District of California have
now been resolved, leaving unresolved certain of the cases that
were consolidated in the California case for pre-trial purposes
that have to be transferred back to their original venue for
further proceedings. Trial dates have not yet been set for those
cases.

In 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a consumer class
action lawsuit filed in Israel in which damages are claimed
against several defendants based on alleged anticompetitive
activities in the CRT industry. In addition, an electronics
manufacturer filed a claim against the Company and several co-
defendants with a court in the Netherlands, also seeking
compensation for the alleged damage sustained as a result from the
alleged anticompetitive activities in the CRT industry.

In 2015, the Company became involved in further civil CRT
antitrust litigation with previous CRT customers in the United
Kingdom, Germany, Brazil and Denmark. In all cases the same
substantive allegations about anticompetitive activities in the
CRT industry are made and damages are sought. The Company has
received indications that more civil claims may be filed in due
course.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Revised Class Cert. Bid Okayed in ODD Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' revised motion for class certification in
the Optical Disc Drive (ODD) litigation has been granted.

On October 27, 2009, the Antitrust Division of the United States
Department of Justice confirmed that it had initiated an
investigation into possible anticompetitive practices in the
Optical Disc Drive (ODD) industry. Philips Lite-On Digital
Solutions Corp. (PLDS), a joint venture owned by the Company and
Lite-On IT Corporation, as an ODD market participant, is included
in this investigation. PLDS and the Company have been accepted
under the Corporate Leniency program of the US Department of
Justice and have continued to cooperate with the authorities in
these investigations. On this basis, the Company expects to be
immune from governmental fines.

In July 2012, the European Commission issued a Statement of
Objections addressed to (former) ODD suppliers including the
Company and PLDS. The European Commission granted the Company and
PLDS immunity from fines, conditional upon the Company's continued
cooperation. The Company responded to the Statement of Objections
both in writing and at an oral hearing.

On October 21, 2015 the European Commission issued its fining
decisions in which it granted immunity to the Company, Lite-On IT
Corporation and PLDS.

The antitrust authority in one remaining jurisdiction is still
investigating the matter.

Subsequent to the public announcement of these investigations in
2009, the Company, PLDS and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions
USA, Inc. (PLDS USA), among other industry participants, were
named as defendants in numerous class action antitrust complaints
filed in various federal district courts in the United States.
These actions allege anticompetitive conduct by manufacturers of
ODDs and seek treble damages on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of ODDs and products incorporating ODDs. These actions
have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Initially the plaintiffs' applications for certification of both
the direct and indirect purchaser classes were denied.

In May 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a revised
motion for class certification seeking to certify a class of end
consumers as plaintiffs, which was granted on February 8, 2016.

In September 2015, prior to the resubmission of a class
certification motion by the direct purchaser plaintiffs, PLDS
entered into a settlement agreement with the direct purchaser
plaintiffs under which the Company was released from the direct
purchaser claims.

In addition, various individual entities have filed separate
actions against the Company, PLDS, PLDS USA and other defendants.
The allegations contained in these individual complaints are
substantially identical to the allegations in the direct purchaser
class complaints. All of these matters have been consolidated into
the action in the Northern District of California for pre-trial
purposes and discovery is being coordinated.

Also, in June 2013, the State of Florida filed a separate
complaint in the Northern District of California against the
Company, PLDS, PLDS USA and other defendants containing largely
the same allegations as the class and individual complaints.
Florida seeks to recover damages sustained in its capacity as a
buyer of ODDs and, in its parens patriae capacity, on behalf of
its citizens. The defendants' motion to dismiss has been denied
and Philips filed an answer to the complaint. This case has been
joined with the ODD class action cases in the Northern District of
California for pre-trial purposes.

The Company and certain Philips Group companies have also been
named as defendants, in proposed class proceedings in Ontario,
Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Canada along
with numerous other participants in the industry. These complaints
assert claims against various ODD manufacturers under federal
competition laws as well as tort laws and may involve joint and
several liability among the named defendants. Philips intends to
vigorously defend these lawsuits. Plaintiffs in the British
Columbia case have proceeded with their application to certify
that proceeding as a class action. The hearing was held in January
2015. The Court's decision on class certification is still
pending.


KRUGER INC: Court Hears Arguments in Deer Lake Canal Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Diane Crocker, writing for The Western Star, reports that a
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador judge is being asked to
consider hearing an application that could see Corner Brook Pulp
and Paper Ltd. removed from a class-action lawsuit in relation to
seepage issues along the Deer Lake canal.

During an appearance in court on March 10, Tom O'Reilly --
toreilly@coxandpalmer.com -- of Cox and Palmer in St. John's
presented his reasons to Justice David Hurley for why the
application should be heard prior to the lawsuit's certification
hearing.

Bob Buckingham Law and Halifax-based Wagners Law Firm jointly
launched the environmentally based class action on May 22, 2015.
Homeowners in the area around Elizabeth Avenue, Garden Road and
Devon Road in Deer Lake claim flooding in their basements and
mould are a result of seepage from the canal.

Also named as defendants in the suit are Kruger Inc., Deer Lake
Power Company, the Town of Deer Lake and the provincial
government.

Mr. O'Reilly represents both Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and
Kruger and holds the position that Deer Lake Power does not exist
as a company.  Corner Brook Pulp and Paper was the sole applicant
in the matter on March 10.

After the appearance, Mr. O'Reilly said the application before the
court, "is to ask the court to rule that before there is any
certification of the class-action on behalf of these claimants
that the court should hear the application of Corner Brook Pulp
and Paper that those claims should not be before the court, they
are to be decided by an arbitration panel."

In his arguments to Hurley, Mr. O'Reilly cited provisions in
provincial legislation that date back to a 1927 agreement between
the International Paper Company of Newfoundland and the province.
Those provisions outline that arbitration, not litigation should
be the remedy for those with claims against the company.

If the judge rules in the company's favor, Mr. O'Reilly said
they'll proceed with that application.  Then it would be up to the
judge to say whether it should be before the court as part of the
class-action or that the claimants have to go to arbitration.

If the decision is to go to arbitration, Mr. O'Reilly said Corner
Brook Pulp and Paper won't be part of the class-action.

Bob Buckingham, however, disagrees that the application should be
heard prior to the certification hearing.

"Our position is that it's best to deal with their application in
a class-action. That hears all of the issues," Mr. Buckingham
said.  "It also hears their argument. It hears the points that we
want to put forward in terms of the statement of claim."

As for the potential of taking the matter to arbitration,
Mr. Buckingham said that could mean 350 or more individual cases.

"It's not in their interest to do to that."

But Mr. O'Reilly countered that if people come forward with
claims, the company is legislated to do it.

Even if the company is successful in its bid, Mr. Buckingham said
the action will continue against the town and the province.

Another issue still to be dealt with is determining whether Corner
Brook Pulp and Paper and Kruger are all the same company.

While Messrs. Buckingham and O'Reilly presented their arguments
before Hurley in the courtroom, the lawyers for the town and the
province listened in via court call.  Neither Dan Boone or Phillip
Osborne took a position on the application.

Justice Hurley told the lawyers he wanted to take some time to
make a decision on the matter and they will be notified when his
decision is ready.


LAST GLUE: Recalls Skin-Bonding Adhesives Due to Noncompliance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 19, 2016
Posting date: January 19, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory:
Household Items, Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number:  RA-56668

This recall involves The Last Glue(R) (skin-bonding adhesives)
sold by The Last Glue at various tradeshows in Canada. The product
was sold in three sizes: 10mL, 20mL, and 50mL.

These products do not meet packaging and labelling requirements
for consumer chemicals. Quick skin bonding adhesives are required
to be packaged and sold in child resistant containers by the
Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. These adhesives are a type of
glue capable of bonding skin with skin instantly or nearly
instantly.

Neither The Last Glue nor Health Canada has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of these products.

It is unknown how many units of the recalled products were sold at
various tradeshows across Canada.

The recalled products were sold between January 1998 and January
2016.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Cyberbond L.L.C.
              Batavia
              Illinois
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: The Last Glue
             Burlington
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should keep the product out of reach of children and
should contact The Last Glue to receive a child resistant
container. For more information, consumers may contact The Last
Glue at 1-905-465-3805 Monday through Friday 9 AM to 5 PM Eastern
Standard Time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/wDCA6m


LIFELOCK INC: Inked Comprehensive Settlement Agreement with FTC
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company on December
17, 2015, entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement with
the Federal Trade Commission, pursuant to which the Company
resolved all matters related to the FTC Contempt Action and
representatives of a national class of consumers, which is
referred to as the Consumer Class Action or the Ebarle Class
Action. Under the terms of the settlement, $100 million was placed
into the registry of the court overseeing the FTC Contempt Action,
$68 million of which is to be distributed to the court overseeing
Consumer Class Action to fund the consumer redress contemplated by
the Consumer Class Action settlement, and the remaining $32
million of which is authorized to fund consumer redress ordered by
any states' attorneys general, provided that certain conditions
are met. If all or part of the $32 million is not used for that
purpose, it will revert to the FTC.

"At this stage, no states' attorneys general have initiated
proceedings against us alleging that we violated the companion
orders from 2010," the Company said.  "As of December 31, 2015, we
have accrued $3 million for a potential settlement with states'
attorneys general. The ultimate resolution of the matter with the
states' attorneys general is uncertain and may involve a
materially higher settlement than $3 million. In addition, as of
December 31, 2015 we also have $13 million accrued for payment of
plaintiff legal and administrative fees related to the nationwide
consumer class action."

LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection
services for consumers and consumer risk management services for
enterprises.


MDL 1566: ONEOK Still Defends Gas Index Pricing Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
ONEOK, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the
gas index pricing litigation in Nevada district court.

The case is, In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust
Litigation (MDL 1566)(D. Nev.).

The Company said, "We, ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P. (OESC)
and one other affiliate are defending, either individually or
together, against the following lawsuits that claim damages
resulting from the alleged market manipulation or false reporting
of prices to gas index publications by us and others: Sinclair Oil
Corporation v. ONEOK Energy Services Corporation, L.P., et al.
(filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Wyoming in September 2005, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada); Reorganized
FLI, Inc. (formerly J.P. Morgan Trust Company) v. ONEOK, Inc., et
al. (filed in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, in
October 2005, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada); Learjet, Inc., et al.
v. ONEOK, Inc., et al. (filed in the District Court of Wyandotte,
Kansas, in November 2005, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada); Arandell
Corporation, et al. v. Xcel Energy, Inc., et al. (filed in the
Circuit Court for Dane County, Wisconsin, in December 2006,
transferred to MDL-1566 in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada); Heartland Regional Medical Center, et al.
v. ONEOK, Inc., et al. (filed in the Circuit Court of Buchanan
County, Missouri, in March 2007, transferred to MDL-1566 in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada); NewPage
Wisconsin System v. CMS Energy Resource Management Company, et al.
(filed in the Circuit Court for Wood County, Wisconsin, in March
2009, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada and now consolidated with the Arandell
case)."

"In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that we, OESC
and one other affiliate and approximately nine other energy
companies and their affiliates engaged in an illegal scheme to
inflate natural gas prices by providing false information to gas
price index publications. All of the complaints arise out of a
CFTC investigation into and reports concerning false gas price
index-reporting or manipulation in the energy marketing industry
during the years from 2000 to 2002.

"On July 18, 2011, the trial court granted judgments in favor of
ONEOK, Inc., OESC and other unaffiliated entities in the following
cases: Reorganized FLI, Learjet, Arandell, Heartland, and NewPage.
The court also granted judgment in favor of OESC on all state law
claims asserted in the Sinclair case. On August 18, 2011, the
trial court entered an order approving a stipulation by the
plaintiffs and our affiliate, Kansas Gas Marketing Company
("KGMC"), for a dismissal without prejudice of the plaintiffs'
claims against KGMC in the Learjet and Heartland cases.

"On April 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgments that had been granted
in favor of ONEOK, OESC and other unaffiliated defendants in the
following cases: Reorganized FLI, Learjet, Arandell, Heartland and
NewPage. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the summary judgment that
had been granted in favor of OESC on all state law claims asserted
in the Sinclair case.

"On April 21, 2015, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Ninth Circuit. The cases have now been remanded
back to the trial court (the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada) for further proceedings."

On March 10, 2016, Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen granted a
stipulation by the parties to extend the class certification
briefing deadlines.  According to the case docket:

     Motions were due March 7, 2016
     Replies due by July 22, 2016
     Responses due by June 8, 2016

ONEOK, Inc. is the sole general partner and, as of December 31,
2015, owned 41.2 percent of ONEOK Partners (NYSE: OKS), one of the
largest publicly traded master limited partnerships.  ONEOK
Partners is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and
transportation of natural gas in the United States. In addition,
ONEOK Partners owns one of the nation's premier natural gas
liquids systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent,
Permian and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers.


MDL 2657: "Ellington" Personal Injury Suit Filed
------------------------------------------------
Paula Ellington, Plaintiff, individually and as Parent and Natural
Guardian of J.C., a minor, v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK"), Case No. Case 1:16-cv-10463 (D. Mass.,
March 3, 2016), seeks compensatory damages for fraudulent and
misrepresentation of the product.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendant GSK failed to exercise
ordinary care and failed to comply with existing standards of care
in the design, research, manufacture, marketing, supply,
promotion, packaging, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality
control, and/or distribution of Zofran into interstate commerce in
that GSK knew, or should have known, that use of Zofran created an
unreasonable risk of dangerous birth defects, as well as other
severe personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in
nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished
enjoyment of life, as well as the need for lifelong medical
treatment, monitoring and/or medications.

The case was filed under In Re: Zofran (Ondansetron)) Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS.

GSK is a pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael T. Gallagher, Esq.
     THE GALLAGHER LAW FIRM
     2905 Sackett Street
     Houston, TX 77098
     Tel: (713) 222-8080
     Fax: (713) 222-0066
     Email: donnaf@gld-law.com


MDL 2657: "Alvarez" Personal Injury Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------
Tatiana Alvarez, Plaintiff, individually and as parent and natural
guardian of L.A. v. GlaxoSmithkline, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-10461-FDS (D. Mass., March 4, 2016), seeks compensatory
damages for fraudulent and misrepresentation of the product.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendant GSK failed to exercise
ordinary care and failed to comply with existing standards of care
in the design, research, manufacture, marketing, supply,
promotion, packaging, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality
control, and/or distribution of Zofran into interstate commerce in
that GSK knew, or should have known, that use of Zofran created an
unreasonable risk of dangerous birth defects, as well as other
severe personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in
nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished
enjoyment of life, as well as the need for lifelong medical
treatment,  monitoring and/or medications.

The case was filed under In Re: Zofran (Ondansetron)) Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS.

GSK is a pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew F. Knope, Esq.
     Robin Treto, Esq.
     KNOPF BIGGER
     1560 North Orange Avenue, Suite 220
     Winter Park, FL 32789
     Tel: (407) 622-2111
     Fax: (407) 622-2112
     Email: andrew@knopfbigger.com
            robin@knopgbigger.com
            burton@knopgbigger.com
            Stephanie@knopgbigger.com


MEDBOX INC: May 16 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP on March 10 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Medbox, Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SHARES OF
COMMON STOCK OF MEDBOX, INC. BETWEEN APRIL 2, 2013 AND DECEMBER
29, 2014, INCLUSIVE, AND INCURRED DAMAGES (THE "CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division, that a hearing will be held on May 16, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.
in Courtroom 14 before the Honorable Beverly Reid O'Connell,
United States District Judge for the Central District of
California, Western Division, 312 North Spring Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90012-4701 (the "Final Settlement Approval Hearing")
for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement consisting of the sum of One Million Eight Hundred
Fifty Thousand United States Dollars (USD $1,850,000.00) in cash
(the "Cash Amount") and Two Million Three Hundred Thousand
(2,300,000) shares of Medbox, Inc. ("Medbox") common stock (the
"Settlement Shares," collectively with the Cash Amount, the
"Settlement Fund") should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class; (2)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is
fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court; (3)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
(of not more than 30% of the Settlement Fund) and reimbursement of
expenses (of not more than $100,000) should be approved by the
Court; and (4) whether the Court should approve the release of
Released Claims against any and all Released Persons and dismiss
the Class Action with prejudice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Proposed Class Action Settlement (the "Mailed Notice") and a copy
of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies of
these documents by downloading them from www.strategicclaims.net
or by contacting:

Medbox, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Suite 3
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (866) 274-4004
Facsimile: (610) 565-7985
Email: info@strategicclaims.net

If you are a member of the Class, to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release no later than June 1, 2016 to the Claims Administrator
(address above), establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the Class Action whether or not you
make a claim.  If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you
must submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than April
25, 2016, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Mailed
Notice to the Claims Administrator.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Distribution, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be made in writing setting forth
the objection in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Mailed Notice, and must be provided to the Court and the Settling
Parties such that it is received by each of the following no later
than April 25, 2016, at the following addresses:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Central District of California
Western Division
312 North Spring Street, Room G-8
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4701

Frank J. Johnson
JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0063
Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class

Phillip R. Kaplan
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
Park Tower
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 371-2500
Facsimile: (714) 371-2550
Counsel for Medbox, Inc. and Defendants' Counsel Designee

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

Frank J. Johnson
JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
600 West Broadway
Suite 1540
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0063
Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
Email: medboxclass@johnsonandweaver.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: FEBRUARY 3, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION


MEDTRONIC XOMED: Recalls HydroDebrider System - Handpiece
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 20, 2016
Posting date: February 8, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57028

Notification to inform customers of a problem reported with the
tubing set that is provided with HydroDebrider Standard Handpiece
ref 1914001. Subsequent to complaints from the field, it was
discovered that the HydroDebrider tubing assembly (on the spike
end) was missing components. This issue does not present a hazard
to either patient or user, however, using tubing with the missing
components will reduce the overall functionality of the
HydroDebrider (reduced force and volume of spray).

Affected products:
XOMED HYDRODEBRIDER SYSTEM - HANDPIECE
Lot or serial number: 0210082737
Model or catalog number: 1914001

Manufacturer: Medtronic Xomed Inc.
              6743 Southpoint Drive North
              Jacksonville
              Florida
              UNITED STATES


MESSARA IMPORTS: Recalls Honey Products
---------------------------------------
Starting date: January 8, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Messara Imports
Distribution: Alberta, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10276

  Brand   Common    Size    Code(s)       UPC
  name    name      ----    on product    ---
  ----    ------            ----------
  Orino   Honey     500 g   2017AU        5 203937 004720
                            LOTS 2122,
                            2123, 2124
  Orino   Pure      1 kg    2017AU        5 203937 004713
  Gold    Honey             LOTS 2064,
                            2065


MICRO BIRD: Recalls 2015 Model School Buses Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 6, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Steering
Units affected: 46
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016009TC
ID number: 2016009
Manufacturer recall number: 15-065-ACS

On certain school buses built on a Ford chassis, wheel alignment
adjustment bolts may not have been sufficiently tightened at time
of assembly. This could allow suspension and steering components
to loosen, potentially resulting in separation, which could affect
vehicle handling and steering and result in crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Owners will be given
instructions on how to have the bolt tightening torque inspected.

  Make          Model              Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----              ----------------------
  MICRO BIRD    G5 SCHOOL BUS      2015
  MICRO BIRD    MBII SCHOOL BUS    2015


MOBILEIRON INC: Amended "Panjwani" Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the "Panjwani" amended complaint with
leave to amend.

On May 1, 2015, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers, captioned Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The
action is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 13, 2015 and April 22, 2015. It
asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.The complaint seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on
behalf of the putative class. An amended complaint was filed on
September 28, 2015. MobileIron filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on November 13, 2015, which was granted on
February 22, 2016, with leave to amend.

MobileIron invented a purpose-built mobile IT platform for
enterprises to secure and manage mobile applications, or apps,
content and devices while providing their employees with device
choice, privacy and a native user experience.


MOBILEIRON INC: 3 California Class Actions Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a California court has
consolidated three class action lawsuits were consolidated under
the caption, In re MobileIron, Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

On August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of
its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned
Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc.,
et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The actions are
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons
who purchased the Company's securities issued pursuant or
traceable to the Company's registration statement and the June 12,
2014 initial public offering. The lawsuits assert claims for
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. The complaints seek among other things, compensatory
damages and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of the putative
class. On January 4, 2016, the three class action lawsuits were
consolidated under the caption, In re MobileIron, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation. The Company intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.

MobileIron invented a purpose-built mobile IT platform for
enterprises to secure and manage mobile applications, or apps,
content and devices while providing their employees with device
choice, privacy and a native user experience.


MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss FX Rates Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Defendants' motion to
dismiss an amended complaint in the Foreign Exchange Benchmark
Rates Antitrust Litigation remains pending.

Beginning in December 2013, several foreign exchange dealers
(including the Company and certain affiliates) were named as
defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions most of
which have now been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
styled In Re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust
Litigation.

On July 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint generally
alleging that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, maintain
or make artificial prices for key benchmark rates, to manipulate
bid/ask spreads, and, by their behavior in the over-the-counter
market, to thereby cause corresponding manipulation in the foreign
exchange futures market. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief as
well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 30, 2015.


MORGAN STANLEY: Canada Class Suits Target FX Dealers
----------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that several foreign exchange
dealers (including the Company and an affiliate) were named on
September 11, 2015, as defendants in a purported class action
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice styled Christopher
Staines v. Royal Bank of Canada, et al. The plaintiff has made
allegations similar to those in the In Re Foreign Exchange
Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation and seeks C$1 billion as well
as C$50 million in punitive damages.

On September 16, 2015, a parallel proceeding was initiated in
Quebec Superior Court styled Christine Beland v. Royal Bank of
Canada, et al. based on similar allegations and seeking C$100
million as well as C$50 million in punitive damages.


MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement in CDS Antitrust Case Await Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that parties in the Credit
Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation continue to await the final
court approval of the settlement reached in the case.

Beginning in May 2013, twelve financial firms (including the
Company), as well as the International Swaps and Derivatives
Association, Inc. ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited ("Markit"),
were named as defendants in multiple purported antitrust class
actions consolidated into a single proceeding in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York styled In Re: Credit
Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs alleged that
defendants violated United States antitrust laws from 2008 to
present in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the
development of exchange traded CDS products. The complaints
sought, among other relief, certification of a class of plaintiffs
who purchased CDS from defendants in the United States, treble
damages and injunctive relief.

On September 30, 2015, the Company reached an agreement with
plaintiffs to settle the litigation. The settlement received
preliminary court approval on October 29, 2015, and is subject to
final court approval.


MR BRUNO'S PIZZA: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Perez, Plaintiff, v. Mr. Bruno's East Rutherford, LLC and
John Doe, individually, Defendants, Case 6:16-cv-00210-GKS-DAB
(D.N.J., February 8, 2016), seeks payment of compensation and
overtime premiums due, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs of suit and all other appropriate relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. and the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Plaintiff worked as a cook for the Defendants' pizzeria located in
East Rutherford, Bergen County, New Jersey under the name Mr.
Bruno's Pizza & Beyond. He routinely worked in excess of 65 hours
per week without receiving overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAVISTAR INT'L: Fire Officials to Sue Over MaxxForce Engines
------------------------------------------------------------
Owen Boss and Chris Villani, writing for Boston Herald, report
that fire officials, hit with a scathing federal report
criticizing the department in the deaths of two firefighters in
2014, said they are preparing to sue the manufacturer of a diesel
engine now in more than a dozen problem-plagued city fire trucks
in order to thwart future disasters.

Fire Commissioner Joseph E. Finn fought back tears on March 10
while saying a "perfect storm for a tragedy" led to the deaths of
fire Lt. Edward Walsh Jr. and firefighter Michael R. Kennedy on
March 26, 2014, in a Back Bay brownstone as a wind-whipped blaze
engulfed the building.

But Mr. Finn blamed budget cuts under the administration of the
late Mayor Thomas M. Menino for forcing fire officials to put the
replacement of equipment ahead of proper training and staffing.

Mr. Finn said he is working with the city's lawyer to file a
lawsuit against Navistar International, the company that created
the MaxxForce engines inside some of the department's vehicles.

"There's 47 lawsuits across the country attributed to this engine
and a number of class-action lawsuits and we're going to be
joining that," Finn said last night.

"They make up about 35 percent of our fleet and they're taking up
about 80 percent of our service and maintenance time," he said.

"We are going to be filing our own single-action lawsuit and we're
working with the city's attorney on how we can best approach
that."

Mr. Finn's comments came on the heels of a 77-page National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health report that found
inadequate wind-driven fire training, subpar staffing and poor
tactical decisions contributed to Walsh and Kennedy's deaths.

Mr. Finn also attributed the risky state of the department's fleet
to "very poor choices" made by his predecessor.

"They're out of service so much because of this engine problem
that we've had to push into service our reserve fleet, which are
engines over 15 years old that are now up on front-line service
and you can imagine what that's doing for us," Mr. Finn said.

The 14 pieces of equipment with problematic Navistar engines, Finn
said, have even left parts of the city exposed to fires without
coverage from the department's "invaluable" ladder trucks.

"In the last month or two we've had areas of the city that did not
have a ladder truck because one of these went out of service and
we didn't have one to replace it with," Mr. Finn said.  "It's a
significant issue."

Mayor Martin J. Walsh also blasted the current state of the
department's fleet, calling fire trucks purchased in 2010, 2011
and 2012 "lemons" that already have to be replaced.

"When we talk about re-establishing the fleet, we're looking at it
right now in the budget, we have to start by re-establishing the
newer trucks, which is a problem," Mr. Walsh said.  "It's going to
take several years to get to where we need to get to."

When asked why no one in the department was disciplined after the
fatal blaze, Mr. Finn said: "They're all gone and we're here. And
you know what? We, my team, the people who work with me, we have
done everything we can in 18 months to turn this around and we've
made some significant strides in doing that."


NEW JERSEY: Drivers Fight Bid to Dismiss Bridgegate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Darragh, writing for NJ.com, reports that a group of drivers
and transportation firms is fighting a second effort to dismiss
their bid to sue the state of New Jersey, the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey, and other defendants for damages over the
Bridgegate lane closures in 2013.

The group including livery services, taxis, transportation firms
and other individuals, filed a 157-page brief in federal court in
defense of their bid to get court approval of a class action
against the state, the Port Authority, Gov. Chris Christie's re-
election campaign, ex-Port Authority officials David Wildstein and
Bill Baroni, ex-Christie aide Bridget Anne Kelly and former
spokesman for the governor Michael Drewniak.

The drivers claim that the plaintiffs deprived them of their civil
rights and financially harmed them when they planned and executed
the closure of several access lanes from Fort Lee to the George
Washington Bridge.

The closures caused massive traffic delays that, the complaint
says, was retribution for Mayor Mark Sokolich's decision not to
endorse Christie in his re-election bid in 2013.

Each of the defendants except Ms. Kelly late last year filed court
papers urging U.S. District Judge Jose Linares to dismiss the
complaint.

Mr. Baroni's lawyers, for example, called the complaint "a set of
conspiracy allegations in search of a class action that does not
exist."

But in the latest filing, the plaintiffs say the defendants'
arguments have no legal basis to conclude that the lane closures
at the George Washington Bridge in September, 2013 did not harm
them or violate their civil rights.

"Most importantly," the plaintiffs' brief says, "defendants'
motions also ignore that defendant Mr. Wildstein has admitted the
very allegations which are the crux of plaintiffs'" complaint.

In a separate criminal complaint, Mr. Wildstein pleaded guilty
last year to two conspiracy charges, including one count of
violating the civil rights of Fort Lee residents.  Mr. Baroni and
Ms. Kelly also were charged and pleaded not guilty.

The brief says the drivers suffered economic losses, loss of time
and were "falsely imprisoned in their vehicles" as Fort Lee became
gridlocked.

Those losses, it says, can be ascertained -- a necessary finding
if a class action is certified.

In addition, the plaintiffs' brief says it is premature to dismiss
the class allegations before other legal steps have occurred.

A New Jersey Attorney General's spokesman, whose office represents
the state defendants except Ms. Kelly, referred to its Dec. 29
brief when asked for comment.  That filing calls for the denial of
the class certification, saying the complaint is not legally
sustainable.

Mr. Baroni's attorney had no comment, nor did a spokesman for the
Port Authority.

Mr. Wildstein's attorney also did not reply for comment.

Judge Linares last June tossed the original complaint, saying the
plaintiffs, represented by the Epstein Law Firm of Rochelle Park,
provided "only conclusory allegations" and failed to allege the
defendants' personal involvement in the traffic mess.

He allowed the plaintiffs time to add specific details to their
remaining claims. The amended complaint was filed Aug. 6.

The new complaint offers "ample factual allegations" regarding the
planning, execution and attempted coverup of the lane closure
plot, it says.


NISSAN: Faces Complaints Over Melting Dashboards
------------------------------------------------
WFTV9 reports that a Kissimmee man claims his car's dashboard is
melting and it's a huge safety issue.

When the automaker said it was not a defect, he called Action 9.
Todd Ulrich found millions of cars could have the problem and one
company promised repairs, but lots of drivers are still waiting.

Zach Reddy's fingers stick to the dashboard, leaving visible
prints behind. He said the dash in his 2008 Nissan Altima started
melting a year ago.

"When we're going in the sun's direction, I can't see the road in
front of me," Mr. Reddy said.  "It can get real bad in a matter of
seconds."

Mr. Reddy says after repeated complaints, Nissan agreed to replace
it only if he paid half, which cost about $1,000.

"You can't be admitting to something and only paying half,"
Mr. Reddy said.

There are many others complaints, including a class action lawsuit
against Nissan.

Stephen Hohenstein said his dashboard melted inside his 2007
Toyota Camry.

"The dash began to dissolve in front of my eyes," Mr. Hohenstein
said.

Just last year, Toyota agreed to replace more than 4 million
melting dashboards in older Toyotas, including Mr. Hohenstein's.
But he claims the automaker is not scheduling repairs and he
worries the longer it takes the less likely it will get fixed.

"It's been a year and I got no response back from Toyota,"
Mr. Hohenstein said.

Repair expert Jay Zembower has heard from many Toyota and Nissan
owners with melted dashboards the automakers have not replaced. He
recommends a temporary basic safety fix.

"The cheap way is to take an old towel and lay it across the dash
to kill the glare going into the windshield," Mr. Zembower said.

Nissan said there's no recall, no safety issue, and Reddy's car
was out of warranty.  It offered to pay half to replace it as a
good will gesture.

"It's a safety issue before it's a cosmetic issue," Reddy said.

Toyota's extended warranty covers certain Camrys, Avalons,
4Runners and Siennas.  It said replacement parts have been delayed
but it will honor warranties.

Toyota models covered:

4Runner 2003-2005

Avalon 2005-2010

Camry/Camry Hybrid 2007-2011

Sienna 2004-2010

Solara 2004-2008

Some Lexus models may also qualify for dashboard replacement:

ES 350 2007-2008

GX 470 2003-2008

IS 250/350 2006-2008

LS 460 2007

RX 330 2004-2006

RX 350 2007-2009

RX 400h 2005-2008


NORTHEAST LANDSCAPE: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Taveras" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Taveras, and Francisco Mercedes, in their individual
capacities and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Northeast Landscape & Masonry Associates, Inc.,
f/k/a Northeast Landscape Associates, Inc., f/k/a A P Michaels
Landscaping, Ltd., f/k/a A P Michaels Contracting, Ltd., f/k/a A P
Michaels Site Design, f/k/a A.P. Michaels Sight Design, Inc.
PETER GEORGE PERGOLA, an individual, Peter M. Pergola, an
individual, and Anthony Pergola, an individual, the Defendants,
Case No. 7:16-cv-00834-CS (S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid and underpaid wages and other damages under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, (FLSA) and the
New York Minimum Wage Act (NYLL).

Northeast Landscape & Masonry Associates, Inc. is the successor
corporation of Northeast Landscape Associates, Inc. The Company
has a "50 year history" in the masonry industry with annual gross
revenues in excess of $500,000.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penn Dodson, Esq.
          ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
          Attorney for Plaintiffs
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 961-7639
          Facsimile: (646) 998-8051
          E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Final Settlement Approval Expected by Mid-2016
------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2015, that Heitzenrater v.
OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York in
September 2012 as a putative class action alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint
alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant store managers
("ASMs") as exempt employees. OfficeMax vigorously defended itself
in this lawsuit and in November 2015 reached a settlement in the
amount of $3.5 million which the court preliminarily approved on
November 23, 2015. Final settlement approval and dismissal of the
case are expected by mid-2016.

Office Depot is a global provider of office products and services.
Office Depot was incorporated in Delaware in 1986 with the opening
of its first retail store in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


OFFICE DEPOT: Still Defending "Rivet" Case in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2015, that Kyle Rivet v. Office
Depot, Inc., formerly known as Constance Gibbons v. Office Depot,
Inc., a putative class action that was instituted in May 2012, is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Office Depot's use of the
fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of pay was unlawful because
Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary and failed to
provide its ASMs with a clear and mutual understanding
notification that they would receive a fixed weekly salary for all
hours worked. The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees. The Company believes in this case
that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and
such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early
stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the
Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss
in this matter. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself
in this lawsuit.

Office Depot is a global provider of office products and services.
Office Depot was incorporated in Delaware in 1986 with the opening
of its first retail store in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


OREGON: Linn County Commissioners to File Breach of Contract Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reports that Linn
County Commissioners Roger Nyquist, John Lindsey and Will Tucker
plan to file a $1.4 billion breach of contract class action
lawsuit against the State of Oregon in Linn County Circuit Court.

The commissioners are seeking compensation for 15 Forest Trust
Counties and some 150 other local taxing districts.

On Jan. 13 the commissioners, represented by John DiLorenzo --
johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- of the Portland-based law firm of Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, notified Gov. Kate Brown and the Oregon
Department of Forestry of Linn County's intent to file a lawsuit.

A 30-day notification is required by Oregon statute.

"The response to our notice of intent to file this lawsuit has
been overwhelmingly positive in our community," Mr. Nyquist said
in a prepared statement.  "The state's contractual obligation is
to manage our forests in a way that benefits both rural counties
and the environment.  They're not doing that, and rural
communities are paying the price.  I believe that a jury will
reach the same conclusion."

According to the commissioners, for more than 70 years the state
"was to adhere to a legal framework for the conveyance of forest
lands from the county to the state.  In exchange for the
conveyances, the lands were to be managed and revenues returned to
the counties, with the state taking a management fee."

The counties then allocate those funds to county services such as
law enforcement or to local districts such as the OSU Extension
Service District -- Linn County.

The commissioners contend that since 1998 the Oregon Department of
Forestry has put more emphasis on uses other than timber
harvesting -- such as fish and wildlife habitat, trails,
campgrounds and open spaces -- which have resulted in a $35
million per year reduction in revenue to the counties.

When the state acquired the mostly cut-over timber lands, starting
in the 1930s and 1940s, the management was to be focused on the
"greatest permanent value."

Linn County believes that means a sustainable timber harvest that
generates income, while others, including environmental groups,
believe that means including giving weight to the other public
uses.

"This is a straightforward breach of contract case,"
Mr. DiLorenzo said.  "The state's breach has strained county
budgets and impacted public safety, education and other basic
services local citizens need. They're not getting the benefit of
their bargain with the state."

Other counties named in the lawsuit are Clackamas, Clatsop,
Columbia, Coos, Douglas, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln,
Marion, Polk, Tillamook and Washington. Those counties can opt out
of the lawsuit if they wish, once the lawsuit is certified as a
class action by the court.

The $1.4 billion figure was calculated based on the loss of
potential county revenues since 2001, plus projecting years into
the future if the current reimbursement model is allowed to
continue unchallenged.

There are about 654,000 acres of Forest Trust Lands in Oregon,
including about 21,000 acres in the Mill City area in northeast
Linn County.

There are about 8,000 acres in Benton County.

In February, the Oregon Department of Forestry released its annual
report of management activities for 2015, which included
distributing $54.9 million to county governments and taxing
districts collected from timber sales.

Nearly 5,000 acres were replanted with about 1 million trees, and
50,000 persons took advantage of campgrounds on Oregon Department
of Forestry lands.

"People interact with and prioritize forest values differently.
Under Oregon law, we manage state forests to provide a sustainable
variety of benefits over time for all Oregonians," said Liz Dent,
chief of the ODF's State Forest Division.  "I'm proud of the story
that this report tells, highlighting both challenges and
opportunities, and an array of accomplishments that we deliver
daily."

Other report highlights included:

30,846 hours contributed by State Forests Division staff to
support wildfire operations.

258.9 million board feet of timber provided through management
activities.

$181,864 generated in campground revenues via 47,393 campers
visiting state forest-managed campgrounds.

2.4 miles of fish access restored in streams and rivers.

188 miles of trails maintained or restored.

54,915 visitors to the ODF Tillamook Forest Center.

Oregon has six state forests: the Tillamook and Clatsop State
Forests in northwest Oregon near Astoria and Tillamook; the
Santiam State Forest west of Detroit Lake in Linn County; the
Gilchrist and Sun Pass State Forests in south central Oregon; and
the Elliott State Forest, owned by the Department of State Lands,
and managed by ODF.

Shortly after the commissioners' January lawsuit press
conferences, members of the North Coast State Forest Coalition
issued a press release opposing the litigation.  Comprising the
coalition are the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Wild
Salmon Center, Oregon Council of Trout Unlimited, Oregon Chapter
of Sierra Club, Native Fish Society, Pacific Rivers and Northwest
Guides & Anglers Association.

Coalition coordinator Chris Smith, said "greatest permanent value"
refers to benefits to all Oregonians, not just the general funds
of the 15 counties named in the lawsuit.

"The Board of Forestry is engaged in a multiyear process to look
at different ways to manage state forests across Oregon,"
Mr. Smith said.  "That process has been frustrating for both
conservationists and counties, because frankly, the forests are
asked to provide more than they are capable of. There's not enough
timber out there to cover all bases."


OUTSET MEDIA: Recalls Mirari Wee Keys(R) Due to Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 11, 2016
Posting date: January 11, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56576

This recall involves the Mirari Wee Keys(R). The activity toy
rattle consists of a toy alarm remote connected by a ring to an
orange, purple, and green plastic key. The four buttons on the
remote light up and make different sounds when pressed.  The UPC
code is 0-93514-07943-3.

The plastic keys on the ring can enter and become lodged in a
child's throat, posing a choking or suffocation hazard to young
children.

Neither Health Canada nor Outset Media has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
activity toy rattles in Canada.

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

Approximately 4,543 units of the recalled activity toy rattles
were sold at various toy stores across Canada.

The recalled activity toy rattles were sold from August 2013 to
December 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Outset Media
             Victoria
             British Columbia
             CANADA

Manufacturer: Patch Products
              Beloit
              Wisconsin
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take the recalled rattles away from
children and contact Outset Media for a refund or replacement.

For more information, consumers can contact Outset Media toll-free
at 1-877-592-7374 Monday to Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. PST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/o3XJtv


OVERSEAS PATENT AGENCY: Violated FLSA, "Delmonico" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Delmonico, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. Overseas
Patent Agency, Inc., Nazeeh A. Elias, and A. S. Elias, a Michigan
for-profit company, and owners of said Michigan for-profit
company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-10361-BAF-APP (E.D.
Mich., Southern Division, February 2, 2016), seeks to recover
benefits from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Act (WOWA) as a result of
Defendants' failure to pay hourly employee and overtime wages.

Overseas Patent Agency, Inc. (OSPA) was established in the United
States in 1982 as foreign Patent Agency and branch office of the
law firm of A. Sadek Elias, Attorneys at Law located in Cairo,
Egypt. For more than thirty years, OSPA offers service and
expertise available in the areas of patents, trademarks, designs
and copyrights.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Omar Badr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692 9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692 9201
          E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Court Granted Final Approval to "Perrin" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Court issued
its final order approving the settlement on January 12, 2016, in
the case, Perrin v. Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa
John's USA, Inc.

The case is a conditionally certified collective and class action
filed in August 2009 in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Missouri ("the Court"), alleging that delivery drivers
were not properly reimbursed for mileage and expenses in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  About
3,900 drivers out of a potential class size of 28,800 opted into
the action.

In December 2013, the Court granted a motion for class
certification in five additional states, which added approximately
15,000 plaintiffs to the case. The parties reached a settlement in
principle, which was preliminarily approved by the Court in
September 2015. With the preliminary settlement agreement, the
Company recorded a pre-tax expense of $12.3 million in June 2015.
This amount is separately reported as Legal settlement expense in
the consolidated statements of income.  The Court issued its final
order approving the settlement on January 12, 2016, with no
changes to the previously recorded expense. The Company then
remitted funds to the administrator for the payment of claims and
plaintiffs' attorney fees. The Company continues to deny any
wrongdoing in this matter.

Papa John's International, Inc., operates and franchises pizza
delivery and carryout restaurants and, in certain international
markets, dine-in and delivery restaurants under the trademark
"Papa John's".


PASTA MIA LTD: Violated FLSA, "Aguilar Escobar" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Delfido Aguilar Escobar, a/k/a Delfino Aguilar, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, known and unknown, the
Plaintiff, v. Pasta Mia, Ltd., an Illinois corporation, d/b/a
Pasta Mia, and Peter Caruso, an individual, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01909 (E.D. Ill., Eastern Division, February 3, 2016),
seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL)

Pasta Mia is operated by Pasta Mia, Ltd., an Illinois corporation,
and is doing business as Pasta Mia restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
          Nicholas P. Cholis, Esq.
          NOLAN LAW OFFICE
          Attorneys for Plaintiff
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 322 1100
          Facsimile: (312) 322 1106
          E-mail: tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net
                  n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net


PETRO HOME: Faces "Donnefeld" Suit in New Jersey District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
M. Norman Donnefeld, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Petro Home Services, Petro Holdings, Inc.,
and Petro, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00882-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., Feb. 18,
2016), is brought over fraud-related allegations.

Petro Home Services provides services related to heating and air
conditioning systems.  Petro, Inc. offers heating and air
conditioning equipment installation, plumbing, chimney cleaning,
and home security services; and commercial and small business
services.  Petro Holdings Inc. distributes home heating oil,
gasoline and diesel fuel.  The Company also produces oil and gas
and is based in Stamford, Connecticut.  Petro Holdings operates as
a subsidiary of Star/Petro, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 201
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618-0400
          Facsimile: (973) 618-9194
          E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com


PIER 1: Recalls Chairs and Stands Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 12, 2016
Posting date: January 12, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56584

This recall involves the Pier 1 Imports Swingasan chairs and
stands. The chairs and stands were sold separately. The chair
hangs from a steel stand and is made of a wrought iron frame
covered with woven plastic wicker. It was sold in various colors
and designs. The stands are made of steel and were sold in four
colors.

The products included in this recall are:

  Description           Height     Depth       Width
  -----------           (inches)   (inches)    (inches)
                        --------    --------   --------
  Swingasan Hanging     42          22.5       33.5
  Chair - Mocha
  Swingasan Hanging     42          22.5       33.5
  Chair - Daisy
  Swingasan Hanging     42          22.5       33.5
  Chair - Light Brown
  Swingasan Hanging     42          22.5       33.5
  Chair - White
  Swingasan Hanging     42          22.5       33.5
  Chair - Circles
  Swingasan Hanging     42          22.5       33.5
  Chair - Peacock
  Swingasan Hanging     42          22.5       33.5
  Chair - Dream
  Catcher
  Swingasan Hanging     42          22.5       33.5
  Chair - Gray
  Willow Swingasan      47          27         30
  Hanging Chair -
  Rainbow
  Willow Swingasan      47          27         30
  Hanging Chair -
  Cinnamon
  Willow Swingasan      47          27         30
  Hanging Chair -
  White
  Willow Swingasan      47          27         30
  Hanging Chair -
  Light Brown
  Willow Swingasan      47          27         30
  Hanging Chair -
  Latte
  Willow Swingasan      47          27         30
  Hanging Chair -
  Mocha
  Swingasan Podasan     46.25       25         31
  Hanging Chair -
  Orange
  Swingasan Podasan      47.25      25         31
  Hanging Chair -
  Mocha
  Swingasan Stand -      82.5       34.5       41.5
  Mocha
  Swingasan Stand -      82.5       34.5       41.5
  White
  Swingasan Stand -      82.5       34.5       41.5
  Light Brown
  Swingasan Stand -      82.5       34.5       41.5
  Gray

The suspension hardware on the chair and stand can break, or the
stand can become unstable during use, posing a fall hazard to
consumers.

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

Pier 1 Imports has received 101 reports of incidents with the
chairs and stands. This includes 93 reports of the chair with
stand becoming unstable during use and tipping over, resulting in
23 injuries. There have been 8 reports of the suspension hardware
failing, including 4 reports of injuries.

Approximately 16,000 of the recalled chairs and stands were sold
in Canada exclusively at Pier 1 Import stores and online at
www.pier1.com.  Approximately 260,000 of the recalled chairs and
stands were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from January 2010 through August
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Pier 1 Imports Inc.
             Fort Worth
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and stands and
contact Pier 1 Imports for a free repair kit or return the chair
and stand to a Pier 1 Imports store for a full refund. There is no
repair kit for the Podasan Mocha and Orange Swingasan chairs.
Consumers should stop using these chairs immediately and contact
Pier 1 Imports for a full refund or replacement Swingasan chair.

For more information consumers, can contact Pier 1 Imports toll
free at 1-855-513-5140 from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. CST Saturday or 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. CT
Sunday or online at www.pier1.ca/swingasan-recall.

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


PILOT CORP: "Darby" Suit Alleges Credit Hold Scam
-------------------------------------------------
Nolan C. Darby, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Center,
LLC, d/b/a Pilot Flying J, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00525-VMC-
AEP (M.D. Fla., March 4, 2016), seeks damages against the
Defendants for failure to disclose the Credit "Holds" to fuel
customers who use visa or MasterCard card credit cards.  The
Complaint alleges that the Defendant, instead of disclosing its
credit hold scam, or notifying its customers by placing signs at
its pumps warning customers of the credit card hold or encouraging
customers to make fuel purchases inside the stores and not at the
pump, Pilot instead falsely represented that it was not at fault,
casting the blame on customers' banks or credit card issuers.

Pilot Flying J is an operator of travel centers and travel plazas
in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gordon Ball, Esq.
     GORDON BALL, PLLC
     550 West Main Street, Suite 600
     Knoxville, TN 37902
     Tel: (865) 525-7028
     Fax: (865) 525-4679
     Email: gball@gordonball.com

          - and -

     Thomas C. Jessee, Esq.
     JESSEE & JESSEE
     412 East Unaka Avenue
     P.O. Box 997
     Johnson City, TN 37605-0997
     Tel: 423-928-7176

          - and -

     Lance K. Baker, Esq.
     THE BAKER LAW FIRM
     550 Main Street, Suite 600
     Knoxville, TN 37902
     Tel: 865-525-7028
     Fax: 865-525-4679
     Email: lkbakerlaw@gmail.com


POLISH TRADE: Recalls Fish Salad Product Due to Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 8, 2016
Type of communication: Advisory
Alert sub-type: Food Safety Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Polish Trade Centre
Distribution: Alberta, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10207

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning people with
an allergy to wheat or a sensitivity to gluten not to consume the
product described below because it contains wheat and gluten which
are not declared on the label.

Check to see if you have the product in your home. If you have an
allergy to wheat or a sensitivity to gluten, do not consume the
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

This warning was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of these or other
products. If products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through a Food Recall Warning.

  Brand   Common      Size    Code(s)          UPC
  name    name        ----    on product       ---
  ----    ------              ----------
  Losos   Fish Salad  180 g   All codes where  5 901069 001456
          Neptun              wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label.

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


PROFESSIONAL DETAILERS: "Miller" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roman Miller, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Professional Detailers R US, a Florida Profit Corporation and
Charles Jackson, individually, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-16-
11-001140 (Fla. 17th Judicial Circuit Ct., Broward County), seeks
damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorney's fees or costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Professional Detailers R US is based in Broward County, Florida,
engaged in Yacht Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com


PTC INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on March 10 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons or
entities who acquired PTC Inc. securities between November 24,
2011 and July 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) PTC did not disclose to the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the Department of Justice
("DOJ") the full results of its investigation into whether PTC
China improperly provided recreational travel to Chinese
government officials in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act ("FCPA"); (2) PTC was not cooperating with the SEC and the DOJ
in connection with their investigations; (3) PTC's books and
records were inaccurate and PTC failed to maintain adequate
internal accounting controls; and (4) as a result, PTC's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On February 16, 2016, PTC announced its agreement with the SEC and
the DOJ resolving a formerly disclosed FCPA investigation relating
to expenses by certain former employees and business partners in
China between 2006 and 2011.  Under the terms of the agreement,
PTC will pay penalties and interest of $28.2 million. The DOJ said
that PTC would not receive voluntary disclosure credit because it
did not reveal relevant facts until DOJ independently uncovered
them and brought them to PTC's attention.

If you purchased PTC 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.


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Bids to Nix Securities Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Management Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit remain under consideration by the Court.

On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors, executive officers, and shareholders (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 ("1933 Act Claims") and sought unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the September
2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings.

On August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement
System and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System were
appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). An
amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition to
the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint also added claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act
Claims") seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive.

On January 26, 2015, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs
sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint.

On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended
complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages.

The Defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint
were filed on April 28, 2015, the Plaintiffs' opposition was filed
on June 12, 2015, and the Defendants' reply was filed on July 13,
2015. The motions remain under consideration by the Court.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend against the litigation vigorously.

The Company's primary insurance carrier during the applicable time
period has (i) denied coverage for the 1933 Act Claims and (ii)
acknowledged coverage of the Company and other insureds for the
1934 Act Claims under a reservation of rights and subject to the
terms and conditions of the applicable insurance policy. The
parties plan to negotiate an allocation between denied and
acknowledged claims.

Regional Management Corp. is a diversified specialty consumer
finance company providing a broad array of loan products primarily
to customers with limited access to consumer credit from banks,
thrifts, credit card companies, and other traditional lenders.


SAKURA 7 QUEENS: "Martono" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NY Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hartono Martono, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sakura 7 Queens Inc., and Bao Xin
Huang, the Defendants, Case No. 700884/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County
of Queens, January 25, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendants
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid "spread of hours"
premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

Sakura 7 Queens Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of New York engaged in restaurant business.

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


SAPUTO INC: Recalls Skimmed Microfiltered Milk Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 11, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Saputo Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10282

  Brand     Common          Size    Code(s)       UPC
  name      name            ----    on product    ---
  -----     ------                  ----------
  Neilson   1% M.F. Partly  2 L     2016 JA 10    0 66800 00413 6
  Trutaste  Skimmed
            Microfiltered
            Milk
  Neilson   1% M.F. Partly  3 L     JA 03         0 66800 10092 0
  Trutaste  Skimmed
            Microfiltered
            Milk
  Neilson   2% M.F. Partly  2 L     2016 JA 10    0 66800 00405 1
  Trutaste  Skimmed
            Microfiltered
            Milk
  Neilson   2% M.F. Partly  3 L     JA 03         0 66800 10107 1
  Trutaste  Skimmed
            Microfiltered
            Milk


SCHWARZ PARTNERS: "Aguayo" Suit Removed to Florida District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Aguayo v. Schwarz, et al., Case
No. 16-001523-CA-0, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
20588-JLK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Schwarz Partners Packaging Miami is a Foreign Limited Liability
Company.  The Company is a corrugated sheet feeding operation that
produces several categories and combinations of premium quality
corrugated sheets and offer various grades of single wall in
flutes of B, C, and E, as well as doublewall board in EB and BC.
Located in the Miami, Florida area, the Company provides services
in South and Central Florida, and exports to the Caribbean and
Central America.  Jack Schwarz is the Company's General Partner.
He also serves as the Chairman of Hydraulic Press Brick Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

Defendants Jack W. Schwarz and Schwarz Partners Packaging Miami,
LLC, are represented by:

          Paul J. DeBoe, Esq.
          Christopher Patrick Hammon, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK STEWART PC
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-0506
          Facsimile: (305) 374-0456
          E-mail: paul.deboe@ogletreedeakins.com
                  chris.hammon@ogletreedeakins.com


SCOTIAN ISLE: Recalls Chicken Curry Pie Due to Mustard
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 8, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Scotian Isle Baked Goods
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10307

  Brand   Common      Size    Code(s)          UPC
  name    name        ----    on product       ---
  ----    ------              ----------
  Remark  Chicken     250 g   All codes where  0 200266 904504
          Curry Pie           mustard is not
          5"                  declared on the
                              label
  Remark  Chicken     250 g   All codes where  0 200271 313490
          Curry Pie           mustard is not
          8" Remark           declared on the
                              label


SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Frozen Pre-Fried Fish Cake Due to Egg
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 4, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Seoul Trading Corporation
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10284
Advisory details What you should do Who is affected Background

Seoul Trading Corporation is recalling ChoripDong brand Frozen
Pre-Fried Fish Cake from the marketplace because it may contain
egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to
egg should not consume the recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold in Alberta, British Columbia,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and may have been distributed in other
provinces or territories.

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

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled product
as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/zCY4uf


SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Frozen Fish Products Due to Egg
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 14, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Lemond Food Corporation, Seoul Trading Toronto
Corporation
Distribution: Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario,
Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10341

Seoul Trading Toronto Corporation and Lemond Food Corporation are
recalling ChoripDong brand and Samhak brand frozen fish products
from the marketplace because they may contain egg which is not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not
consume the recalled products described below.

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

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand     Common      Size    Code(s)          UPC
  name      name        ----    on product       ---
  -----     ------              ----------
ChoripDong  Frozen      800 g   All codes where  0 761898 636442
            Pre-Fried           egg is not
            Fish Cake           declared on the
                                label
ChoripDong  Frozen      420 g   All codes where  7 61898 60854 8
            Pre-Fried           egg is not
            Fish Cake           declared on the
                                label
ChoripDong  Frozen      900 g   All codes where  7 61898 60855 5
            Pre-Fried           egg is not
            Fish Cake           declared on the
                                label
ChoripDong  Frozen      450 g   All codes where  7 61898 68888 5
            Pre-Fried   (3 x    egg is not
            Fish Cake   150 g)  declared on the
                                label
ChoripDong  Frozen      150 g   All codes where  7 61898 68887 8
            Pre-Fried           egg is not
            Fish Cake           declared on the
                                label
ChoripDong  Frozen      1 kg    All codes where  7 61898 68248 7
            Pre-Fried           egg is not
            Fish Cake           declared on the
                                label
Samhak      Stick Fish  1 kg    All codes where  7 61898 68249 4
            Cake                egg is not
                                declared on the
                                label
Samhak      Stick Fish  1 kg    All codes where  7 61898 68250 0
            Cake                egg is not
                                declared on the
                                label
Samhak      Stick Fish  340 g   All codes where  7 61898 66929 7
            Cake                egg is not
                                declared on the
                                label
Samhak      Stick Fish  340 g   All codes where  7 61898 66927 3
            Cake                egg is not
                                declared on the
                                label
ChoripDong  Frozen      900 g   All codes where  7 61898 64977 0
            Pre-Fried           egg is not
            Fish Cake           declared on the
                                label
ChoripDong  Frozen      900 g   All codes where  7 61898 64978 7
            Pre-Fried           egg is not
            Fish Cake           declared on the
                                label
ChoripDong  Frozen      900 g   All codes where  7 61898 64979 4
            Pre-Fried           egg is not
            Fish Cake           declared on the
                                label
ChoripDong  Frozen      900 g   All codes where  7 61898 68913 4
            Pre-Fried           egg is not
            Fish Cake           declared on the
                                label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/DVNV0a


SITEL WORLDWIDE CORP: Violated FLSA, "Gaffers" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Gaffers, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Sitel Worldwide Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, and Sitel Operating Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00128 (M.D. Tenn.,
February 2, 2016), seeks declaratory relief and recovery of unpaid
wages and overtime, liquidated damages, penalties, fees and costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SITEL Worldwide Corporation provides customer care outsourcing
services. The company offers various services, including customer
service, technical support, customer acquisition, retention and
revenue generation services, and back office support. Its customer
care services primarily consist of inbound telephonic services.
The company also delivers its services through multiple
communication channels, including social media, online chat,
email, and interactive voice response. It serves range of industry
end-markets, including financial services, technology, wireless,
retail and consumer products, telecommunications, media and
entertainment, energy and utilities, travel and transportation.
The Company is based Nashville, Tennessee

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Fax: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: 248-355-0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com


SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Transfer "Huang" Case Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to
transfer the class action lawsuit by Ming Huang remains pending.

"On April 6, 2015, Ming Huang, a purported shareholder of ours,
filed a Class Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 3:15-02407),
alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey (the "Court"), against us and two of our officers,
Raymond P. Dolan, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark T. Greenquist, our Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the
"Defendants")," the Company said.

"On September 21, 2015, in response to motions subsequently filed
with the Court by four other purported shareholders of ours
seeking status as lead plaintiff, the Court appointed Richard
Sousa as lead plaintiff (the "Plaintiff"). The Plaintiff claims to
represent purchasers of our common stock during the period from
October 23, 2014 to March 24, 2015, and seeks unspecified damages.

"The principal allegation contained in the Complaint is that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
our fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance.

"On September 22, 2015, we filed a Motion to Transfer this case to
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "Motion to Transfer"). The Plaintiff filed his opposition to
the Motion to Transfer on October 5, 2015, and we filed a reply to
the Motion to Transfer on October 13, 2015.

"We believe that the Defendants have meritorious defenses to the
allegations made in the Complaint and we do not expect the results
of this suit to have a material effect on our business or
consolidated financial statements."

Sonus helps communications service providers and enterprises
embrace the next generation of Session Initiation Protocol ("SIP")
and 4G/LTE (Long Term Evolution)-based solutions, including Voice
over Internet Protocol ("VoIP"), video and Unified Communications
("UC") through secure, reliable and scalable Internet Protocol
("IP") networks.


SPIROS PARTNERS: "Moore" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Spiros Partners, Ltd d/b/a Rick's
Cabaret, New Spiros, L.L.C. d/b/a Rick's Cabaret and Eric Langan,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00295-L (N.D. Tex., Dallas
Division, February 2, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime, misappropriated tips, liquidated damages, court costs,
and attorneys', pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Spiros Partners, Ltd and New Spiros, L.L.C. is a gentlemen's club
for adult entertainment with locations throughout the state of
Texas that operate under the assumed name of Rick's Cabaret.
Eric Langan is the owner, president and director of Spiros
Partners, LTD and New Spiros, L.L.C.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621 2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621 0993
          E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Says Settlement in Riata Case Fully Funded
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that the Company has fully
funded the settlement in the Riata(R) Product Liability
Litigation.

On December 17, 2014, the Company entered into an agreement that
establishes a private settlement program to resolve the actions,
disputes and claims-both filed and unfiled-of certain claimants
against St. Jude Medical, Inc. relating to its Riata(R) and
Riata(R) ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads. The agreement was
entered into with a group of counsel representing plaintiffs in
proceedings in jurisdictions around the country as well as
claimants with Riata leads who have not initiated litigation.

St. Jude Medical accrued $15 million in the fourth quarter of 2014
to fund the settlement and related costs. The settlement was
expected to resolve approximately 950 of the outstanding, pending
cases and claims.

The time period in which eligible claimants could submit their
documentation to participate in the settlement has now closed with
the final settlement comprising 886 claimants. The Company's
settlement payment of $13 million was fully funded as of October
9, 2015. Additional payments for settlement-related expenses are
not expected to be material.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Says Riata Plaintiffs in Canada Inactive
----------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that an amended claim was filed
in November 2013 in a Canadian proposed class proceeding alleging
that Riata(R) leads were prone to insulation abrasion and breach,
failure to warn and conspiracy. The plaintiffs took no action
between their 2008 filing and the amended claim they filed in
November 2013. The Company has filed its statement of intent to
defend in response to the amended claims, and the plaintiffs have
not taken any further action.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: July 14 Deadline to File Dispositive Motions
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that in a securities litigation
launched in December 2012, fact discovery has closed and the court
has set the deadline for filing and scheduling dispositive motions
for July 14, 2016.

On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants
between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,
which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as
attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning
its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported
class period.

On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities class action
lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against
the Company and certain officers for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011
and November 20, 2012. The second complaint alleged similar claims
and sought similar relief.

In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed
a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended
complaint was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or
misleading representations made during the class period extending
from February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012.

In September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled
on the motion to dismiss, denying the motion in part and granting
the motion in part. On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint.

Like the original consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs
did not assert any specific amount of compensation in the second
amended complaint. The Court granted class certification on
December 22, 2015. Fact discovery closed December 18, 2015, and
the deadline for filing and scheduling dispositive motions is July
14, 2016.

The case is expected to be ready for trial in February 2017. The
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
claims asserted in this matter.

The Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential
damages in connection with the December 2012 Securities Litigation
because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably
estimable. Because, based on the Company's historical experience,
the amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any
relationship to the amount claimed, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from
these matters.

St. Jude Medical, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is focused
on the development, manufacture and distribution of cardiovascular
medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management,
cardiovascular and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and
interventional pain therapy and neurostimulation devices for the
management of chronic pain and movement disorders.


STELLA & CHEWY'S: Recalls Beef Dinner Morsels Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 6, 2016
Posting date: January 6, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Miscellaneous, Microbiological - Other
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Contamination
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56484

This recall involves Stella & Chewy's Frozen Stella's Super Beef
Dinner Morsels sold in 241 gram (8.5 oz.) packages. Affected
product can be identified by UPC code 1 86011 00155 4.

A manufacturer in the United States, Stella & Chewy's, has
recalled a batch of its Super Beef Frozen Dinner Morsels for dogs
due to possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes.

People can get infected with the bacteria from hand to mouth
contact following the handling of pets, pet food or feces.
Symptoms of listeriosis often include vomiting, nausea, persistent
fever, muscle aches, severe headache and neck stiffness.  Pregnant
women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are
particularly at risk.  Although infected pregnant women may
experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, the infection can lead to
premature delivery, infection of the newborn or even stillbirth.
In severe cases of illness, people may die.

For more information on the risks of Listeria infection, please
see the Public Health Agency of Canada's fact sheet.

Neither Health Canada nor Stella & Chewy's has received any
reports of illnesses related to the recalled pet food products.

Approximately 208 packages of recalled Super Beef Dinner Morsels
for dogs were sold in Canada.

The recalled pet food was sold from July 16, 2015 to July 31,
2015.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Stella & Chewy's
              Oak Creek
              Wisconsin
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: Freedom Pet Supplies Inc.
             Cambridge
             Ontario
             CANADA

Distributor: Anipet Animal Supplies Inc.
             Surrey
             British Columbia

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and dispose or
return it to the retailer for a full refund. Consumers should look
at the product description, UPC, lot number and "Use By" date on
each bag for an exact match to determine if it is subject to the
recall.

Consumers are advised to always wash hands thoroughly with soap
and water after feeding, handling or cleaning up after pets.
Consumers should clean surfaces that come into contact with pet
food or ill pets.

For more information, consumers may contact Stella & Chewy's at 1-
888-477-8977, by email at info@stellanadchewys.com  or visit the
firm's website.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/FuTb4U


SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Begins in Suit Over 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery process has
begun in the so-called Company Stock Class Action.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative
class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an
investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan
accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged
losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

This case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008.

On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December
9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs
permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The
Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision
of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which
substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the
Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot.

On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the
case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its
decision in The Home Depot case. On September 26, 2013, the
District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision in
the Circuit Court.

Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that
employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries receive no presumption
of prudence with respect to employer stock plans. The Circuit
Court remanded the case back to the District Court for further
proceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer.

On June 18, 2015, the Court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The discovery
process has begun.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. is a provider of financial services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Actions Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal in the so-
called Mutual Funds Class Actions remains pending.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").

On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on
June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent
motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining
claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in
this action.

Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new
plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted.

On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014,
the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with
the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the
original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals
requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the
appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9,
2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December
16, 2014.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. is a provider of financial services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: 2 Cases Remanded to D.C. Court
----------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that two cases pending on
appeal have been remanded to the District Court for the District
of Columbia.

On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former
officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a
putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.

On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November
12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay this case
until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Tibble v. Eidson
International.

On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tibble and held
that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate and apart from
investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudent investments.
After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the
District Court.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. is a provider of financial services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Thurmond" Action Stayed Pending 3rd Cir. Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "Thurmond" class
action complaint has remain stayed pending a ruling in a similar
case currently before the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. ("STM") and Twin Rivers Insurance Company
("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative
class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal
"captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers.
More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of
private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure with Twin Rivers
certain loans referred to them by SunTrust results in illegal
"kickbacks" in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin
Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust
enrichment to the detriment of borrowers.

The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This
case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v.
First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case
that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The
second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v.
SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the
Edwards case also.

In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of
certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases
were lifted. SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmond
case which was granted in part and denied in part, allowing
limited discovery surrounding the argument that the statute of
limitations for certain claims should be equitably tolled.
Thurmond has been stayed pending a ruling in a similar case
currently before the Third Circuit. The Acosta plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their case.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. is a provider of financial services.


SUZUKI: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 18, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 8504
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016022TC
ID number: 2016022
Manufacturer recall number: 115

On certain motorcycles, the regulator/rectifier assembly may have
been produced with insufficient adhesion between the power module
(circuit board) and the rectifier case. Due to this insufficient
adhesion, heat generated on the power module circuit board can
cause the circuit board to deform. This could cause excessive heat
on the circuit board and uncontrolled electric current output,
which can result in insufficient charging current being provided
to the vehicle's battery. Battery discharge could lead to engine
stalling and/or a no-start condition. Lost propulsion, in
conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and the rider's
reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing property
damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Dealers will replace
the regulator/rectifier assembly. Note: This recall may supersede
recall 2011-071 for certain model motorcycles, which will require
re-inspection and repair.

  Make          Model                      Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----                      ----------------------
  SUZUKI        GSX-R600                   2008, 2008
  SUZUKI        GSX-R750                   2008
  SUZUKI        GSX1300R                   2008
  SUZUKI        BURGMAN 400 (AN400)        2008
  SUZUKI        BOULEVARD M109R (VZR1800)  2008
  SUZUKI        V-STORM 1000 (DL1000)      2008
  SUZUKI        B-KING 1300 (GSX1300BK)    2008
  SUZUKI        GSX650F                    2008
  SUZUKI        GLADIUS 650 (SFV650)       2009
  SUZUKI       BOULEVARD M90 (VZ1500)      2009


TFI FOODS: Recalls Shrimp Flavored Ball Products Due to Egg
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 5, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: TFI Foods Ltd.
Distribution: British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10268
Advisory details What you should do Who is affected Background

TFI Foods Ltd. is recalling Tasty brand Shrimp Flavoured Ball from
the marketplace because it may contain egg which is not declared
on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the
recalled product described below.

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

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled product
as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

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

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

  Brand   Common      Size     Code(s)       UPC
  name    name        ----     on product    ---
  ----    ------               ----------
  Tasty   Shrimp      180 g    16 OC 16      8 21964 02029 9
          Flavoured
          Ball

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/82Bc8a


TFI FOODS: Updates Seafood Product Recall
-----------------------------------------
Starting date: January 9, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: TFI Foods Ltd.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10315

The food recall warning issued on January 5, 2016, has been
updated to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

TFI Foods Ltd. is recalling Tasty brand seafood products from the
marketplace because they contain egg which is not declared on the
label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the
recalled products described below.

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

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities. The
CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to
the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

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

  Brand   Common      Size    Code(s)          UPC
  name    name        ----    on product       ---
  -----   ------              ----------
  Tasty   Cuttlefish  180 g   All codes where  8 21964 02030 5
          and Fish            egg is not
          Ball                declared on the
                              label
   Tasty  Fish Ball   180 g   All codes where  8 21964 02028 2
                              egg is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Tasty   Fish and    180 g   All codes where  8 21964 02034 3
          Tofu Fish           egg is not
          Cake                declared on the
                              label
  Tasty   Fried Fish  180 g   All codes where  8 21964 02033 6
          Ball                egg is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Tasty   Shrimp      180 g   All codes where  8 21964 02029 9
          Flavoured           egg is not
          Ball                declared on the
                              label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/T2TICs


TGI FRIDAY'S: Workers File Class Action Vacation Pay Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that two
Chicago area women have dished out a potential wage-and-hour class
action lawsuit against restaurant chain TGI Friday's, alleging
their former employer maintained a vacation pay policy that
violated Illinois law, and did not properly pay employees who quit
or were fired for the vacation time they had accumulated while
they worked at the restaurants.

On Feb. 29, plaintiffs Gabrielle Williams, who worked at a TGI
Friday's restaurant in Chicago from June 2010 - September 2012,
and Tonya O'Donovan, who worked at the chain's Tinley Park
restaurant from January 2014 - February 2015, filed a complaint in
Cook County Circuit Court on their behalf, and on behalf of a
class of other potential plaintiffs, which the complaint estimated
could number in the thousands.

The complaint was filed for the plaintiffs by attorneys with the
firm of Werman Salas P.C., of Chicago.

According to the complaint, during the time Ms. Williams and
Ms. O'Donovan worked for Friday's, the restaurant chain maintained
a vacation time policy which did not allow employees to receive
vacation benefits unless they worked "1,300 hours in their
anniversary year of employment," a figure which equates to an
average of 25 hours worked per week during a 12-month period
beginning with the anniversary date of employment.

The complaint said the policy meant, in practice, employees who
worked even just slightly less than the yearly 1,300-hours
threshold during that 12-month period would not receive payment
with their final wages for accrued vacation time should they leave
their job.

Both Ms. Williams and Ms. O'Donovan said they did not receive
payment for vacation hours they had earned under TGI Friday's
vacation time program when they stopped working for the restaurant
chain.

However, the complaint noted Friday's at some point in 2015
appeared to have realized its vacation time policies violated
Illinois law, because it purportedly issued a number of former
employees checks expressly for the vacation time for which they
were never compensated.  Ms. O'Donovan, for instance, said she
received a check on Dec. 16, 2015, for $303, which was payment for
about 37 hours of vacation time.  However, the complaint said even
this payment was not enough to sidestep legal action, because that
payment should have been included with her final paycheck.

The complaint has asked the court to certify two classes of
plaintiffs: people who worked for TGI Friday's restaurants in
Illinois from 2006-2015, who, like Williams, never received any
payment for their unused vacation time; and another class of
former Friday's workers who, like Ms. O'Donovan, received payment
long after their employment at Friday's had ended.

The complaint alleged TGI Friday's policy violated the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act, which, the complaint said,
requires vacation time to be "earned proportionately as labor is
rendered, and that accrued vacation is part of an employee's wages
and thus cannot be forfeited."

The complaint asked the court to award all plaintiffs and class
members "all vacation pay due and owing," as well as unspecified
"additional damages" and attorney fees.


THIRD AVENUE: Faces Inter-Marketing Securities Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Inter-Marketing Group USA, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Third Avenue Trust,
Third Avenue Management LLC, M.J. Whitman LLC, Martin J.
Whitman, David M. Barse, Vincent J. Dugan, William E. Chapman, II,
Lucinda Franks, Edward J. Kaier, Eric Rakowski, Martin Shubik,
Charles C. Walden and Patrick Reinkemeyer, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00736 (C.D. Cal., February 2, 2016), seeks to recover
damages and interest, rescission and/or rescissory measure of
damages, reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees, and
equitable/injunctive or other relief as the Court may deem just
and proper, pursuant to the Securities Act.

Third Avenue is an open-ended management investment company
focused on value investing, and specifically the purchase of
undervalued assets based on fundamental analysis. Third Avenue
Focused Credit Fund is a mutual fund within the Third Avenue
family of investment funds that seeks to achieve long-term total
returns mainly by investing in bonds and other types of credit
instruments, including in a substantial proportion of non-
investment grade assets commonly known as "high-yield" or "junk"
bonds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Conrad Walton, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  drosenfield@rgrdlaw.com


TJX CANADA: Recalls Dark Chocolate Covered Cranberries
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 20, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: TJX Canada
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward
Island, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10340

Winners, HomeSense and Marshalls Canada is recalling Cape Cod
Cranberry Candy and Harvest Sweets brand Dark Chocolate, Milk
Chocolate & Yogurt Covered Cranberries from the marketplace
because they contain almonds which are not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to almonds should not consume the recalled
products described below.

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

If you have an allergy to almonds, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand      Common          Size    Code(s)      UPC
  name       name            ----    on product   ---
  ----       ------                  ----------
  Cape Cod   Dark Chocolate, 5 oz    5230-1       6 12681 10259 3
  Cranberry  Milk Chocolate  (140 g)
  Candy      & Yogurt
             Covered
             Cranberries     5 oz    5230-1       6 12681 44259 0
  Harvest    Dark Chocolate, (140 g)
  Sweets     Milk Chocolate
             & Yogurt
             Covered
             Cranberries

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/3t9VnY


TRUE NORTH: Recalls Salmon Products Due to Extraneous Material
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 11, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: True North Salmon Co. Ltd.
Distribution: New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10254

  Brand         Common        Size       Code(s)       UPC
  name          name          ----       on product    ---
  -----         ------                   ----------
  True North    Dhon Salmon   Variable   16139         None
  Salmon Co.                  weight
  Ltd.
  True North    Fresh Atl     Variable    16139        None
  Salmon Co.    Salmon        weight
  Ltd.          Portions
                4 oz Plain


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Court Hears Arguments in Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Spagat, writing for Associated Press, reports that
attorneys for Donald Trump and a Southern California yoga
instructor dueled in court over whether the yoga instructor should
be allowed to withdraw from a federal class-action lawsuit that
says Trump University fleeced students with unfilled promises to
teach secrets of success in real estate.

After about an hour of arguments, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo
Curiel said he would rule in about a week.  If Tarla Makaeff is
allowed to withdraw, three plaintiffs would remain in the six-
year-old case as it nears trial.

Ms. Makaeff, who didn't appear at the hearing, has suffered health
problems that were not disclosed in court or to Trump's attorneys.
Rachel Jensen, one of her attorneys, noted that Makaeff has been
derided during the presidential campaign.

"I don't think anyone could have anticipated a year ago where we
would find ourselves," Ms. Jensen said.

Daniel Petrocelli, an attorney for Trump, said Ms. Makaeff was the
centerpiece of his trial strategy and that he would have to
completely overhaul his approach if she withdrew.  Ms. Makaeff,
who was deposed four times for a total of nearly 16 hours, made
statements that "not only undermine but refute the basic claims in
the case," he said.

The skirmish in one of three lawsuits against Trump University
came as the stage was being set for trial, possibly in August.  A
trial date has not been set, but a final pretrial conference is
scheduled for May 6 and Trump appears on a list of defense
witnesses who may testify.

On March 11, the judge asked both sides about the wisdom of
holding a trial between the Republican convention and the general
election.  Mr. Petrocelli said he would oppose an August trial if
Trump is the party nominee, while Jason Forge, an attorney for the
plaintiffs, suggested a June date.

"This will be a zoo if it were to go to trial," said
Mr. Petrocelli, who worked on the wrongful-death civil suit
against O. J. Simpson and the criminal case against Enron
executive Jeffrey Skilling.

The lawsuit says Trump University, which no longer operates and
wasn't accredited as a school, gave seminars and classes across
the country that were like infomericals, constantly pressuring
students to buy more and, in the end, failing on its promise to
teach them success in real estate.

Trump has repeatedly pointed to a 98 percent satisfaction rate on
internal surveys.  But the lawsuit says students were asked to
rate the product when they believed they still had more
instruction to come and were reluctant to openly criticize their
teachers on surveys that were not anonymous.

Ms. Makaeff attended a three-day "Fast Track to Foreclosure"
workshop for $1,495 in 2008 and later enrolled in the "Trump Gold
Elite" program for $34,995, spending a total of about $60,000 on
seminars in a year, her attorneys say. In April 2010, she sued in
San Diego federal court.

Ms. Makaeff eventually prevailed against Trump in a defamation
claim against her in 2013, and a judge ordered Trump to pay
$798,779 in her legal fees.

In a statement to the court, she said she was grieving her
mother's death and worried about the toll of a trial on her
health.

Trump called her a "horrible, horrible witness" at a rally in
Arkansas. On social media, his one-word characterization of her
request to withdraw -- "Disgraceful!" -- was retweeted more than
3,200 times.

Her personal circumstances have elicited no sympathy from Trump's
attorneys.

"Litigation is hard," they wrote in a brief for a hearing.
"Witnesses are compelled all the time to testify in civil and
criminal trials across the country, whether young or old, rich or
poor, healthy or ill."

Trump's attorneys wrote that Ms. Makaeff gave the instruction high
marks in surveys and "simply did not put in the time, work, and
perseverance necessary to achieve success."

Ms. Makaeff's attorneys say the yoga instructor was unaware of
Trump's "false advertising" when she completed the surveys and
didn't want to risk alienating anyone who might advance her
career.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Ms. Makaeff on
the surveys when considering Trump's defamation claim in 2013,
saying, "As the recent Ponzi-scheme scandals involving onetime
financial luminaries like Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford
demonstrate, victims of con artists often sing the praises of
their victimizers until the moment they realize they have been
fleeced."

Reminded of the Madoff comparison during a recent debate, Trump
said, "Give me a break. You know what? Let's see what happens in
court."


TRUSTMARK CORP: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank (TNB), continues to defend two
lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group.

The first is a purported class action complaint that was filed on
August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by
Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven
Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano
(collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial
institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as defendants.

The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers
from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies
received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen
Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group) and (ii)
damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or
more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit
fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme.  Plaintiffs have
demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.

In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit.  In August 2010, the court authorized and
approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee
(OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under
certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of
Stanford investors.

In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case
to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's
motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint
against one of the other defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor
Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining
defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i)
alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.  In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification and setting a deadline for the parties to complete
briefing on class certification issues.  All parties have
completed and filed briefing on the class certification issues.

In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and
the OSIC's claims.  The court dismissed all of the Class
Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of
the OSIC's fraudulent transfer claims.  The court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss in all other regards.

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for aiding,
abetting, and participating in (i) violations of the Texas
Securities Act and (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty.  On July 14,
2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
SAC.  The Court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motions to
dismiss the SAC.

The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14, 2009
in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana, individually
by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith, Christine
Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB (misnamed as
Trust National Bank) and other individuals and entities not
affiliated with Trustmark as defendants.  The complaint seeks to
recover the money lost by these individual plaintiffs as a result
of the collapse of  the Stanford Financial Group (in addition to
other damages) under various theories and causes of action,
including negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance,
conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform fiduciary,
securities, and racketeering laws.  The complaint does not
quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover.

In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  On March 29,
2010, the court stayed the case.

TNB filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on February
28, 2012.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case
to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues.

TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a
result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in
August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other
traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.
Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages.

Trustmark Corporation (Trustmark), a Mississippi business
corporation incorporated in 1968, is a bank holding company
headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.  Trustmark's principal
subsidiary is Trustmark National Bank (TNB), initially chartered
by the State of Mississippi in 1889.


TYSON FOODS: Ruling May Narrow Class Action Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court has the potential, in another class action case
awaiting a decision, to narrow the circumstances in which a class
action may be certified.

Noah Axler, a partner at the Donovan Axler law firm in
Philadelphia, argues that should the nation's highest court side
with the defendants in Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, class
actions could be subjected to some "drastic" changes.

"It's an important case from a plaintiff's perspective," said
Mr. Axler, who has represented clients in numerous class actions.
"In Tyson, there were no business records to show the extent of
the harm because the defendant didn't keep them.

"In such cases, plaintiffs would like to be able to prove
liability and damages by representative proof."

In June, the Supreme Court granted Tyson's petition for writ of
certiorari.

The pork processing company is challenging the $2.8 million in
money damages awarded to a class of current and formerly hourly
workers at an Iowa plant.  The line employees work or worked on
the slaughter and processing floors of its Storm Lake facility.

The employees sued, alleging they are entitled to overtime
compensation and liquidated damages because Tyson failed to
compensate them fully for time spent "donning" and "doffing" their
protective equipment and walking to and from their work stations.

"The district court certified the class based on the existence of
common questions about whether these activities were compensable
'work,' even though there were differences in the amount of time
individual employees actually spent on these activities and
hundreds of employees worked no overtime at all," according to
Tyson's petition.

"The court then allowed plaintiffs to ignore these individual
differences and 'prove' liability and damages to the class with
'common' statistical evidence that erroneously presumed that all
class members are identical to a fictional 'average' employee.

"The end result of this 'undifferentiated presentation of
evidence' was a 'single-sum class-wide verdict from which each
purported class member, damaged or not, will receive a pro-rata
portion of the jury's one-figure verdict.'"

In August 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
upheld the district court's decision and entered judgment against
Tyson, and in November 2014 denied the company's request for a
rehearing.

Tyson filed its petition with the Supreme Court last March.

The company argues that the Eighth Circuit's ruling sanctioned the
use of "seriously flawed" procedures that many district courts
have used to permit certification and adjudication of class
actions.

"The Eighth Circuit's affirmance of that unjust result warrants
review because it exacerbates two circuit splits and conflicts
with this Court's decisions in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes and
Comcast v. Behrend," Tyson's lawyers wrote in the petition.

"Wal-Mart and Comcast should have put a stop to class
certification premised on the notion that classwide liability and
damages can be established through a 'trial by formula,' and
damages models that ignore the basis of the defendant's putative
liability to each class member."

At issue is whether the plaintiffs can use representative proof to
fill in certain evidentiary gaps.

Jim Sturdevant, a San Francisco-based plaintiffs attorney, argues
that representative proof -- sometimes referred to as statistical
modeling -- can be vital to a plaintiff's case.

"Without some kind of computer modeling, or some type of
methodology, the plaintiffs here wouldn't have any hard
documents," he explained. "The employer, in this case, didn't keep
any records or destroyed them, and employees don't normally keep
those type of records."

Mr. Sturdevant says he doesn't see the court ruling against the
plaintiffs.

"What I see in Tyson Foods is a significantly weighted decision in
favor of the employees under the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act)
that includes the decision not to decide the Rule 23 issue,
because it's not necessary to the resolution of this case," he
explained.

Rule 23(b)(3), in class action law, requires that trial judges not
certify or authorize a class unless the judge finds that common
issues of law or fact predominate.

Mr. Axler agreed, pointing to the court's Nov. 10 oral arguments.

"Tyson argued that you can't use representative proof as
plaintiffs did at trial, because it violates Rule 23 and due
process rights," he explained. "But the court seemed to focus
during the argument on the narrower issue of whether the use of
statistical sampling is proper.  And the court has already decided
that issue."

Still, he wouldn't bet on the case based on the November
arguments.

"I will say that the Tyson Foods argument seemed to be favorable
for plaintiffs, but you can't draw a conclusion based on the
argument alone," Mr. Axler said, also noting Justice Antonin
Scalia's death.

As with Spokeo v. Robins, Sturdevant doesn't foresee a significant
delay in the court's ruling, even with Scalia's passing.

Wystan Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- a partner at the Hartford,
Conn., office of Robinson+Cole, says he also doesn't think the
case will turn on Scalia's vote.

"The media's interpretation was that Justice [Anthony] Kennedy
would side with the plaintiffs, perhaps along with the four
liberal justices," said Ackerman, who chairs the firm's class
action team and writes the blog Class Actions Insider.

"My effort to read the tea leaves suggested that Justice Kennedy,
if he sided with the plaintiffs, would want to do so quite
narrowly.

"He will still frequently be a lynchpin in the eight-member
court."

Mr. Ackerman says he expects a majority decision in the case -- at
least to the extent that the justices resolve the case but leave
some issues for another day.

"It could be a narrow opinion that provides district courts and
class action practitioners some guidance on how a class action
should be tried, and does not completely eliminate the possibility
of statistical evidence being used, but leaves some of those
details unanswered," he said.

Jason Johnston, a law professor at the University of Virginia who
teaches courses on contracts, economic regulation and torts, among
others, and who is working on a study of class action lawsuits,
argues the eight justices should take a more literal approach to
deciding the case.

"By far, the best federal circuit court rulings on this -- by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the
Second Circuit and even the notoriously left-leaning Ninth Circuit
-- have said that class counsel cannot get away with this, that
they have to have a class that includes only people who were
actually injured," he explained. "The Supreme Court should do the
same.

"If it does not, the second issue in Tyson Foods could be raised,
which would be the same issue as in Spokeo: how can you
constitutionally have a class action with plaintiffs who didn't
suffer injury?"

Mr. Johnston contends class counsel in Tyson Foods purposely
created a much larger class.

"The bigger the class, the bigger the potential liability, and the
bigger the attorneys fees that class counsel can get," he said of
the company's statistical modeling.

He says he sees the Supreme Court ruling 5-3 on the class action
issue, disallowing class counsel to prove damages with a small
sample and from having a class made up of individuals with
significant differences -- including no damages -- from the
sampled group.

"With Scalia, it would have been 6-3," Johnston said, noting the
justice's "consistent" rulings in class action cases.

"With his death, the court has lost the champion of tough
constitutional standing requirements," he said.


UNITIL: Mass. Court Hears Appeal in Customers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anna Burgess, writing for Lowell Sun, reports that a lawsuit
brought against North Central Massachusetts utility provider
Unitil Corp. may lose its class-action status and see only 11
plaintiffs, at most, receive compensation from Unitil.

On March 10, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard
arguments on behalf of Unitil and on behalf of Unitil customers
over whether the lawsuit filed by these customers should have been
certified as a class-action suit.

The lawsuit, Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light, was
originally filed in 2009 by 11 plaintiffs.  The suit alleged that
Unitil knowingly failed to meet Department of Public Utility
requirements but continued charging customers anyway, and that
Unitil should pay for poor service and failed utilities during the
severe ice storm in 2008.

Their first attempt to get the case class certified was denied,
but in July 2015, Worcester Superior Court Judge Richard Tucker
granted the plaintiffs a class certification, for a slightly
modified lawsuit, under state Consumer Protection Law
(Massachusetts General Law Chapter 93A).  This meant the lawsuit,
rather than having 11 plaintiffs, was now on behalf of everyone
who was a Unitil customer between 2005 and 2009.

In October 2015, though, attorneys representing Unitil filed an
appeal with the Supreme Judicial Court, claiming that the case
should not have been certified as a class action suit.

Arguments on this appeal were heard on March 10 at the John Adams
Courthouse before the SJC.

New Jersey attorney Gavin Rooney spoke for the defense, while
Fitchburg attorney C. Deborah Philips argued for the plaintiffs.

From this point forward, Ms. Philips said, "the court has two
choices."

"If they decide to uphold the lower court's decision, the case
will proceed to court as a class action suit," she said.  "If they
say the lower court judge was wrong, then the case can still
proceed with the named plaintiffs to trial. The real issue is, are
there going to be 11 plaintiffs, or 28,000?"

In Unitil's appeal, filed Oct. 21, 2015, they wrote the case
should not be class certified in part because not all Unitil
customers suffered the alleged "economic injury."

"The class here includes customers who were unaffected by the
storm because they moved away before it hit," the appeals reads,
"customers who had their power restored in a timely manner, and
customers at the time of the storm who would have lost power for
lengthy periods due to its severity."

Ms. Philips argued that all Unitil customers are entitled to some
kind of relief, because "all the customers paid for a level of
service that FGE unfairly and deceptively failed to provide."

"We were saying it wasn't specifically the power outage," she
said.  "All the customers were paying for something they didn't
receive."

She added that the SJC has issued other decisions where they found
a plaintiff had suffered economic injury because the product they
received did not meet the legal standard, which was the standard
they paid for.

Unitil's appeal also took issue with this interpretation of an
overpayment, because state law "commits the determination of rates
to the exclusive jurisdiction of the DPU, which cannot be
questioned in court."

"The Superior Court erred in deciding that plaintiffs were
entitled to pursue this theory under 93A by contending that they
suffered injury from the payment of rates approved by the DPU,"
the appeal reads.  "It is not an unlawful act or a violation of
93A for a utility to charge its customers rates that comply with
the schedules filed with, and approved by, the DPU."

Unitil spokesman Alec O'Meara said he didn't want to paraphrase
any of the information in the legal documents, but did note that
the first time the plaintiffs tried to get certified as a class
action suit, Worcester Superior Court Judge Janet Kenton-Walker
ruled against them for some of these same reasons.

If the SJC decides to overturn the previous ruling, the case will
move forward to trial with only the 11 plaintiffs named in the
suit.  If they uphold the lower court ruling, the case will move
forward as a class action suit.

Ms. Philips said they expect a ruling sometime before next fall.


US FED LOAN: "Weisberg" Suit Seeks Damages & Remedies Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Weisberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. US Fed Loan Consolidated
Center; Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00757 (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2016), seeks to recover damages and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

US Fed Loan Consolidated Center is a company engaged in the
business of debt repayment services.

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@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


VECTREN CORP: Bid to Dismiss SIGECO Employees Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vectren Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to
dismiss a class action complaint filed by SIGECO employees remain
pending.

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of
claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees
("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan").  That plan was
merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.
The claims relate to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula.

On March 12, 2015, certain claimants filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Vectren Combined Plan and the Company in
federal district court requesting that a class be certified and
for various relief including that the Combined Plan be reformed
and benefits thereunder be recalculated. The Company denied the
allegations set forth in the complaint and has moved to dismiss
the claim.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Company is unable to quantify any potential impact of the
claims. The Company does not expect, however, the outcome would
have a material adverse effect on the Company's liquidity, results
of operations or financial condition.

Vectren Corporation, an Indiana corporation, is an energy holding
company headquartered in Evansville, Indiana.


VIGILANT CANINE: McGuire" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Alastair McGuire, Daniel M. Calister, Darren Goodall, George Fort,
and Rosy Jones, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Vigilant Canine Services
International, LLC, Buckley D. Dikes II, and Does 1-50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-at-00095 (E.D. Cal., February 2,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, injunctive relief, and
penalties pursuant to Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), California
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), and
California Business and Professions Unfair Competition Law.

Vigilant Canine Services owns and operates a K-9 company that
provides services to law enforcement in the United States and
contracts for service internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, CA 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284 1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703 5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
                  josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com


WAL-MART STORES: Misrepresentation of Products "Davies" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Davies, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-00535-JG (N.D. Ohio, March 4, 2016), alleges that the
Defendant's "100%" Grated Parmesan Cheese" Products are not in
fact "100%" Parmesan, but rather contain significant amounts of
adulterants and fillers.

Wal-Mart Stores is a multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores and
grocery stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
     WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
     865 S. Dixie Dr.
     Vandalia, OH 45377
     Tel: 937-435-7500
     Fax: 937-435-7511
     Email: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com

          - and -

     John J. Driscoll, Esq.
     Philip Sholtz, Esq.
     THE DRICOLL FIRM, P.C.
     211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Tel: 314-932-3232
     Fax: 314-932-3233
     Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
            phil@thedriscollfirm.com


WAYFAIR INC: Violated FTCA & Cal Civil Code, "Carson" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Carson and Mark Sanders-Ferierra, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wayfair,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00716 (C.D. Cal., February 2, 2016), seeks equitable relief and
costs of suit, as a result of the Defendant's false and deceptive
marketing, advertising and pricing scheme in violations to the
California's Business and professions Code, California Civil Code,
and Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA).

Wayfair Inc. engages in the e-commerce business in the United
States. It offers approximately seven million products for the
home under various brands. The company offers a selection of
furniture, d???cor, decorative accent, houseware, seasonal d???cor,
and other home goods under the Wayfair.com, Joss & Main,
AllModern, DwellStudio, and Birch Lane brands. It also sells its
products through online retail partners. Wayfair Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
          Robert Nation, Esq.
          ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          32121 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 851 3850
          Facsimile: (818) 851 3851
          E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
                  muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com


WEB.COM GROUP: Faces "Mohorne" Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Morgorna Mohorne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Web.Com Group, Inc.; Does 1-20
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00190-JGB-DTB (C.D.
Cal., February 2, 2016), seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the alleged illegal actions of the Defendant and
its related entities, subsidiaries and agents, in failing to
secure and protect its users' personal information, pursuant to
California Unfair Competition Law, California Data Breach Act,
Covenant Of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

On or about August 13, 2015, the Defendant made public a large and
wide-reaching security breach. Defendant revealed that an attack
had succeeded in gaining access to Plaintiff's credit records,
debit card records, and login data, as well as those to many
others of Defendant's users.

Web.com Group Inc. provides full-service web site solutions to
small businesses. The Company offers marketing, e-commerce, and
various other services. The Company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, 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@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


WENDY'S COMPANY: "Torres" Sues over Credit Card Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Torres, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Wendy's Company, Defendant,
Case No. 6:16-cv-00210-GKS-DAB (M.D. Fla., February 8, 2016),
seeks equitable relief, actual damages, compensatory damages,
costs of suit and attorneys' fees for breach of implied contract,
negligence and for violation of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiff purchased food items at the Defendant's Orlando, Florida
restaurant using a debit card issued by his credit union, after
which several unauthorized transactions were made despite the fact
that the card was already in his possession. He alleges that
Wendy's failed to maintain an adequate security system for such
transactions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
      Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
      Paul L. Sangiovanni, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 223-5402
      Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
             mvalladares@ForThePeople.com
             pbarthle@ForThePeople.com


WEST ELM: Recalls Saddle Counter Stools
---------------------------------------
Starting date: January 19, 2016
Posting date: January 19, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56586

This recall involves the Saddle Counter Stools.  This recall does
not apply to the Saddle Office and Dining Chairs.  The Saddle
Counter Stools are made with solid wood legs with a pecan-stained
finish and are sold in 4 upholstery options: Crosshatch
Steel/Ivory, Iron Basketweave, Slate Chevron and Elephant Leather.

The seat height of the Saddle Counter Stool is 26 inches.

There are numerous SKUs associated with the recalled products
depending of their height, upholstery color and whether the
product was sold individually or in set of 2.

Information regarding the product SKU, which is located on the box
of the product, the customer receipt or order and on a sticker on
the bottom of the seat of the stool is below:

  SKU       Type            Number of     Colour
  ---       ----            Units         ------
                            ---------
  8447229   Counter Stool   1             Crosshatch Steel/Ivory
  9087271   Counter Stool   2             Crosshatch Steel/Ivory
  1425487   Counter Stool   1             Iron Basketweave
  1591601   Counter Stool   2             Iron Basketweave
  1699289   Counter Stool   1             Slate Chevron
  1795566   Counter Stool   2             Slate Chevron
  652164    Counter Stool   1             Elephant Leather
  4737318   Counter Stool   2             Elephant Leather

The legs on the stools are weak and may break, causing the
customers to fall and posing the risk of injury.

West Elm has received six reports in the United States of the
Stools breaking while in use.  One injury has been reported.

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

Approximately 68 recalled stools were sold in Canada and 3745 in
the United States.

The recalled stools were sold from July 2013 through November 2015
at West Elm stores, www.westelm.com and through the West Elm
catalog.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Xinzhuang Village
              Xiashi Town
              Haining City
              CHINA

Distributor: West Elm
             Brooklyn
             New York
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should contact West Elm to arrange for the product to be
returned and to arrange for a refund or replacement.  West Elm is
contacting customers directly.

For more information, consumers may contact West Elm toll-free at
1-844-824-8911 between 7 a.m. and midnight ET daily or visit the
firm's website.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/AB9huN


WILSON: Recalls Grain Trailer 2013 & 2014 Models
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 6, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Heavy Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Suspension
Units affected: 44
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016006TC
ID number: 2016006

On certain trailers equipped with SAF-Holland CBX series
suspensions, the suspension arm pivot bolts may break. This could
affect axle alignment and potentially result in suspension
failure, which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace pivot
bolts. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2014-316

  Make       Model              Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----              ----------------------
  WILSON     GRAIN TRAILER      2013, 2014


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Plaintiff Counsel to File Fee Application
---------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 27, 2015, that counsel for
plaintiffs in the Wright/Tornier merger related litigation will
make an application for an award of attorneys' fees.

On November 25, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware (Delaware Chancery
Court), by a purported shareholder of WMG under the caption Paul
Parshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10400-CB.
An amended complaint in the action was filed on February 6, 2015.
The amended complaint names as defendants WMG, Tornier, Trooper
Holdings Inc. (Holdco), Trooper Merger Sub Inc. (Merger Sub) and
the members of the WMG board of directors.

The amended complaint asserts various causes of action, including,
among other things, that the members of the WMG board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in
connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the
merger, and causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that
allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger.
The amended complaint further alleges that WMG, Tornier, Holdco,
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the
merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

Also on November 25, 2014, a second class action complaint was
filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby County Tennessee, for the
Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis (Tennessee Chancery
Court), by a purported shareholder of WMG under the caption
Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright Medical
Group, Inc., et al., CH-14-1721-1. An amended complaint in the
action was filed on January 7, 2015. On February 23, 2015, the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action, as pending in the
Tennessee Chancery Court, without prejudice. Later on February 23,
2015, the plaintiff refiled the action in the Delaware Chancery
Court under the caption Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan
Super v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB.
The complaint names as defendants WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger
Sub, and the members of the WMG board of directors.

The complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among
other things, that the members of the WMG board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in
connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the
merger, and causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that
allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger.
The complaint further alleges that WMG, Tornier, Holdco, and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the
merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 2, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated Paul
Parshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10400-CB,
and Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright
Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB, under the caption
In re Wright Medical Group, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No.
10400-CB (Consolidated Delaware Action).

On November 26, 2014, a third class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial
District, at Memphis (Tennessee Circuit Court), by a purported
shareholder of WMG under the caption City of Warwick Retirement
System v. Gary D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14. An amended
complaint in the action was filed on January 5, 2015. The amended
complaint names as defendants WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub,
and the members of the WMG board of directors. The amended
complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other
things, that the members of the WMG board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection
with entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and
causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails
to disclose material information about the merger. The amended
complaint further alleges that Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other
things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and
an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 2, 2014, a fourth class action complaint was filed in
the Tennessee Chancery Court by a purported shareholder of WMG
under the caption Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1. An amended complaint in the action was filed
on January 27, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants
WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, Warburg Pincus LLC and the
members of the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint
asserts various causes of action, including, among other things,
that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with
entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and
causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails
to disclose material information about the merger. The amended
complaint further alleges that WMG, Tornier, Warburg Pincus LLC,
Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is
seeking, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or
rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
On March 24, 2015, a fifth class action complaint was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court, by a purported shareholder of WMG under
the caption Michael Prince v. Robert J. Palmisano, et al., C.A.
No. 10829-CB. The complaint asserts various causes of action,
including, among other things, that the members of the WMG board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG
shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the merger. The complaint further alleges that
WMG, Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. The
plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.

In an order dated May 22, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court
consolidated the Prince action into the Consolidated Delaware
Action.

In an order dated March 31, 2015, the Tennessee Circuit Court
transferred City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford
et al., CT-005015-14 to the Tennessee Chancery Court for
consolidation with Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1 (Consolidated Tennessee Action). In an order
dated April 9, 2015, the Tennessee Chancery Court stayed the
Consolidated Tennessee Action; that stay expired upon completion
of the Wright/Tornier merger.

On May 28, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action
reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the cases, which has
been memorialized in a memorandum of understanding.

"In connection with the contemplated settlement, we agreed to make
certain supplemental disclosures in Tornier's publicly-filed
Securities and Exchange Commission Form S-4 registration
statement, which were sought by the plaintiffs in connection with
the Consolidated Delaware Action," the Company said.  "The parties
to the Consolidated Delaware Action also expect that, in
connection with the contemplated settlement, counsel for
plaintiffs will make an application for an award of attorneys'
fees. The contemplated settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including completion of appropriate settlement
documentation, approval by the court, notice to the class and a
hearing, and consummation of the merger. There can be no assurance
that the contemplated settlement will be finalized or that court
approval will be granted."

Wright Medical Group N.V. is a global medical device company
focused on extremities and biologics products.

On October 1, 2015, the Company became Wright Medical Group N.V.
following the merger of Wright Medical Group, Inc. (WMG or legacy
Wright) with Tornier N.V. (Tornier or legacy Tornier).


WYNN LAS VEGAS: "Abebe" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Etagegn Abebe, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC and Steve
Wynn, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00482-JCM-NJK (D. Nev., March
4, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wynn Las Vegas, LLC is a limited liability corporation formed and
existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada and having
its principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Leon Greenberg, Esq.
     A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     2965 South Jones Boulevard - Suite E3
     Las Vegas, NV 89146
     Tel: (702) 383-6085
     Fax: (702) 385-1827

          - and -

      Mark R. Thierman, Essq.
      THIERMAN LAW FIRM
      7287 Lakeside Drive
      Reno, NV 89511
      Tel: (775) 284-1500

          - and -

      James P. Kemp, Esq.
      KEMP & KEMP, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      7435 West Azure Drive - Suite 110
      Las Vegas, NV 89130
      Telephone (702) 258-1183

          - and -

       Robin Potter, esq.
       111 E. Wacker Drive
       Suite 2600
       Chicago, IL 60601
       Tel: (312) 861-1800


XTREME DRILLING: "Blanco" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages, Back Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Blanco, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. Xtreme Drilling And Coil Services,
Inc., a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00249
(D. Col., February 2, 2016), seeks to recover damages and backpay
as a result of Xtreme's violations of the Colorado Wage Claim Act,
and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

Xtreme Drilling and Coil Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Xtreme Equipment, Inc. The Company was founded in 2006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
          Fort Collins, CO 80524
          Telephone: (970) 212 4665
          Facsimile: (303) 539 9812
          E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


YING XIANG: Recalls Frozen Seafood Products Due to Egg
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 7, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Ying Xiang Food Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10313

Ying Xiang Food Inc. is recalling Ying Xiang (Chinese characters
only) brand frozen seafood products from the marketplace because
they may contain egg which is not declared on the label. People
with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled products
described below.

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

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand      Common      Size    UPC              Code(s)
  name       name        ----    ---              on product
  ----       ------                               ----------
Ying Xiang   Boiled      210 g   8 82230 01046 8  All codes where
(Chinese     Fish Ball                            egg is not
characters                                        declared on the
only)                                             label
Ying Xiang   Boiled      210 g   8 82230 01047 5  All codes where
(Chinese     Squid Ball                           egg is not
characters                                        declared on the
only)                                             label
Ying Xiang   Crab        210 g   8 82230 01050 5  All codes where
(Chinese     Flavoured                            egg is not
characters   Fish Ball                            declared on the
only)                                             label
Ying Xiang   Shrimp      210 g   8 82230 01051 2  All codes where
(Chinese     Ball                                 egg is not
characters                                        declared on the
only)                                             label
Ying Xiang   Spice Fish  210 g   8 82230 01049 9  All codes where
(Chinese     Cake                                 egg is not
characters                                        declared on the
only)                                             label
Ying Xiang   Vegetable  210 g    8 82230 01045 1  All codes where
(Chinese     Fish Cake                            egg is not
characters                                        declared on the
only)                                             label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/RY7JFr


                            *********

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  * * *