---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 218


                            Headlines


ACXIOM CORPORATION: Class Suit in E.D. Va. Remains Pending
ADS WASTE: Continues to Defend Class Actions in Alabama & Florida
AECOM: Australian Unit Entered into Deed of Release
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Nurlybayev" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Nov. 20 Deadline Set for Refund Requests

ANYTIME FITNESS: Faces "LaCombe" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iOS 9 Wi-Fi Feature
APPLIANCE RECYCLING: "Feola" Class Action Submitted to Insurer
APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Still Monitors Whirlpool's Defense of Claims
AT&T INC: Defending Against Litigation Over NFL Sunday Ticket

AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Illegally Imposes Claims Sublimit, Action Claims
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: 3 Securities Class Actions Filed
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
BAWM: Vocation Mulls Legal Class Action Against Founders
BFC FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Subject to Final Approval

BRIGHAM FISH: Recalls Canned Seafood Products Due to C. botulinum
BUSINESS FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Motion Practice and Discovery Stayed
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Proceeding in Consumer Suit
CALLOWAY LABORATORIES: Sued in Mass. Over Unlawful Termination

CAMPBELL-EWALD: Supreme Court Hears Class Action Arguments
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Class Action Discovery Stayed
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending TCPA Litigation in Calif.
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend LIBOR Litigation
CLEVELAND, OH: Public Power Sued Over Improper Bill Calculation

COADVANTAGE RESOURCES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
COMMUNITY BANK: Class Action Settlement Subject to Final Approval
COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Strauch" Case Wins Conditional Certification
CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls David(R) Trail Mix Due to Milk Protein
COUPONS.COM INC: Defendants Filed Demurrer to Class Action

CRAZY MULLETS: Faces "Lloyd" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Entered Into MOU with Plaintiffs
DARA BIOSCIENCES: "Schnipper" Class Action Filed
DEL MONTELL: Sue Over Failure to Pay Technicians Minimum Wage
DOWNING LABS: Recalls Sterile Products Due to Contamination

DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Suit Asserting Deceptive Business Practices
DUNGENESS SEAWORKS: Recalls Canned Albacore Tuna
ECM ENERGY: "Mayhew" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EINHORN: Faces Suit Over Condom Packaging Claim
ETHEREAL CONFECTIONS: Recalls Inclusion Bars & Mendiants

EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Emerson Files class Action in California
EXTREME NETWORKS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
FIRST MERCHANTS: Faces "Stein" Class Action
FLOWERS FOODS: 7 Suits Filed Alleging Misclassification
FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Bank Participating in Class Action

GENERAL MOTORS: Class Action Over Unpaid Religious Day Off Nixed
GREAT-WEST LIFE: Decision on Class Cert. Bid Expected Next Year
HALYARD HEALTH: Assumed Defense of "Shahinian" Action
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Defendants Filed Bid for Rehearing En Banc
HCSB FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Shelley" Action Remains Pending

HEALTH-ADE: Faces "Hood" Suit in Cal. Over Product Mislabeling
HEALTH-ADE: Faces "Samet" Suit in Ct. Over Product Mislabeling
HEALTH PLUS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Bijoux" Suit Says
HEALTHWAYS INC: Plaintiff in Illinois Case Joined in Calif. Case
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Settlement in "Frater" Paid from Insurance

HERSHEY COMPANY: 3rd Cir. Appeal in Class Action Remains Pending
HUBBELL INCORPORATED: Illegally Coerces Stockholders, Suit Says
ICONIX BRAND: "Lazaro" and "Niksich" Class Actions Pending
INGREDION INC: Bid to Sanction Squire Patton Tossed
INNOVATIVE FOOD: No Deal Reach in Mediation of Drivers' Suit

INSITE VISION: Defending Class Action Over Merger
JOSEPHSON'S SMOKEHOUSE: Recalls Canned Seafood Products
KANAN ENTERPRISES: Recalls Candy Buttons Due to Milk Protein
KAR'S NUTS: Recalls Sweet n Salty Mix Products
KELLEY VENTURES: Faces "Salvarezza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

KOHLL'S PHARMACY: Appellate Court Reverses Ruling in Junk Fax Suit
KOTOBUKI MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LOS ANGELES, CA: LAUSD Sued Over Alleged Illegal Imprisonment
M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Against Mindspeed Stil Open
MADISON COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over FOID Service Charge

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Defend "Owens" Class Action
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Defend "Robainas" Class Action
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Defend "Intoccia" Class Action
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Defend "Voshall" Class Action
MGM RESORTS: Shareholder Litigation in Delaware Dismissed

MGM RESORTS: Settlement in Securities Litigation Remains Pending
MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Faces "Samet" Suit Over Product Mislabeling
MISTRAS GROUP: Two Employee Class Suits Filed in California
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court to Hear Sunday Ticket Arguments on Dec. 3
NATIONAL WESTERN: Class Suit Pending Since June 2006 Now Settled

NELNET INC: Illegally Debits Bank Accounts, "Sanders" Suit Says
NETFLIX: Faces Class Action over Lack of Song Subtitles
NEWS CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Opposed Bid to Appeal
NORTHWEST WILD: Expands Canned Seafood Product Recall
NUCOR CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class-Actions

OLEAN GENERAL: Insulin-Injected Patients' Class Action Nixed
ONEIDA FINANCIAL: MOU Reached to Settle Merger Class Action
PENNSYLVANIA: ACLU Sues for Individuals Incompetent to Stand Trial
PERFORMANCE PRESSURE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PERRIGO COMPANY: Eltroxin Actions Stayed Pending Motion to Appeal

PERRIGO COMPANY: Tysabri(R) Product Liability Suits Still Open
PETRO RIVER: No Specific Timeline for Court Ruling in Class Suit
PIONEER SURGICAL: Faces "Gervais" Over Failure to Pay Overtime
POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Amended Suit Not Yet Filed
RENASANT CORPORATION: Class Action Parties Finalizing Accord

RESONANT INC: Consolidated Class Action Still Pending
ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Securities Class Action Still Open
RUSH COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Debit Card
RAYONIER INC: Hearing on Motions to Dismiss Class Actions
SABINE OIL: Bankruptcy Filing Stayed Class Actions

SALIX ANIMAL: Recalls Beefhide Chicken Sticks Due to Salmonella
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: "Steck" Case Transferred to N.D. Tex.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Ill. Court Awards $0.4MM in Attorneys' Fees
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Settlement in Nevada Suit Remains Pending
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Continues to Defend Oregon State Lottery Matter

SEAQUEST SEAFOOD: Recalls Fish Products Due to C. botulinum
SKINNY LATINA: Recalls Bottled Marinade Products Due to Soy
SKYLINE FINANCIAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOTHEBY'S INC: 9th Cir. Affirmed Ruling in "Graham" Case
SPOT OF GARIBALDI: Recalls Canned Salmon and Tuna

SPRINT: Faces Class Action Over Credit Report Disclosures
STAAR SURGICAL: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Class Action
SYMANTEC CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Suit
TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Court Yet to Rule on Motion to Dismiss
TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: Defending "Thompson" Action in Calif.

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Continues to Defend Wilder Litigation
UNITED STATES: Idaho Man Files Class Action Over OPM Data Breach
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Criticism Over "Volunteer" Invitation
USA DISCOUNTERS: Customer Seeks Class-Action Status for Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action

VCA INC: To Defend Remaining Claim in "Duran" Action
VCA INC: Court Denied Class Cert. to Veterinary Assistants
VCA INC: Accrued Remaining 50% in Class Action Settlement
VCA INC: "Graham vs. VCA Antech" in Early Procedural Stage
VECTREN UTILITY: Defending Class Action by SIGECO Employees

VIS SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Salmon and Tune Due to C. botulinum
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dvorak" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Suit in Ala. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hendricks" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hough" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kirkwood" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lawrence" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Pauli" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Pendry" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Ross" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Non-Profit Files Amicus Brief with MDL Panel
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Seeks Transfer of Venue for Emissions Litigation
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces 175+ Class Actions in 32 States
WASHIO INC: Liss-Riordan's Bid for Prohac Vice Admission Denied

WASHINGTON: Veterans Asked to Complete Class Action Survey
WESTERN CONNECTICUT: University Assistant Files Gender Bias Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Packaged Salad Products Due to Listeria
WSFS FINANCIAL: Alliance, WSFS et al. Entered Into MOU

* California AG Unveils New Campaign to Combat Revenge Porn


                            *********


ACXIOM CORPORATION: Class Suit in E.D. Va. Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative class action
is pending against the Company, Acxiom Information Security
Systems (which was sold to another company in fiscal 2012), and
Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., a Colorado corporation and wholly-
owned subsidiary of Acxiom (now known as Acxiom Identity
Solutions, LLC), in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.  This action seeks to certify
nationwide classes of persons who requested a consumer file from
any Acxiom entity from 2007 forward; who were the subject of an
Acxiom report sold to a third party that contained information not
obtained directly from a governmental entity and who did not
receive a timely copy of the report; who were the subject of an
Acxiom report and about whom Acxiom adjudicated the hire/no hire
decision on behalf of the employer; who, from 2010 forward,
disputed an Acxiom report and Acxiom did not complete the
investigation within 30 days; or who, from 2007 forward,  were the
subject of an Acxiom report for which no permissible purpose
existed. The complaint alleges various violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement and the
Company has accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of its probable
loss associated with this matter.

On July 29, 2015, the Court heard the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the class action settlement and request for attorneys'
fees.  A ruling was expected in August, 2015.  The Company
believes the chances of additional loss are remote.


ADS WASTE: Continues to Defend Class Actions in Alabama & Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. continues to defend class actions in
Alabama and Florida, the Company revealed in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014
in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The Georgia complaint was
dismissed in March 2014.

The plaintiffs in those cases primarily allege that the defendants
charged improper fees (fuel, administrative and environmental
fees) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' service agreements
with the Company and seek damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue.
Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the
early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential
class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of
these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any,
cannot currently be estimated.


AECOM: Australian Unit Entered into Deed of Release
---------------------------------------------------
AECOM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015, that AECOM Australia, the RCM Applicants and
Portigon AG have entered into a Deed of Release settling various
lawsuits.

In 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM
Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast
assignment for a client consortium as part of the client's project
to design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in
Australia. To fund the motorway's design and construction, the
client formed certain special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that raised
approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial
public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an
additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank
loans. The SPVs went into insolvency administrations in February
2011.

KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs (the RCM Applicants),
caused a lawsuit to be filed against AECOM Australia by the RCM
Applicants in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012.
Portigon AG (formerly WestLB AG), one of the lending banks to the
SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against
AECOM Australia on May 18, 2012. Separately, a class action
lawsuit, which has been amended to include approximately 770 of
the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM Australia in the
Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.

All of the lawsuits claim damages that purportedly resulted from
AECOM Australia's role in connection with the above described
traffic forecast. The RCM Applicants have claimed damages of
approximately $1.68 billion Australian dollars (including
interest, as of March 31, 2014). The damages claimed by Portigon
AG as of June 17, 2014 were also recently quantified at
approximately $76 million Australian dollars (including interest).

The Company believes this claim is duplicative of damages already
included in the RCM Applicants' claim to the extent Portigon
receives a portion of the RCM Applicants' recovery. The class
action applicants claim that they represent investors who acquired
approximately $155 million Australian dollars of securities.

On July 10, 2015, AECOM Australia, the RCM Applicants and Portigon
AG entered into a Deed of Release settling the respective
lawsuits.

AECOM Australia disputes the claimed entitlements to damages
asserted by the remaining class action lawsuit and will continue
to defend this matter vigorously; AECOM Australia cannot provide
assurance that it will be successful in these efforts. The
potential range of loss and the resolution of this matter cannot
be determined at this time and could have a material adverse
effect on AECOM Australia and the results of its operations.


ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Nurlybayev" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rustem Nurlybayev, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, et al., Case
No. CIV535840 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 15, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited is a Chinese e-commerce company that
provides consumer-to-consumer, business-to-consumer and business-
to-business sales services via web portals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Yury A. Kolesmkov, 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


ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Nov. 20 Deadline Set for Refund Requests
------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Neil, writing for ABA Journal, reports that there may not
be a free lunch, but a beer and tuna bonanza awaits savvy
consumers who apply in time for refunds in class-action
settlements.

Under a $20 million settlement with Anheuser-Busch Companies LLC
that was OK'd by a federal judge in Miami, Florida, consumers who
can prove they purchased Beck's beer between May 1, 2011 and June
23, 2015 can get a refund of as much as $50, reports the Miami New
Times.

Those who can't prove their purchase can get $12.  Applications
for refunds may be made via a class-action web page, which sets a
November 20 deadline for doing so.

November 20 is the deadline as well for consumers to apply for a
refund of up to $50 for Starkist tuna.  Proof of purchase is not
required.

Before 2012, Beck's beer was actually brewed abroad. But when the
company shifted production to the U.S., the labeling became
confusing, lead plaintiff Francisco Rene Marty alleged in his 2013
suit.

While the labeling does say "Product of USA," some portions seemed
to indicate that Beck's was a foreign beer, according to the suit.
They called the beer "imported" and said Beck's is brewed under
Germany's beer purity law of 1516.

The issue for Starkist was whether the proportion of tuna and
water in its cans satisfied U.S. weight standards.


ANYTIME FITNESS: Faces "LaCombe" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew LaCombe, et al. v. Anytime Fitness, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-13587-WGY (D. Mass., October 16, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Anytime Fitness, LLC operates fitness center locations in several
states across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marshall T. Moriarty, Esq.
      MORIARTY LAW FIRM
      34 Mulberry Street
      Springfield, MA 01105
      Telephone: (413) 654-1077
      Facsimile: (413) 736-1345
      E-mail: mmoriarty@mmoriarty-lawfirm.com


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iOS 9 Wi-Fi Feature
------------------------------------------------------
Neil Hughes, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Apple was
slapped with a class-action suit on Oct. 23, claiming that the
company failed to properly warn users that the new Wi-Fi Assist
feature in iOS 9 will use data from their cellular plan.

In the complaint, plaintiffs William Scott Phillips and Suzanne
Schmidt Phillips allege that because of costs related to Wi-Fi
Assist, the "overall amount in controversy exceeds" $5 million.
Filed in a U.S. District Court in San Jose on Oct. 23, the suit
was first discovered by AppleInsider.

Once users update to iOS 9, Wi-Fi Assist is turned on by default.
Its goal is ensure a smooth Internet experience, switching to
cellular data in the event that the user is connected to a weak
Wi-Fi signal.

Some who don't understand how Wi-Fi Assist works, or even that it
exists, have alleged that the new feature has caused them to use
more cellular data than anticipated.  But the new class-action
suit alleges it should be Apple who should reimburse customers for
any overages.

The complaint asserts that Apple did not properly explain Wi-Fi
Assist on its website until only after a "flood of articles" were
written about unintended cellular data use. For the plaintiffs,
that addition to the website was too little, too late.

"Defendant's corrective action, however, still downplays the
possible data overcharges a user could incur," the suit reads.
"Reasonable and average consumers use their iPhones for streaming
of music, videos, and running various applications -- all of which
can use significant data.  Defendant's corrective statement does
not disclose any basis for its conclusion that an average consumer
would not see much increase in cellular usage."

The suit states that the plaintiffs incurred overuse charges on
both of their iPhone 5s units after upgrading to iOS 9.  It did
not say exactly how much those charges were, but asserts that the
plaintiffs and the class were mislead about cellular data usage on
their devices.

In the complaint, Apple is accused of violating California's
Unfair Competition Law, the state's False Advertising Law, and of
negligent misrepresentation.

To shut off Wi-Fi Assist, iOS 9 users must open the Settings app
and choose Cellular, then scroll to the bottom to find the toggle
button.  The option is missing on some older Apple devices,
including the iPhone 4S, the iPad 2, and the first-generation iPad
mini.


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: "Feola" Class Action Submitted to Insurer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers of America Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the
class action filed by Jason Feola has been submitted to the
Company's insurance carrier.

On March 6, 2015, a complaint was filed in United States District
Court for the Central District of California by Jason Feola,
individually and as a representative of a class consisting of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 15, 2012
and February 11, 2015, against Appliance Recycling Centers of
America, Inc. and certain current and former officers of the
Company.  Mr. Feola, pursuant to terms of his retainer agreement
with The Rosen Law Firm, certified that he purchased 240 shares of
the Company's common stock for $984 in total consideration. In May
2015, the Company and the individual defendants were served the
complaint.

In July 2015, the Company and the individual defendants received
an amended complaint. The complaint alleges that misstatements and
omissions occurred in press releases and filings by the Company
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and that these
misstatements or omissions constitute violations of Section 20 (a)
and Section 10(b) of, and Rule 10b-5 under, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

"This matter has been submitted to our insurance carrier and we
intend to contest vigorously the claims made in the complaint,"
the Company said.


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Still Monitors Whirlpool's Defense of Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers of America Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the
Company is monitoring Whirlpool's defense of the claims and
believes the possibility of a material loss is remote.

The Company said, "In February 2012, various individuals commenced
a class action lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool")
and various distributors of Whirlpool products, including Sears,
The Home Depot, Lowe's and us, alleging certain appliances sold by
Whirlpool through its distribution chain, which includes us, were
improperly designated with the ENERGY STAR(R) qualification rating
established by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection Agency.  The claims against us include breach of
warranty claims, as well as various state consumer protection
claims.  The amount of the claim is, as yet, undetermined.
Whirlpool has offered to fully indemnify and defend its
distributors in this lawsuit, including us, and has engaged legal
counsel to defend itself and the distributors.  We are monitoring
Whirlpool's defense of the claims and believe the possibility of a
material loss is remote."


AT&T INC: Defending Against Litigation Over NFL Sunday Ticket
-------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. is defending against litigation challenging DIRECTV's
NFL Sunday Ticket, AT&T said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

Three putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against DIRECTV and the
National Football League (NFL) alleging that the NFL and DIRECTV
violated federal antitrust law in connection with the NFL Sunday
Ticket package. Among other things, the complaints allege that
plaintiffs have been overcharged for the televised presentation of
out-of-market NFL games due to DIRECTV's exclusive agreement with
the NFL to broadcast out-of-market games through the Sunday Ticket
package. The complaints seek unspecified treble damages and
attorneys' fees along with injunctive relief. The complaint in
Abrahamian v. National Football League, Inc., et al. was served in
June 2015, the complaint in Ninth Inning Inc. v. National Football
League, Inc., et al. was served in July 2015 and the complaint in
Rookie Sports Cafe, L.L.C., et al., was served in August 2015.

"We vigorously dispute these allegations," the Company said.


AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Illegally Imposes Claims Sublimit, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Marrufo and Robert Schultz v. Automobile Club of Southern
California and Does 1-100, Case No. BC597839 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 15, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged unlawful
conduct of imposing a $5,000.00 sublimit for claims for "any
smoke, soot, ash, char, odor, dust, particulate or other
materials, that is produced, discharged, emitted or released by,
or otherwise caused by or resulting from, a "wildfire".

Automobile Club of Southern California operates an insurance
company and maintains its principal office location at 2601
S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California 90007.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
      Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
      Levi M. Plesset, Esq.
      KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
      644 South Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 217-5000
      Facsimile: (213)217-5010
      E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
              jhh@kbkiawyers.com
              lp@kbklawyers.com


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: 3 Securities Class Actions Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that three putative
securities class actions have been filed against the Company and
certain of its officers.

The Company said, "In July 2015, three putative securities class
action lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our officers
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, each on behalf of a purported class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded
securities between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015. The lawsuits
assert claims under the Exchange Act and Securities Act and allege
that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omitted allegedly material information related to,
among other things, the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and
the prospects of AVA-101. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs."

"We believe that the claims in the asserted actions are without
merit and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. We expect to
incur costs associated with defending the actions. While we have
various insurance policies related to the risks associated with
our business, including directors' and officers' liability
insurance policies, there is no assurance that we will be
successful in our defense of the actions, that our insurance
coverage, which contains a self-insured retention, will be
sufficient, or that our insurance carriers will cover all claims
or litigation costs. Due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, we cannot reasonably predict at this time the timing
or outcomes of these matters or estimate the amount of losses, or
range of losses, if any, or their effect, if any, on our financial
statements."


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bank Of Nova
Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09173 (N.D. Ill., October 16,
2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged collusive manipulation
of the yields and pricing of U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds
as well as the prices paid for futures and options on Treasury
Securities on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange ("CME") and with Treasury Securities.

Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian
financial services and banking company with its principal place of
business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Steven M. Tillery, Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
      505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-4844
      Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
      E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
      Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com
              tboardman@scott-scott.com


BAWM: Vocation Mulls Legal Class Action Against Founders
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that the chairman of private education
outfit Vocation has left open the possibility of legal action
against the founders of its now defunct BAWM and Aspen
subsidiaries, as the company grapples with three shareholder class
actions.

Speaking at the company's first annual general meeting since a
damning Victorian government audit resulted in a wholesale
restructure and precipitous fall in share price, Doug Halley
acknowledged the past year had been "extremely disappointing" for
shareholders.

But Mr. Halley said that despite being confronted by "almost daily
brush fires", Vocation now had a stable base on which to rebuild.

"We have improved the quality and delivery of our courses,
strengthened our regulatory compliance and begun to restore our
credibility with government regulators and funders," he said.

Mr. Halley said he had been asked by at least one shareholder
about the possibility of taking action against the founders of the
businesses affected by the Victorian regulator and which had now
been closed.

"As you would expect, the company has, and will continue to
consider all issues relevant to the litigation quite carefully and
will take such steps as are prudent in the interests of the
company and its shareholders," he said, declining to comment
further citing the current class action litigation.

Those founders some, including Wendy Bonnici, Michael Langtree and
Amanda King remain executives after Vocation listed on the ASX
have now left the company.

An audit conducted by the Victorian Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development last year found instances of
inappropriate enrolments and low-quality training, forcing the
company to repay nearly $20 million in government funding and shut
BAWM and Aspen, two of its largest training businesses.

Investors were originally told the review would turn out to be
immaterial.

Concerns were raised earlier this year about the ability of the
company to continue as a going concern, after it posted a $273m
loss for the first-half of the financial year, writing off more
than $240m in goodwill.

Vocation's chief executive, Stewart Cummins, told shareholders on
Oct. 23 that management had moved quickly to remediate the
company's issues.

"There has been significant progress with building a well-
credentialed leadership team, refreshing Vocation's course
offering in six key streams, and taking steps to restore our
reputation and credibility with government, customers and other
stakeholders," he said.

"The company's bank facilities have been extended and we are
[starting] to attract new student enrolments, increasing revenue
and cash flow and boosting our confidence in the company's
future."

By next year, Vocation will have slashed the number of
qualifications it offers by nearly 50 per cent, with just 60
remaining on scope.

Despite the company's performance, the remuneration report and
issue of performance rights to Mr. Cummins were approved with no
significant dissenting vote.


BFC FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Subject to Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in a class action against BFC Financial Corporation
remains subject to final court approval, BFC revealed in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On April 2, 2013, Bluegreen merged with a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Woodbridge in a cash merger transaction (sometimes referred to
as the "Bluegreen merger" or the "Bluegreen cash merger").
Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Bluegreen's
shareholders (other than Woodbridge) received consideration of
$10.00 in cash for each share of Bluegreen's common stock that
they held at the effective time of the merger, including unvested
restricted securities. In addition, each option to acquire shares
of Bluegreen's common stock that was outstanding at the effective
time of the merger, whether vested or unvested, was canceled in
exchange for a cash payment to the holder in an amount equal to
the excess, if any, of the $10.00 per share merger consideration
over the exercise price per share of the option. The aggregate
merger consideration was approximately $149.2 million.  As a
result of the merger, Bluegreen, which was the surviving
corporation of the merger, became a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Woodbridge.  Prior to the merger, the Company indirectly through
Woodbridge owned approximately 54% of Bluegreen's outstanding
common stock.

In connection with the financing of the merger, BFC and Woodbridge
entered into a Purchase Agreement with BBX Capital on April 2,
2013 (the "Purchase Agreement").  Pursuant to the terms of the
Purchase Agreement, BBX Capital invested $71.75 million in
Woodbridge contemporaneously with the closing of the merger in
exchange for a 46% equity interest in Woodbridge. BFC continues to
hold the remaining 54% of Woodbridge's outstanding equity
interests. BBX Capital's investment in Woodbridge consisted of $60
million in cash, which was utilized to pay a portion of the
aggregate merger consideration, and a promissory note in
Woodbridge's favor in the principal amount of $11.75 million (the
"Note"). The Note initially had a term of five years, with
interest payable at a rate of 5% per annum and provided for
payments of interest only on a quarterly basis during the term of
the Note, with all outstanding amounts due and payable at the end
of the five-year term.

During the six months ended June 30, 2015  and the year ended
December 31, 2014, BBX Capital paid to Woodbridge a total of
approximately $294,000 and $587,000, respectively, of interest on
the Note.  BBX Capital's Board of Directors has approved the
repayment in full of the Note in connection with the settlement of
the merger-related litigation described below. In connection with
BBX Capital's investment in Woodbridge, BFC and BBX Capital
entered into an Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of
Woodbridge, which sets forth BFC's and BBX Capital's respective
rights as members of Woodbridge and provides for, among other
things, unanimity on certain specified "major decisions" and for
distributions by Woodbridge to be made on a pro rata basis in
accordance with BFC's and BBX Capital's respective percentage
equity interests in Woodbridge. During April and July, 2015,
Bluegreen paid a total of $14.0 million and $10.0 million,
respectively, in cash dividends to Woodbridge, and Woodbridge
declared and paid cash dividends totaling $13.4 million and $9.9
million, respectively, which were allocated pro rata to BFC and
BBX Capital based on their percentage ownership interests in
Woodbridge. During 2014, Bluegreen paid cash dividends totaling
$71.5 million to Woodbridge, and Woodbridge declared and paid cash
dividends totaling $69.1 million, which was allocated pro rata to
BFC and BBX Capital based on their percentage ownership interests
in Woodbridge.

On March 26, 2013, Bluegreen issued $75 million of senior secured
notes (the "2013 Notes Payable") in a private transaction, the
proceeds of which, together with approximately $14 million of
Bluegreen's unrestricted cash, were utilized in connection with
the funding of the $149.2 million merger consideration indicated
above. See Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements
included in the 2014 Annual Report for additional information
regarding the 2013 Notes Payable.

Two consolidated class action lawsuits relating to the Bluegreen
merger were filed.  The plaintiffs in these actions asserted that
the consideration received by Bluegreen's minority shareholders in
the transaction was inadequate and unfair, and were seeking to
recover damages in connection with the transaction. On June 5,
2015, the parties agreed to the settlement of the litigation.
Pursuant to the settlement, Woodbridge or its affiliates will pay
$36.5 million, which amounts to approximately $2.50 per share,
into a "Settlement Fund" for the benefit of former shareholders of
Bluegreen whose shares were acquired in connection with the
Bluegreen cash merger.  The amount to be received by such former
Bluegreen shareholders will be reduced by administrative costs and
attorneys' fees and costs. It is anticipated that Woodbridge will
fund the Settlement Fund with proceeds from BBX Capital's
repayment of its $11.75 million promissory note to Woodbridge and
from additional capital contributions from BFC and BBX Capital of
$13.4 million and $11.4 million, respectively, based on their
respective 54% and 46% ownership interests in Woodbridge.  The
settlement remains subject to final approval by the Court and
dismissal with prejudice of all litigation arising from or
relating to the merger, together with a full release of BFC,
Bluegreen, Woodbridge, BBX Capital and others.   BFC, Bluegreen,
Woodbridge, BBX Capital and all of the defendants in the action
denied and continue to deny that any of them violated any laws or
breached any duties to the plaintiffs or Bluegreen's former
shareholders.


BRIGHAM FISH: Recalls Canned Seafood Products Due to C. botulinum
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is to inform you that Skipanon Brand Seafoods has initiated a
voluntary recall of all its CANNED seafood products. This includes
Brigham Fish Market's 6 oz CANNED SMOKED CHINOOK SALMON AND 6 oz
CANNED CHINOOK SALMON.

This is due to possible under-processed products. Under-processed
products could lead to potentially serious health-risks, and
possible contamination with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium
which can cause life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are
warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell
spoiled.

There have been no reported cases of illness associated with
Skipanon products to date. Notification: Brigham Fish Market
canned fish was processed in the same manner.

Consumers who have purchased the 6 oz cans of Brigham Fish Market
products are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund.

Consumers with questions can contact Brigham Fish Market; 541-374-
9340

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/vEJCE4


BUSINESS FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Business Financial Services, Inc. and
Business Cash Advance, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01661 (C.D. Cal.,
October 16, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
contacting consumers on the cellular telephone using an automatic
telephone dialing system.

The Defendants own and operate lending companies in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Motion Practice and Discovery Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015, that motion practice and discovery in the so-called
Cable Operations Litigation have been stayed pending settlement
discussions.

Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC
Holdings, LLC: The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several
present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf
of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and
New York.  After three versions of the complaint were dismissed
without prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their
third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the
Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by
allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part
of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes
distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution
of Cablevision compatible set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as
injunctive and declaratory relief.

On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the District Court
issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2
monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and
related state common law claims to proceed.  Cablevision's answer
to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012.

On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. Motion practice and discovery have been stayed
pending settlement discussions.

While a loss is reasonably possible, the present state of
settlement negotiations leaves the Company currently unable to
estimate a range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Proceeding in Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015, that expert discovery is proceeding in the Cablevision
Consumer Litigation.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.

On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on
new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits
were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May
2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial
summary judgment.

On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment. On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert
discovery commence. Expert discovery is proceeding.

On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and
on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan.
The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out
period expired on February 27, 2015.

The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.


CALLOWAY LABORATORIES: Sued in Mass. Over Unlawful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Peterson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Calloway Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-13588
(D. Mass., October 16, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide 60 days advance written notice prior to
termination of its approximately 250 full-time employees.

Calloway Laboratories, Inc. owns and operates a clinical
toxicology laboratory in Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew C. Moschella, Esq.
      Jennifer L. Ioli, Esq.
      SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP
      101 Federal Street
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 646-2000
      E-mail: mcmoschella@sherin.com
              jlioli@sherin.com

         - and -

      Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
      Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
              rsr@outtengolden.com


CAMPBELL-EWALD: Supreme Court Hears Class Action Arguments
----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for Law.com, reports that Conservative U.S.
Supreme Court justices on Oct. 14 renewed their long-running
disdain for class actions in the first of three cases the court
will hear on the topic this term.

During arguments in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, Justice Samuel Alito
Jr. suggested that the case at issue is one where "the class
action attorneys are going to get a lot and the members of the
class are going to get virtually nothing."

The case asks whether defendants can moot a class action by
offering the main plaintiff a settlement that amounts to "complete
relief" of his or her complaint, or whether plaintiffs can still
continue the litigation and represent the class.

Class action advocates fear that if the advertising and
communications company in the case wins, it will become too easy
for defendants to "pick off" plaintiffs one by one to thwart class
action relief.

But a brief by the Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable
argues that allowing class actions to continue after a defendant
offers relief will only perpetuate baseless "lawyer-driven"
litigation.

During arguments on Oct. 14, liberal justices and the lawyers for
the plaintiff asserted that a case cannot be mooted out solely by
a company's offer, because the offer must be scrutinized by a
judge and enforced by entering a judgment for the plaintiff.

They also suggested that "complete relief" would be elusive,
because even if plaintiffs received money damages, plaintiffs
would still make demands that the defendants would not fulfill --
like reimbursement of attorney fees or the ability to preserve the
class action.

But Justice Antonin Scalia said that, under that theory,
plaintiffs could keep a class action alive by making outlandish
demands like "the key to Fort Knox" that the defendant would never
make part of the settlement. Former Solicitor General
Gregory Garre agreed.  "He could ask for a unicorn, your honor,"
he said.

Mr. Garre, a partner at Latham & Watkins, represented Campbell-
Ewald Co., the company sued for violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  Plaintiff Jose Gomez launched the class action
after the company sent him three unwanted text messages about the
virtues of joining the U.S. Navy.  The law allows damages of $500
for each unwanted message, and the company offered $1,500,
reasonable costs and injunctive relief.  Mr. Gomez declined.

"It's hard to feel too sorry about the plaintiffs who have
everything that they could possibly ask for," Mr. Garre told the
court.  "The big money goes to the class action lawyers here."

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. also seemed skeptical, asserting
that plaintiffs "won't take yes for an answer" because of the
allure of class actions.  "It comes down to whether or not you can
get the class certified," Roberts said.

As often is the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to be the
swing vote.  He seemed dubious during argument that a settlement
offer would equate to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  But he also challenged
Jonathan Mitchell, the lawyer for Mr. Gomez, to define what the
"concrete injury" is once the defendant has paid the plaintiff
damages.

The other two class action cases before the court involve classes
that in part comprise plaintiffs who have allegedly suffered no
harm: Spokeo v. Robins, set for argument Nov. 2, and Tyson Foods
v. Bouaphakeo, which will be argued Nov. 10.


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Class Action Discovery Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery
in a class action will be stayed pending a decision on the motion
to dismiss the lawsuit.

On April 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California captioned Bonnano v. Cellular Biomedicine
Group, Inc., 3:15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Ca.). The complaint also
names Wei Cao, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Tony
Liu, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. The
complaint alleges that during the class period, June 18, 2014,
through April 7, 2015, the Company made material
misrepresentations in its periodic reports filed with the SEC. The
complaint alleges a cause of action under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") against all
defendants and under Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against the
individual defendants. The complaint does not state the amount of
the damages sought. On June 3, 2015, defendants were served.  On
June 29, 2015, the Court ordered, as stipulated by the parties,
that defendants are not required to respond to the initial
complaint in this action until such time as a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel have been appointed and a consolidated complaint has
been filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of putative plaintiff
Michelle Jackson.

On August 3, 2015, having received no opposition, the Court
appointed Jackson as lead plaintiff and the Rosen Law Firm as
class counsel.  As stipulated among the parties, Jackson was
slated to file an amended class action complaint on or before
September 17, 2015, and the Company's date to answer or move is on
or before November 2, 2015.  Discovery will be stayed pending a
decision on the motion to dismiss. On that date, one motion was
filed.  As of July 6, 2015, the date to respond to the motion, no
other putative plaintiff or law firm had filed opposition papers.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and filled with
patently false information, and will vigorously defend the Company
in the matter. At this early stage of the proceedings it is not
possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or
to estimate the range of potential loss.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending TCPA Litigation in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in a purported class action complaint filed in December
2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The named plaintiff purports to represent a "national class" of
customers who allegedly received automated calls to their cell
phones from the bank or its agents, without customer consent, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Company is
vigorously defending this matter, but is unable to predict the
outcome of this matter.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend LIBOR Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in lawsuits in which allegations have been made that RBS
manipulated U.S. dollar LIBOR to the detriment of the Company's
customers. The lawsuits include a purported class action on behalf
of borrowers of the Company whose interest rates were tied to U.S.
dollar LIBOR. The plaintiffs in these cases assert various
theories of liability, including fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The
Company is vigorously defending these matters, but is unable to
predict the outcome of these matters.


CLEVELAND, OH: Public Power Sued Over Improper Bill Calculation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clint Yoby, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. City of Cleveland and Cleveland Public Power, Case No. CV-15-
852708 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, October 15, 2015) is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged improperly
calculation of the Plaintiff's and class members' bills and
account balances by imposing an Environmental Adjustment which
included items that were not special apparatus and equipment
required for compliance with environmental-protection laws and
directives.

City of Cleveland is a municipal corporation of the State of
Ohio.

Cleveland Public Power is the largest municipally-owned electric
utility in the State of Ohio and one of the largest in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      Drew Legando, Esq.
      Tom Merriman, Esq.
      Edward S. Jerse, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
              drew@lgmlegal.com
              tom@lgmlegal.com
              ed.jerse@lgmlegal.com


COADVANTAGE RESOURCES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Reinaldo Olivencia, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Coadvantage Resources 41, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-10195-JEM
(S.D. Fla., October 16, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Coadvantage Resources 41, Inc. operates a payroll preparation
services in Monroe County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5000
      E-mail: agp@rgattorneyes.com


COMMUNITY BANK: Class Action Settlement Subject to Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement in a
class action lawsuit is subject to the Court's final approval.

On July 14, 2015, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement reached in the first of two related class
actions pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, which cases were commenced on October
30, 2013 and May 23, 2014, respectively.  The two related cases
allege, on behalf of similarly situated class members, that
notices provided by the Bank in connection with the repossession
of automobiles failed to comply with certain requirements of the
Pennsylvania and New York Uniform Commercial Code and related
statutes.  In accordance with mediation occurring in September
2014, the settlement provides for establishment of a settlement
fund of $2.8 million in exchange for release of all claims of the
class members covered by these actions. A litigation settlement
charge of $2.8 million with respect to the settlement of the class
actions was previously recorded in the third quarter of 2014.  The
settlement is subject to the Court's final approval following
notice to the class members, including the ability of class
members to oppose or opt-out of the settlement.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Strauch" Case Wins Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act class
action have won conditional certification of their lawsuit,
Computer Sciences Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2015.

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

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

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
SAs. The Strauch putative class includes more than 4,000 SAs.
Courts typically undertake a two-stage review in determining
whether a suit may proceed as a class action under the FLSA. In
its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the Court
examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that proposed
class members are similarly situated, the class is conditionally
certified. Potential class members are then notified and given an
opportunity to opt-in to the action. The second step of the class
certification analysis occurs upon completion of discovery. At
that point, the Court will examine all evidence then in the record
to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to conclude that
the proposed class members are similarly situated. If it is
determined that they are, the case will proceed to trial; if it is
determined they are not, the class is decertified and only the
individual claims of the purported class representatives proceed.
The Company's position is that the employees identified as
belonging to the conditional class were paid in accordance with
the FLSA.


CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls David(R) Trail Mix Due to Milk Protein
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID(R) Trail Mix Sweet & Salty flavor is being voluntarily
recalled by ConAgra Foods of Omaha, Nebraska, due to the presence
of an ingredient in the trail mix that contains milk protein,
which is not declared on the packaging.

The finished product is made for ConAgra Foods by a third party
supplier who is conducting a separate recall for similar, impacted
products.

This food is a concern for people who are allergic to milk. People
who have allergies to milk run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume the product. ConAgra
Foods was made aware of this issue through a consumer contact.
ConAgra Foods is aware of one consumer allergic reaction
associated with consumption of this product.

ConAgra Foods is advising consumers who have purchased this item
to discard it or return it to the store where originally
purchased.

This recall includes the following DAVID Trail Mix Sweet & Salty
products sold as part of multi variety packages that also contain
DAVID Trail Mix Classic. DAVID Trail Mix Classic is not impacted
by this recall.

The DAVID Trail Mix Sweet & Salty UPC is: 26200 23885, 5oz.
bags/149g.

The product was shipped to retail food stores and distributors in
the U.S. and Mexico. ConAgra Foods is working with retail
customers and distributors to ensure the packages are removed from
store shelves.

This recall is limited to DAVID Trail Mix Sweet & Salty flavor
only and does not impact other flavors of DAVID Trail Mix or any
DAVID Seeds products.

Consumers with questions should call our Consumer Affairs hotline
at: (800) 881-3989, open 24 hours a day/7 days a week.

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


COUPONS.COM INC: Defendants Filed Demurrer to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Coupons.com Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that defendants have filed a
demurrer to the consolidated class action complaint.

The Company said, "On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed against us, the members of our board of
directors, certain of our executive officers and the underwriters
of our IPO: Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. CGC-15-
544654 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County). The
complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class
of persons and entities who purchased stock pursuant or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus for our IPO."

"Plaintiff Nguyen requested and obtained a dismissal without
prejudice of his San Francisco action and filed another complaint
with substantially the same allegations in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court, Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-
CV-278777 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar.
30, 2015). Three other complaints with substantially the same
allegations have also been filed: O'Donnell v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278399 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Mar. 20, 2015); So v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278774 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015); and Silverberg v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278891 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Apr. 2, 2015).

"On May 7, 2015, the Santa Clara court consolidated the Nguyen, So
and Silverberg actions with the O'Donnell action. On July 23,
2015, defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint.

"We intend to defend this litigation vigorously. Based on
information currently available, we believe that the potential for
liability for the above claims is remote."


CRAZY MULLETS: Faces "Lloyd" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Lloyd and all others similarly situated v. Crazy Mullets-
Coventry, LLC and Crazy Mullets Westside LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02146-DAP (N.D. Ohio, October 16, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate beauty salons in Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
      VOUDRIS LAW LLC
      8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
      Telephone: (440) 543-0670
      Facsimile: (440) 543-0721
      E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Entered Into MOU with Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that Spansion
and Cypress entered into a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "After our announcement of the Merger in
December 2014, two separate putative class action complaints
(Walter Jeter v. Spansion Inc., et al. (No. 114CV274635) and Shiva
Y. Stein v. Spansion Inc., el. al. (No. 114CV274924)) were filed
in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleging claims of breach of
fiduciary duty against the Spansion's board of directors and
naming Cypress as a defendant for aiding and abetting the alleged
breach of fiduciary duty. While Cypress believes these lawsuits to
be meritless, Spansion and Cypress entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs, the terms of which required
additional disclosures by the Company and payment of nominal
attorneys' fees to the class counsel. Final resolution of these
litigations will require court approval of a final settlement
agreement."

On March 12, 2015, the Company completed the merger with Spansion,
Inc. ("Spansion"), a leading designer, manufacturer and developer
of embedded systems semiconductors, for a total purchase
consideration of approximately $2.8 billion ("the Merger").


DARA BIOSCIENCES: "Schnipper" Class Action Filed
------------------------------------------------
Dara Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative class action
suit entitled Schnipper v. Drutz, et al., was filed on June 23,
2015, by a shareholder in the Chancery Court for the State of
Delaware naming the Company as a defendant along with the
Company's individual directors, Midatech, and two subsidiaries of
Midatech that were formed in contemplation of the proposed merger
between the Company and Midatech.  Two additional suits entitled
Quinn v. DaraBiosciences, Inc., and Edwards v. Drutz, have also
been filed in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware and one
additional suit was filed in the Superior Court in Wake County
North Carolina (Jacob Presson v. DARA BioSciences, Inc. et al.,
filed on July 27, 2015).

The suits allege, among other things, that the Company and its
directors violated certain fiduciary duties owing to its
shareholders by entering into the Merger Agreement and that
Midatech aided and abetted such actions.  The Company has notified
its directors' & officers' insurance underwriters which, if they
determine the claim is covered, will be responsible for costs of
defense over a defined self-insured retention along with any
damages that may ultimately be awarded.  The Company believes that
the plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.


DEL MONTELL: Sue Over Failure to Pay Technicians Minimum Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ramiro Fernandez, individually and on behalf of the general public
and all aggrieved employees v. Del Montell Motors, Ltd. and Does 1
through 50, Case No. BC597588 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 15, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Technicians
the applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked.

Del Montell Motors, Ltd. operates automotive dealerships in Santa
Monica, California in Los Angeles County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Parker, Esq.
      M.R. PARKER LAW, PC
      21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 2080
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 334-5711
      E-mail: Miehael@mrparkerlaw.com

         - and -

      Gabriel Sepulveda-Sanchez, Esq.
      SEPULVEDA SANCHEZ LAW GROUP
      3320 West Victory Boulevard
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (213) 426-1051
      E-mail: Gabriel@sepulvedalawgroup.com


DOWNING LABS: Recalls Sterile Products Due to Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Downing Labs, LLC ("Downing Labs") is voluntarily recalling all
lots of sterile products compounded and packaged by Downing Labs
and that remain within expiry due to concerns over sterility
assurance. The products were distributed nationwide and in the UK
to patients and providers between April 20, 2015 and September 15,
2015. The recall does not pertain to any non-sterile compounded
medications prepared by Downing Labs.

If there is a contamination in products intended to be sterile,
patients are at risk of serious infections which may be life
threatening. There have been no consumer complaints or reports of
any issues with the recalled products to date. Downing Labs takes
this measure voluntarily and solely out of an abundance of caution
because Downing Labs takes the utmost care to ensure patient
safety. Thus, Downing Labs is asking all patients and providers
that received sterile compounded products from Downing Labs
between April 20, 2015 and September 15, 2015 that remain within
expiry to take the following actions:

Discontinue use of the products;
Set aside any unused product until further instructions are
received on how to return the product; and
Contact Downing Labs at 800-914-7435 from the hours of 8:30AM-
5:00PM central time Monday-Friday, or e-mail at
pharmacist@downinglabs.com to discuss the return of any unused
sterile compounded products.

Customers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking
or using this drug product. Providers who have dispensed any
sterile product distributed by Downing Labs to a patient(s) for
use outside of the provider's office should contact the patient(s)
to whom product was dispensed and advise the patient(s) of this
recall.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
these products may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the FDA.

Again, no consumer complaints have been received. Downing Labs'
primary concern is your safety and thus Downing Labs is taking
this action out of an abundance of caution. Thank you for your
continued support.


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Suit Asserting Deceptive Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aissa Khirani, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08193-SAS
(S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2015) seeks declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief on behalf of all Players victimized by DraftKings'
cynical and deceptive business practices, which promises that when
the Player signs up, he will "automatically get" the additional
matching deposit.

DraftKings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates an online
fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000
      E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com

         - and -

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


DUNGENESS SEAWORKS: Recalls Canned Albacore Tuna
------------------------------------------------
Dungeness Seaworks of Sequim, Washington is voluntarily recalling
ONLY canned albacore tuna with any code starting with "OC" because
it has the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium
botulinum, a bacterium that can cause life-threatening illness or
death.  Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it
does not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms:  general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing.  Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

There have been no reported cases of illness to date.

Products were distributed to Nash's Farm Store, Sunny Farms, and
Nourish Sequim in Sequim, WA; Agnew Grocery and Feed in Agnew, WA;
Abundantly Green in Poulsbo, WA; and sold at Farmer's Markets in
Poulsbo, WA and in Port Angeles, WA. The last date of distribution
of recalled products is September 2015.

Affected production codes include any codes starting with "OC".
The code can be found on either the bottom or on top of the can.
Products are packaged in metal cans with 6 ounce net weight cans.

  Product Name         UPC        Brand
  ------------         ---        -----
  Albacore Tuna        No UPC     Dungeness Seaworks
  Albacore Tuna        No UPC     Dungeness Seaworks
  Garlic
  Albacore Tuna        No UPC     Dungeness Seaworks
  Jalepeno
  Albacore Tuna        No UPC     Dungeness Seaworks
  Olive Oil
  Albacore Tuna        No UPC     Dungeness Seaworks
  Hickory Smoke

The Dungeness Seaworks products were made by Skipanon Brand
Seafoods LLC and this voluntary recall was initiated after we were
notified that that our products were possibly under- processed.
The problem was discovered during an inspection at Skipanon Brand
Seafoods LLC by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Consumers who have purchased cans of tuna are urged to return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund.

If you have any questions, call DUNGENESS SEAWORKS at 360-683-2898
or 360-460-7048 between the hours of 8:00am PST and 5:00pm PST,
Monday-Friday or send e-mail to stjude4@olypen.com

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Hp8kno


ECM ENERGY: "Mayhew" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Mayhew, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. ECM Energy Services Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02025-MWB
(M.D. Penn., October 16, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

ECM Energy Services Inc. provides various services at natural gas
drilling sites within Pennsylvania and beyond.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491


EINHORN: Faces Suit Over Condom Packaging Claim
-----------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a German condom manufacturer has
run into legal trouble with a claim that a packet of seven of its
products "corresponds to up to 21 orgasms."

Berlin company Einhorn asked a state court in Duesseldorf on
Oct. 27 to overturn an injunction obtained by a German rival, Fair
Squared, barring it from using the claim on packaging.

Lawyers for Einhorn argued that the slogan was obviously a joke
but judges indicated they weren't minded to budge, news agency dpa
reported.

Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann said the slogan is
"suited to deception" and could tempt people to use the condoms
several times.  She said "that is why we banned this."

Judge Brueckner-Hofmann said condoms are medical products and
their packaging subject to "particularly strict requirements."

The court will announce its decision on Nov. 26.


ETHEREAL CONFECTIONS: Recalls Inclusion Bars & Mendiants
--------------------------------------------------------
Ethereal Confections of Woodstock, IL is recalling all Inclusion
Bars & Mendiants with expiration dates of 10/22/2015 through
04/15/2016 and all Meltaway Bars & Meltaways with expiration dates
of 10/22/2015 through 01/15/2016, because they may contain
undeclared amounts of milk. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or lifethreatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

Product was distributed by Ethereal Confections to retail stores
throughout the United States, sold at Ethereal Confections in
Woodstock, IL, and sold online at www.etherealconfections.com.
Product was distributed from 4/22/2015 through 10/15/2015.

Here is a complete list of the affected products and their
respective UPCs:











  SKU     UPC           Description     Exp Start     Exp End
  ---     ---           -----------     Date          Date
                                        ---------     -------
  CB1021  857234003006  Inclusion Bar-  10/21/2015    4/15/2016
                        Macadamia Nuts
                        + Raspberries
                        + Kaffir Lime
  CB1022  857234003013  Inclusion Bar-  10/21/2015    4/15/2016
                        Pistachios
                        + Cranberries
                        + Sea Salt
  CB1023  857234003020  Inclusion Bar-  10/21/2015    4/15/2016
                        Candied Ginger
                        + Candied Orange
                        Peel + Coriander
  CB1024  857234003051  Inclusion Bar-  10/21/2015    4/15/2016
                        Strawberries +
                        Rose Petals +
                        Pink Peppercorns
  CB1025  857234003037  Inclusion Bar-  10/21/2015    4/15/2016
                        Blueberries+
                        Cherries +
                        Blackberries
  CB1026  857234003068  Inclusion Bar-  10/21/2015    4/15/2016
                        Cherries +
                        Cocoa Nibs +
                        Cayenne
  CB1027  857234003310  Inclusion Bar-   10/21/2015   4/15/2016
                        Strawberries +
                        Mangoes +
                        Chiles
  CB1028  857234003327  Inclusion Bar-   10/21/2015   4/15/2016
                        Espresso +
                        Cherries +
                        Hazelnuts
  CB1029  857234003358  Inclusion Bar-   10/21/2015   4/15/2016
                        Scorpion Pepper
                        + Bourbon +
                        Smoked Sea Salt
                        + Caramel Pecans
  CB1030  857234003334  Inclusion Bar-   10/21/2015   4/15/2016
                        Cocao Nibs +
                        Caramel Almonds
                        + Sea Salt
  MB1021  857234003280  Meltaway Bar-    10/21/2015   1/15/2016
                        Black Cherry
                        Lemonade
  MB1022  857234003280  Meltaway Bar-    10/21/2015   1/15/2016
                        Black Cherry
                        Lemonade
  MB1023  857234003273  Meltaway Bar-    10/21/2015   1/15/2016
                        Blood Orange &
                        Vanilla Bean
  MB1024  857234003303  Meltaway Bar-   10/21/2015   1/15/2016
                        French Vanilla &
                        Salted Almond
  MDOACH  857234003266  Mendiant -       10/21/2015   4/15/2016
                        Orange, Apricot
                        & Carmelized
                        Hazelnut
  MDPRC   857234003259  Mendiant -       10/21/2015   4/15/2016
                        Pistachio, Rose
                        Petal & Candied
                        Ginger
  ML1031  857234003112  Meltaways -      10/21/2015   1/15/2016
                        - 3 Piece
                        Peppermint
                        Meltaways
  ML1032  857234003136  Meltaways -      10/21/2015   1/15/2016
                        3 Piece Vanilla
                        Sea Salt
                        Meltaways
  ML1033  857234003105  Meltaways -      10/21/2015   1/15/2016
                        3 Piece Blood
                        Orange Meltaways
  ML1034  857234003082  Meltaways -      10/21/2015   1/15/2016
                        Piece Tahitian
                        Vanilla Lemon
                        Meltaways
  ML1035  857234003129  Meltaways -      10/21/2015   1/15/2016
                        Piece Meltaways
                        Assorted

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

The recall was initiated due to FDA testing that found the
presence of milk. The product, labeled as "dairy free", contains
levels of milk protein that can elicit lifethreatening reactions
in milk-allergic individuals.

Consumers and wholesale customers who have purchased product from
Ethereal Confections meeting the above criteria are urged to
contact Ethereal Confections at 8156870320 or email
orders@etherealconfections.com.

Please contact Ethereal Confections 7 days a week between the
hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm, Central Time Zone.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/aI27KD


EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Emerson Files class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Scott, LLP on Oct. 23 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central
District of California, Southern Division, Michael G. Brautigam v.
Experian Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 8:15-cv-01616-JLS-JCG,
on behalf of 15 million or more T-Mobile customers whose personal
and financial information was compromised while in the possession
of Experian during the period from at least September 1, 2013
through and including September 15, 2015

The hackers stole the personal information and personal financial
information of T-Mobile customers whose information was used to
either apply for services or finance the purchase of new devices
from T-Mobile.  The personal and financial information obtained by
the hackers includes names, addresses, social security numbers,
dates of birth, and various other personal identification numbers
including passport, driver's license, and/or military
identification numbers.

Experian operates as an information services company that provides
data and analytical tools to its customers around the world
through several business lines including credit services, decision
analytics, marketing services, and consumer services. As part of
its business, and as touted in its annual report, Experian
"hold[s] and securely manage[s] incredibly powerful, high-quality
data" that "come[s] from many unique data sources [and includes]
consumer and business credit, utilities, insurance, rental,
healthcare payments and automotive data."

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all T-Mobile
customers whose personal and financial information was
compromised.  The plaintiff is represented by the Houston-based
firm of Emerson Scott, LLP with offices in Houston, Texas and
Little Rock, Arkansas, and represents consumers throughout the
nation.  Emerson Scott, LLP and its predecessor firms have devoted
their practice to complex commercial litigation for more than
thirty years and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars
for consumers in class actions throughout the United States. If
you started service with T-Mobile during the time period or if you
upgraded your equipment and service and believe that your personal
and financial information may have been hacked then please contact
us immediately to protect your rights.  It makes no difference
what state you reside in.

IMPORTANT: If you received a letter from Experian informing you
that your personal information has been compromised by this data
breach, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Emerson Scott, LLP, at
the following toll-free number: 800-663-9817, or via e-mail to
John G. Emerson -- jemerson@emersonfirm.com -- or David G. Scott
-- dscott@emersonfirm.com

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Emerson Scott, LLP.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 23 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Extreme Networks, Inc. common stock during the period between
November 4, 2013 and April 9, 2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Oct. 23.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/extremenetworks/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Extreme Networks and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Extreme Networks develops and sells network infrastructure
equipment and offers related services contracts for extended
warranty and maintenance.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and/or misleading statements and/or omitted adverse
information concerning Extreme Networks' current financial
condition and outlook for fiscal 2015, including, among other
things, that the Company's revenue growth depended on the
successful integration of Enterasys Networks, Inc., which Extreme
Networks had acquired in 2013 but had not successfully integrated,
which materially impaired the Company's ability to address
persisting sales problems.  In addition, Extreme Networks had
begun an alliance with Lenovo, but during the Class Period
defendants did not have sufficient visibility into Lenovo's server
business plans to support the Company's quarterly and fiscal 2015
financial forecasts.  As a result of these misrepresentations
and/or omissions, Extreme Networks' stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $8.14
per share in intraday trading on January 23, 2014.

Then on April 9, 2015, after the markets closed, Extreme Networks
preannounced that it would miss guidance for the third quarter of
2015, reporting revenue of $118-$120 million and earnings per
share of ($0.09)-($0.07), significantly below prior guidance of
$130-$140 million and ($0.03)-$0.02, respectively.  The Company
also announced that trading in its shares had been halted and that
Jeff White, the Company's Chief Revenue Officer, who had been
hired only six months earlier to manage the integration of the
Extreme Networks and Enterasys salesforces, was "no longer with
the Company."  On these disclosures, the Company's stock price
fell almost 25%, from $3.24 per share to $2.50 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Extreme Networks common stock during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S.
and international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many
of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and
was ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholder
class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.


FIRST MERCHANTS: Faces "Stein" Class Action
-------------------------------------------
First Merchants Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a purported
shareholder of Ameriana Bancorp filed on July 8, 2015, a putative
class action lawsuit captioned Shiva Stein, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated vs. Ameriana Bancorp et al.,
Cause No. 49D10-1507-PL-022566 in Marion County, Indiana Superior
Court 10 against Ameriana Bancorp, its board of directors and
First Merchants Corporation. Plaintiff's complaint alleges breach
of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary
duty regarding the proposed merger of Ameriana into First
Merchants. The plaintiff seeks (1) class certification, (2) to
enjoin the merger, (3) compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, and (4) an accounting of unspecified damages, and costs,
disbursements and professional fees.

At this early stage of the litigation, it is not possible to
assess the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably
estimate any potential financial impact of the lawsuit on First
Merchants. The defendants believe the claims against them are
without merit and intend to contest the matter vigorously.


FLOWERS FOODS: 7 Suits Filed Alleging Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. is facing seven complaints alleging
misclassification claims, the Company revealed in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
13, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 18, 2015.

On September 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte
Division) by Scott Rehberg, Willard Allen Riley and Mario
Ronchetti against the company and its subsidiary, Flowers Baking
Company of Jamestown, LLC.  Plaintiffs are or were distributors of
the Company's Jamestown subsidiary who contend they were
misclassified as independent contractors. The action sought class
certification on behalf of a class comprised of independent
distributors of our Jamestown subsidiary who are classified as
independent contractors. In March 2013, the court conditionally
certified the class action for claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). On March 23, 2015, the court re-affirmed
its FLSA certification decision and also certified claims under
state law.

At this time, the company is also aware of six other complaints
alleging misclassification claims that have been filed. The
company and/or its respective subsidiaries are vigorously
defending these lawsuits. Given the stage of the complaints and
the claims and issues presented, the company cannot reasonably
estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may arise from the unresolved lawsuits.


FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Bank Participating in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Financial Services Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of Chambersburg (the Bank) is
currently participating in a class-action lawsuit against one
PLMBS servicer that centers on defective warranties and
representations made as part of the underwriting process.


GENERAL MOTORS: Class Action Over Unpaid Religious Day Off Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that General Motors
Co. has won dismissal of a class action lawsuit by two employees
in Texas who say the top U.S. automaker violated federal law in
denying them unpaid time off on religious holy days.

U.S. District Judge Terry Means in Fort Worth, Texas on Oct. 21
said James Robinson III, a Seventh-day Sabbatarian, and Chris
Scruggs, a Messianic Jew, failed to show they could adequately
represent a proposed class of every GM employee who could
potentially request an unpaid religious day off.

"Determining individual class members would require the court to
wade through thousands of leave requests and evaluate . . .
whether the request was based on religion," Means wrote.

The judge, however, gave the GM workers a chance to file an
amended lawsuit that makes more specific claims.

Robert Wiley, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said on Oct. 22 that
he would likely tweak the lawsuit to propose a class of GM workers
who were actually denied days off.

"The law is very clear that workers are entitled to religious
leave if it's not going to cost the company anything," he said.

GM did not immediately return a request for comment.

Robinson and Scruggs, both electricians at the Texas plant, said
in the March lawsuit that they had taken off holy days without pay
for several years, but that allowance ceased in 2013.

GM failed to see if volunteers were available to cover the men's
shifts and the cost of allowing them to take unpaid leave was
minimal, according to the lawsuit.  The men said they experienced
"stress, humiliation, frustration, sadness and embarrassment" and
were made to "feel inferior and different because of their
beliefs."

The case is Robinson v. General Motors Co, U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, No. 4:15-cv-0158.


GREAT-WEST LIFE: Decision on Class Cert. Bid Expected Next Year
---------------------------------------------------------------
Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
13, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company has been named as a defendant in a potential class action
lawsuit that relates to its Key Guaranteed Portfolio Fund.  A
decision on whether the case should proceed as a class is not
expected until next year. The Company is defending this lawsuit,
and due to the early nature of the proceedings, the Company is
unable to estimate a possible range of loss.


HALYARD HEALTH: Assumed Defense of "Shahinian" Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, Inc. has an indemnification obligation for, and
assumed the defense of, the matter styled Shahinian, et al. v.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D.
Cal.), filed on October 29, 2014, Halyard revealed in its Form 10-
Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative nationwide class
action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), negligent
misrepresentation, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law in connection with Halyard's marketing and sale of
MicroCool surgical gowns.

"On February 6, 2015, we moved to dismiss the complaint on
multiple grounds," Halyard said.  On July 10, 2015, the Court
issued an order on the motion to dismiss, dismissing the negligent
misrepresentation claim but permitting the remaining claims to
stand and proceed to discovery.

"At this stage of the proceedings, we are not able to estimate any
range of potential loss. We intend to continue our vigorous
defense of the matter," Halyard said.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Defendants Filed Bid for Rehearing En Banc
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form 10-
Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
the defendants in the Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation have filed a motion for a rehearing en banc
before the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against
Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September
24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg,
Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common
stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during
the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the
reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed,
the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff
class significant losses.

"On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages
and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock
between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in
the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the
allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original
Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

"On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period
through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the
violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts,
production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The
amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the
first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

"On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That
same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement
System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law
firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead
counsel.

"On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

"On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed
to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal
navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated
Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial condition
became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined
significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class.

"On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.

"On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.) was
reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras while Patrick Russell v.
Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. remained
before Judge Richard W. Roberts.

"On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on
defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on
September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on
defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the Court
granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re
Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The
Lead Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit and, on June 23, 2015, the
district court's ruling was reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. On July 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for a
rehearing en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals."


HCSB FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Shelley" Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the appeal in the class
action filed by Robert Shelley remains pending.

On July 19, 2012, Robert Shelley, in his individual capacity and
on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons,
filed a lawsuit against the Company and the Bank in the Court of
Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, State of South
Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2012-CP-26-5546. The complaint
alleges that the plaintiff and other similarly situated persons
were contacted by employees of the Bank, that those employees
solicited a sale of Bank stock, and that the Bank employees did
not disclose material information about the Bank's financial
condition prior to their respective purchases of stock. The
complaint seeks the certification of a class action to include all
purchasers of Bank stock solicited between July 1, 2009 and
December 31, 2011. The plaintiff has asserted violations of the
South Carolina Uniform Securities Act, negligence and civil
conspiracy, and seeks actual, punitive and treble damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company and the Bank made a motion
for summary judgment in March 2014, which the court granted on
April 8, 2014. Robert Shelley subsequently filed a motion to
reconsider, which was denied. Mr. Shelly subsequently filed a
notice of appeal with the South Carolina Court of Appeals. Both
parties have filed initial appeal briefs and it is expected this
matter will be heard in the fall or winter term of court at the
South Carolina Court of Appeals. The ultimate outcome is unknown
at this time and a reasonably possible loss cannot be estimated.


HEALTH-ADE: Faces "Hood" Suit in Cal. Over Product Mislabeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Hood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Health-Ade, LLC, Case No. 115-cv-286909 (Cal. Super.
Ct., October 15, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the consumers
who purchased kombucha, a fermented tea made with sugar and a
symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast, that were mislabeled by
the Defendant as soft drinks when in fact they contain significant
amounts of alcohol.

Health-Ade, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that
manufactures and sells the Kombuchas in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
      PRATT & ASSOCIATES
      1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
      San Jose, CA 95126
      Telephone: (408) 429-6506
      Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
      E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com


HEALTH-ADE: Faces "Samet" Suit in Ct. Over Product Mislabeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Samet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Health-Ade, LLC, Case No. 115-cv-286907 (Cal. Super.
Ct., October 16, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the consumers
who purchased kombucha, a fermented tea made with sugar and a
symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast, that were mislabeled by
the Defendant as soft drinks when in fact they contain significant
amounts of alcohol.

Health-Ade, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that
manufactures and sells the Kombuchas in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
      PRATT & ASSOCIATES
      1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
      San Jose, CA 95126
      Telephone: (408) 429-6506
      Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
      E-mail: pgore@prattattomeys.com

         - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street NE
      Washington DC 20003
      Telephone: 202.789.3960
      E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      Benjamin D. Elga, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1 012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: 202.789.3960
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com
              bclga@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth Tipping, Esq.
      Charles Barrett, Esq.
      NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
      One Nashville Place
      Suite 2000
      150 Fourth Avenue North
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-1713
      E-mail: etipping@nealharwell.eom
              cbarrett@nealharwcll.com


HEALTH PLUS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Bijoux" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luc Bijoux, et al. v. Health Plus Prepaid Health Services Inc.,
d/b/a Health Plus, and OHP PHSP, Inc., f/k/a Health Plus Prepaid
Health Services Inc., d/b/a Health Plus, Case No. 512562/2015
(N.Y. Super. Ct., October 15, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages work in excess of 40
hours per workweek.

The Defendants operate an insurance company throughout the United
States, including New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Troy L. Kessler
      Marijana Matura
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100

         - and -

      Rachel Bien, Esq.
      Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000


HEALTHWAYS INC: Plaintiff in Illinois Case Joined in Calif. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Healthways, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the plaintiff in the
Illinois case has been joined as a party in the California matter.

On September 16, 2014, Healthways and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Healthways WholeHealth Networks, Inc. ("HWHN"), were named in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Edward Simon, DC in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, seeking
damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act ("JFPA"), in connection with faxes allegedly
transmitted to members of HWHN's network of complementary and
alternative care practitioners. The JFPA prohibits sending an
"unsolicited advertisement" to a fax machine and requires the
sender to provide a notice to allow a recipient to "opt out" of
future fax transmissions (including, pursuant to rules promulgated
by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), those sent with
the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient). The
complaint seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The case has been
removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Eastern Division ("California Matter").

On December 22, 2014, HWHN was also named in a putative class
action lawsuit filed by Affiliated Health Care Associates, P.C. in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division ("Illinois Matter"), seeking damages
and other relief relating to alleged violations of the TCPA, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
Illinois common law in connection with faxes allegedly sent to
members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care
practitioners. The complaint seeks damages in an unstated amount.

"We deny the claims and intend to vigorously defend these actions.
On May 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the Illinois Matter voluntarily
dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice; that plaintiff has been
joined as a party in the California Matter," the Company said.


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Settlement in "Frater" Paid from Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that no Company
funds were used to pay the settlement in a class action, which was
paid from the Company's insurance coverage.

The case is, Stephanie A. Frater v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc.,
William A. Carter, David Strayer and Wayne Pambianchi, U.S.
District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No.
2:12-cv-07152-WY.

On December 21, 2012, a putative Federal Securities Class Action
Complaint was filed against the Company and three of its Officers
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. This action, Stephanie A. Frater v. Hemispherx
Biopharma, Inc., et al., was purportedly brought on behalf of a
putative class of Hemispherx investors who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between March 14, 2012 and December 17,
2012. The Complaint generally asserted that Defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the status of
the Company's New Drug Application for Ampligen(R), which had been
filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration, in
alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On March 14, 2013, the Court appointed Hemispherx Investor Group
as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4. Pursuant to
the Court's March 29, 2013 scheduling order, Lead Plaintiff filed
a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint") on May 20, 2013, and in its Amended Complaint, dropped
Thomas K. Equels and Charles T. Bernhardt as Defendants and added
David R. Strayer, M.D. and Wayne Pambianchi as Defendants. The
Amended Complaint alleges an expanded Class Period of March 14,
2012 to December 20, 2012, which period encompasses statements
made in the Company's 2011 Form 10-K filed on March 14, 2012, and
at the FDA Advisory Committee Meeting on December 20, 2012.

On July 19, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. Lead Plaintiff filed its brief in opposition to
Defendants' motion to dismiss is September 17, 2013, and
Defendants filed their reply brief on October 17, 2013.

On January 24, 2014, the court entered an order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and on
February 20, 2014, entered a scheduling order imposing, inter
alia, a March 31, 2015 deadline for completion of all fact
discovery. On February 25, 2014, defendants filed an answer and
affirmative defenses to the Amended Compliant. Also on February
25, 2014, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order, which
will govern all confidential documents produced in discovery.

After conducting significant fact discovery, the parties reached
an agreement in principle to settle all claims on December 31,
2014. However, the settlement is subject to the Court's issuance
of an order finally approving the terms of the parties' settlement
agreement in all material respects.

On March 11, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion with the Court
seeking an order, inter alia, granting preliminary approval of
their settlement agreement, preliminarily certifying a class for
settlement purposes, and setting a date for a final settlement
hearing. On April 8, 2015, the Court granted the parties' joint
motion, and entered an Order preliminarily approving the parties'
settlement, preliminarily certifying a class for settlement
purposes, directing issuance of notice, and scheduling the final
approval hearing for July 22, 2015. On July 22, 2015, the Court
held the the final approval hearing to determine whether the
parties' settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and should be
approved, and on the same date entered an Order granting final
approval of the parties' settlement. No Company funds were used to
pay the settlement, which was paid from the Company's insurance
coverage. The settlement did not contain any admission of fault or
wrongdoing by Hemispherx or any of the individual defendants.


HERSHEY COMPANY: 3rd Cir. Appeal in Class Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hershey Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action appeal
remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

In 2007, the Competition Bureau of Canada began an inquiry into
alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act in the sale and
supply of chocolate products sold in Canada between 2002 and 2008
by members of the confectionery industry, including Hershey
Canada, Inc. The U.S. Department of Justice also notified the
Company in 2007 that it had opened an inquiry, but has not
requested any information or documents.

Subsequently, 13 civil lawsuits were filed in Canada and 91 civil
lawsuits were filed in the United States against the Company. The
lawsuits were instituted on behalf of direct purchasers of our
products as well as indirect purchasers that purchase our products
for use or for resale. Several other chocolate and confectionery
companies were named as defendants in these lawsuits as they also
were the subject of investigations and/or inquiries by the
government entities referenced above. The cases sought recovery
for losses suffered as a result of alleged conspiracies in
restraint of trade in connection with the pricing practices of the
defendants.

The Canadian civil cases were settled in 2012. Hershey Canada,
Inc. reached a settlement agreement with the Competition Bureau of
Canada through their Leniency Program with regard to an inquiry
into alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act in the
sale and supply of chocolate products sold in Canada by members of
the confectionery industry.

On June 21, 2013, Hershey Canada, Inc. pleaded guilty to one count
of price fixing related to communications with competitors in
Canada in 2007 and paid a fine of approximately $4.0 million.
Hershey Canada, Inc. had promptly reported the conduct to the
Competition Bureau, cooperated fully with its investigation and
did not implement the planned price increase that was the subject
of the 2007 communications.

With regard to the U.S. lawsuits, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation assigned the cases to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "District
Court"). Plaintiffs sought actual and treble damages against the
Company and other defendants based on an alleged overcharge for
certain, or in some cases all, chocolate products sold in the U.S.
between December 2002 and December 2007, and certain plaintiff
groups alleged damages that extended beyond the alleged conspiracy
period. The lawsuits had been proceeding on different scheduling
tracks for different groups of plaintiffs.

On February 26, 2014, the District Court granted summary judgment
to the Company in the cases brought by the direct purchaser
plaintiffs that had not sought class certification as well as
those that had been certified as a class. The direct purchaser
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ("Third Circuit") in
May 2014. The appeal remains pending before the Third Circuit.

The remaining plaintiff groups -- the putative class plaintiffs
that purchased product indirectly for resale, the putative class
plaintiffs that purchased product indirectly for use, and direct
purchaser Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. -- dismissed their
cases with prejudice, subject to reinstatement if the Third
Circuit were to reverse the District Court's summary judgment
decision. The District Court entered judgment closing the case on
April 17, 2014.


HUBBELL INCORPORATED: Illegally Coerces Stockholders, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk County Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated v. Hubbell Incorporated, et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-01507 (D. Conn., October 16, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged attempt to coerce Class B Stockholders into
permitting a clear violation of the Company's Charter by proposing
a purportedly beneficial reclassification of the Company's stock
and the potential repurchase by the Company of $250 million in
common stock, but conditioning the reclassification and stock
repurchases on Class B Stockholders acquiescing to the payment of
a significant cash dividend to Class A Stockholders.

Hubbell Incorporated is primarily engaged in the design,
manufacture and sale of quality electrical and electronic products
for a broad range of non-residential and residential construction,
industrial and utility applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Slossberg, Esq.
      David C. Shufrin, Esq.
      HURWITZ, SAGARIN, SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
      147 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 112
      Milford, CT 06460
      Telephone: (203) 877-8000
      Facsimile: (203) 878-9800
      E-mail: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com
              DShufrin@hssklaw.com

         - and -

      Eric Zagar, Esq.
      Kristen Ross, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER CHECK LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      E-mail: ezagar@ktmc.com
              kross@ktmc.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Christine S. Azar, Esq.
      Ned Weinberger, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 573-2540


ICONIX BRAND: "Lazaro" and "Niksich" Class Actions Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that two securities class
actions, respectively captioned Lazaro v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc.
et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04981-PGG, and Niksich v. Iconix Brand
Group, Inc. et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860-PGG, are pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain former officers (each, a
"Class Action" and, together, the "Class Actions"). The plaintiffs
in the Class Actions purport to represent a class of purchasers of
the Company's securities from February 20, 2013 to April 17, 2015,
inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, by making allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding certain aspects of the Company's business
operations and prospects. The Company and the individual
defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims.


INGREDION INC: Bid to Sanction Squire Patton Tossed
---------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge has tossed a bid to sanction a group of sugar
companies for violating an order disqualifying their law firm,
Squire Patton Boggs, from a high-stakes case against the high-
fructose corn syrup industry that goes to trial in November.

Squire Patton Boggs was booted from the case earlier this year for
failing to disclose conflicts that arose following its 2014
merger.  Lawyers for two corn-refining companies that successfully
moved to disqualify Squire Patton Boggs alleged in a new sanctions
motion filed on Aug. 20 that one of the firm's former attorneys,
Daniel Callister, was still on the case as a "strategic adviser"
to the sugar companies.  They asked U.S. District Judge Consuelo
Marshall to disqualify Mr. Callister and sanction the sugar
companies by admonishing them, forcing them to pay $275,000 in
attorney fees or precluding them from pursuing certain claims in
the case.

At a hearing in Los Angeles on Oct. 13, Judge Marshall refused to
impose sanctions.  W. Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm in
Houston, who represents the sugar companies, said Judge Marshall
found the sanctions request to be irrelevant since the sugar
companies had agreed not to use Callister in the case. (In court
papers, the sugar companies had said they stopped working with
Callister on Aug. 10.)

The case goes to trial on Nov. 3.

"This case is still on track for trial," Mr. Lanier wrote in an
email.  "The jury will be able to assess critical evidence about
[high-fructose corn syrup] and the conduct of its marketers.  This
case may change the way food is made in America."

Michael Proctor of Los Angeles-based Caldwell Leslie & Proctor,
who represents the two corn refiners who brought the sanctions
motion, Ingredion Inc. and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas Inc.,
declined to comment.

Both corn refiners are among the members of the Corn Refiners
Association that were sued in 2011 by nine sugar companies and The
Sugar Association Inc., all originally represented by Squire
Sanders.  The sugar companies alleged the corn refiners misled
consumers in violation of federal trademark law through
advertisements touting high-fructose corn syrup as "natural" and
referring to it as "corn sugar" or no different nutritionally from
table sugar.

Ingredion and Tate & Lyle, which had been clients of Patton Boggs
prior to its merger, brought the original disqualification motion
claiming conflict of interest since the firm had continued to
represent one of them following its merger and had handled matters
for the other that were related to the case.  Judge Marshall
agreed and, on Feb. 13, disqualified the firm from the case.  Mr.
Lanier stepped in as lead counsel for the sugar companies.

In court papers, the sugar companies insisted that Mr. Callister
signed a separate engagement letter with them and that his role
was limited to helping them transition the case to Lanier's firm.
The sugar companies have repeatedly accused the corn refiners of
filing motions to delay trial.

At the Oct. 13 hearing, Judge Marshall also heard dozens of other
pretrial motions, including an attempt by the corn refiners to
prevent the sugar companies from introducing evidence about their
prominent Washington lobbyist and public relations consultant,
Richard Berman, referred to by "60 Minutes" as the "weapon of mass
destruction" for the "booze and food industries."


INNOVATIVE FOOD: No Deal Reach in Mediation of Drivers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation of a class action lawsuit filed by drivers did not
result in the resolution of the case, Innovative Food Holdings,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

On June 1, 2012, nine persons, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a Collective and Class Action Complaint
in the New York Federal District Court, Southern District, against
Late Night Express Courier Services, Inc. (FL) ("LNE") and The
Fresh Diet Inc. ("The Fresh Diet") and certain individuals
entitled Hernandez, et al. v. The Fresh Diet Inc., et al., Case
No. 12 CV 4339.  On or about October 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint ("Complaint") adding additional individual
Defendants.

The Complaint seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages on
behalf of drivers for LNE who delivered meals to The Fresh Diet
customers in the tri-state area.  In an opinion dated September
29, 2014 ("Opinion"), the District Court Judge denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for Summary Judgment which sought a holding
that all the Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants, as was
Defendants' cross-motion for Summary Judgment seeking a holding
that Plaintiffs were independent contractors, the Court finding
that there were questions of fact that could not be resolved on
motions.

In addition, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of 109
drivers was denied.  In the same Opinion, Defendants' motion to
decertify the case from 29 potential opt-in Plaintiffs down to the
9 named Plaintiffs was granted, and the possible claims of the
remaining 20 were dismissed without prejudice.

On or about February 24, 2015, a second action was filed in the
New York Federal District Court, Southern District, on behalf of 6
(of the 20) additional driver-Plaintiffs entitled Hernandez, et
al. v. The Fresh Diet Inc., et al. 15 CV 1338, containing
essentially the same allegations, and adding the Company as a
party defendant because of its acquisition of LNE.  In addition,
two of the Plaintiffs from the Complaint also joined the second
lawsuit asserting claims for retaliation.  The two cases were
assigned to the same Federal Judge (since they are related), but
were not consolidated for discovery or trial.

Prior to the second action and on January 21, 2015, the parties
appeared before Federal Magistrate Judge Cott for mediation.  The
Magistrate Judge did not succeed in settling the case.  On March
17, 2015, the Federal Judge stayed both cases, and referred both
of them to the Court's mediation program for further mediation
within 60 days.  The mediator did not succeed and the Company is
considering moving for summary judgment in the first action and
dismissal on the pleadings in the second action. With respect to
the second instituted litigation, inasmuch as the litigation is in
its early phase and discovery has not commenced it is too
speculative to predict an outcome.

"However, we believe we will have available to us many of the same
defenses as in the first litigation.  Accordingly, given the
uncertainty of both of these cases and given the additional
Plaintiffs in the second action, the Company has recorded a
contingent liability of $450,000 representing the estimated
potential amounts payable in the litigations, even though it is
possible that the amount of liability or settlement may actually
be less than the reserved amount," the Company said.


INSITE VISION: Defending Class Action Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------
Insite Vision Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is
defending a class action over merger.

The Company and QLT Inc. issued press releases announcing the
execution of the Merger Agreement on June 8, 2015. On June 17,
2015, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Speiser, et al. v.
Insite Vision, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. RG15774540, was
filed in California Superior Court for Alameda County, naming as
defendants the Company, all of its directors, QLT Inc. and Isotope
Acquisition Corp. On July 10, 2015, a second purported class
action entitled McKinley v. Ruane, et al., Civil Action No.
RG15777471, was filed in the same court, naming the same
defendants.

In both cases, the plaintiffs, who claim to be stockholders of the
Company, allege in their complaints that the Company's directors
breached fiduciary duties to the stockholders by agreeing to enter
into a merger transaction with QLT because the merger
consideration is inadequate and the process by which the
transaction was agreed to was flawed. The plaintiffs also allege
that QLT and Isotope aided and abetted the breaches of duty by the
Company's directors. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin consummation of
the transaction or, in the alternative, to recover unspecified
money damages, together with costs and attorneys' fees. Attorneys
for the plaintiffs in both cases have indicated that they will
seek to consolidate the cases into a single action. The cases are
currently at a preliminary stage; the defendants have not filed
responses to the complaints and no discovery has taken place. The
Company and its directors believe that the complaints are without
merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously.


JOSEPHSON'S SMOKEHOUSE: Recalls Canned Seafood Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Josephson's Smokehouse of Astoria, Oregon is voluntarily recalling
nine canned seafood products (salmon, sturgeon and tuna) it
received from Skipanon Brand Seafood of Warrenton, Oregon with any
codes starting with "OC" because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can
cause life-threatening illness or death, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration announced. Consumers are warned not to use the
product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision
and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.

The Josephson recall is affected by a voluntary recall initiated
by Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC following an FDA inspection that
turned up a lack of documentation and potentially under-processed
products.

All products were sold by Josephson's to consumers from our one
retail store located in Astoria and to mail order customers
through our webstore (www.josephsons.comdisclaimer icon) and
telephone orders.

All mail order sales were to individual customers and were not for
resale. Josephson's through their in-house invoicing and Yahoo
shopping webstore invoicing system has identified all recipients
of the recalled products. These recipients are being contacted by
email, telephone and mail with the recall information. In addition
the recall information is published on our website and is
displayed in placards in our retail store.

The last date of distribution of recalled products was September
2015. Affected production codes include any codes starting with
"OC". The code can be found on either the bottom or on top of the
can. Recalled products are packaged in metal cans with net weight
5.5 oz., 7.0 oz., and 7.5 oz.

Product Name                Net Weight            UPC
------------                ----------            ---
Smoked Garlic Pepper Salmon  5.5 oz. (156g)  6 49586 36165 7
Smoked Wine Maple Salmon     5.5 oz. (156g)  6 49586 36160 2
Smoked Chinook Salmon        7.0 oz. (199g)  6 49586 36100 8
Premium Chinook Salmon       7.5 oz. (213g)  6 49586 36180 0
Smoked Coho Salmon           7.0 oz. (199g)  6 49586 36200 5
Fancy Coho Salmon            7.5 oz. (213g)  6 49586 36250 0
Smoked Albacore Tuna         7.0 oz. (199g)  6 49586 36600 3
Fancy Albacore Tuna          7.5 oz. (213g)  6 49586 36650 8
Smoked Sturgeon              7.0 oz. (199g)  6 49586 36500 6

There have been no reported cases of illnesses associated with our
products to date.

Josephson's will replace returned cans with products that have
been produced at a different processor location. The recalled cans
for replacement can be brought to the retail store or mailed to
Josephson's Smokehouse; 106 Marine Drive; Astoria, Oregon 97103.

Consumers who have purchased recalled canned seafood products are
urged to destroy or return it to the firm for a replacement. If
you have any questions, please call Josephson's Smokehouse at
(503) 325-2190 between the hours of 9 am and 2 pm PST, Monday-
Friday.

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


KANAN ENTERPRISES: Recalls Candy Buttons Due to Milk Protein
------------------------------------------------------------
Kanan Enterprises announces the voluntary recall of multiple
products that contain candy buttons due to the presence of an
ingredient that contains milk protein, which is not declared on
the packaging. This candy button came from an outside ingredient
supplier. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk
run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products. Kanan Enterprises was made aware of
this issue through notification by a customer that we co-pack for.
Kanan Enterprises is aware of one consumer allergic reaction
associated with consumption of this product.


A list of affected products and code dates is listed below:

  Brand       Product    Size    Package    Date Code   UPC Code
  -----       -------    ----    -------    ---------   --------
  Better      Mountain   10 oz.  Stand Up   All date    0 79801-
  Valu        Mix                Pouch      codes       24706 8
  Favorites   Mountain    7 oz.  Stand Up   Date codes  0 38445-
              Mix  Pouch                    earlier     12280 3
                                            than Best
                                            Before
                                            06Aug2016
  Clear      Mountain     10 oz.  Stand Up  Date codes  0 36800-
  Value      Mix                  Pouch     earlier     36285 7
                                            than Best
                                            By 06May16
  King's     Mountain     25 lbs. Bulk Case All date    Item #
             Trail Mix                      codes       00440
  King's     Mountain     2 oz.   Pillow    All date    0 38445-
             Mix                  Bag       codes       00224 2
  King's     Mountain     28 oz.  Stand Up  All date    0 38445-
             Mix                  Pouch     codes       43431 9
  King's     Sweet &      25 lbs. Case      All date    Item
             Salty Mix                      Codes       #00389
  King's     Sweet &      16 oz.  Plastic   All date    0 38445-
             Salty Mix            Jar       codes       13192 8
  King's     Sweet &      6.5 oz. Pillow    Date codes  0 38445-
             Salty Mix            Bag       earlier     54309 7
                                            than Best
                                            By May 21,16
  King's     Sweet &      5 oz.   Pillow    Date codes  0 38445-
             Salty Mix            Bag       earlier     54309
                                            than Best
                                            By May 21 16    7
  King's     Penguin      17 oz.  Tin       All date    Item #
             Tin                            codes       7463017
             Mountain
             Trail Mix
  Speedy     Trail Mix    8 oz.  Stand Up   All date    0 52894-
  Choice     Salty &             Pouch      codes       12056 2
             Sweet
  Speedy     Trail Mix    2.75   Tube Bag   Date codes  0 52894-
  Choice     Salty &      oz.               earlier     12062 3
             Sweet                          than Best
                                            By 19 Aug
                                            2016
  Valu Time  Mountain Mix 10 oz. Stand Up   All date    0 11225-
                                 Pouch      codes       09157
  King's     Cashews &    14 oz. Stand Up   All date     0 38445-
             Sweeties            Pouch      codes        49999 8

Consumers with this reported product should not consume this
product. They should destroy it or return it to the point of
purchase. Consumers with questions should call 1-800-860-5464,
8:15 am - 5:00pm EST, Monday - Friday.


KAR'S NUTS: Recalls Sweet n Salty Mix Products
----------------------------------------------
Kar's Nuts, Inc. announces it has recalled a limited number of
packages of their Sweet n Salty Mix products with best by dates
between August 25, 2016 and September 2, 2016.

The recall is being initiated due to consumer reports of hard,
clear foreign material (approximately one half the size of a
sunflower kernel) being found in several packages. There are no
reports of injury.

All recalled product is being removed from store shelves.

Consumers who have purchased the product with the best by dates in
question can return it to its place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with any questions may contact the company at 800-527-
6887.

The list of specific items and their UPC codes will appear on the
company's website at karsnuts.com and also on the FDA website.

We value and appreciate the many consumers who purchase our
products on a daily basis and consider us a favorite. We are
committed to maintaining your trust and doing whatever it takes to
ensure that our snacks are safe and enjoyable.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/B4ccy5


KELLEY VENTURES: Faces "Salvarezza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel L. Salvarezza and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Kelley Ventures LLC d/b/a Kelley Collision
Center, Phoenix Motors, Inc., and Kevin P. Kelley, Case No. 1:15-
cv-23887-JLK (S.D. Fla., October 16, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an enterprise that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


KOHLL'S PHARMACY: Appellate Court Reverses Ruling in Junk Fax Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a class
action lawsuit regarding a company's use of unsolicited faxes as
an advertising tool is back where it began, after the Illinois
Supreme Court reversed an appellate court's ruling and agreed with
the initial ruling by the circuit court that a defendant cannot
render a motion for class action moot simply by settling with the
initial class representative.

In the case of Ballard RN Center, Inc. vs. Kohll's Pharmacy and
Homecare, Inc., a Cook County Circuit Court found Kohll's offer of
payment to Ballard after the suit was filed did not render the
class action moot.  The appellate court disagreed, finding
Ballard's motion for class action was little more than window
dressing.  On Oct. 22, the Supreme Court reversed that finding and
agreed with the circuit court.

According to court documents, in 2010, Ballard received an
unsolicited fax from Kohll's Pharmacy advertising flu shots.  The
companies did not have a prior business relationship, Ballard
said, and the lawsuit charged Kohll's with violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, violating the Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and committing common law
conversion of Ballard's printer ink and paper.  The suit seeks
actual and statutory damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

At the same time that it filed the lawsuit, Ballard filed a motion
for class certification.  The motion sought certification of three
separate classes -- those who received similar faxes from Kohll's
during or after 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Over the next two years, Kohll's tried three times to settle with
Ballard on the first count of the complaint. In 2012, Kohll's
filed a motion for summary judgment on that count, arguing that
under Barber v. American Airlines Inc., a class action is rendered
moot if the defendant offers to tender payment to the plaintiff
before the plaintiff files for class certification.  Though
Ballard had filed for certification at the time the initial
lawsuit was filed, Kohll's argued that the motion did not contain
enough detail or information on the classes and was only a "shell
motion."

The circuit court denied the motion for summary judgment, and
said, "Barber requires only that a motion for class certification
be filed.  It does not require that it meet any certain standard."

Meanwhile, Ballard filed an amended motion for class
certification, which Kohll's again argued still did not meet the
criteria for certification.  The circuit court granted the motion.
On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the class certification on
two of the counts, but agreed with Kohll's that on the first
count, Kohll's offers to settle rendered the certification moot.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court
in principle, that a "contentless 'shell' motion" would not
prevent an action from being rendered moot under Barber.  However,
the court wrote, in the case of Ballard v. Kohll's, the motion
contained enough content to be considered on its merits.

"Even assuming that plaintiff's motion for class certification was
insufficient . . . our decision in Barber did not hold that the
motion for class certification must be meritorious," the court
wrote.  "To the contrary, the focus of Barber is on the timing of
the plaintiff's filing a motion for class certification -- there
is no mention of the ultimate merits of that motion."

Had Kohll's tendered relief before the motion for class
certification was filed, the court ruled, the count would have
been made moot; once the motion was filed, however, there was no
way the defendant could get out from under it by making the single
plaintiff whole.

All three counts of Ballard's suit have now been granted class
action certification, and the case has been remanded back to the
circuit court.

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Thomas L. Kilbride authored the
opinion, and Chief Justice Rita B. Garman and justices Charles E.
Freeman, Robert R. Thomas, Lloyd A. Karmeier, Anne M. Burke and
Mary Jane Theis concurred.

Ballard is represented by the firm of Edelman Combs Latturner &
Goodwin, of Chicago.

Kohll's is represented by the firm of Konicek & Dillon, of Geneva.


KOTOBUKI MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigoberto Mejia and Alejandro Mejia, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Kotobuki Management, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05975-MKB-RER (E.D.N.Y., October 16,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Kotobuki Management, Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business,
with its principal place of business at 3 Russel Rd., Garden City,
New York 11530.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      Leonor Coyle, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              lcoyle@vandallp.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: LAUSD Sued Over Alleged Illegal Imprisonment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rafe Esquith, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Los Angeles Unified School District,
Ramon C. Cortines, Doe Superintendent, and Does 1 through 50, Case
No. BC597979 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 15, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' unconstitutional imprisonment of thousands of its own
teachers.

Los Angeles Unified School District is the largest public school
system in the state of California and consists of 1,124 schools,
31,748 teachers, and 655,494 students.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
      Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
      Zack V. Muljat
      GERAGOS & GERAGOS
      A Professional Corporation
      644 South Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
      Telephone: (213) 625-3900
      Facsimile:  (213) 232-3255
      E-mail: Geragos@Geragos.com


M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Against Mindspeed Stil Open
------------------------------------------------------------
M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. continues to defend
the class action suit involving Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., M/A-
COM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended July 3, 2015.

On March 10, 2015, Philip Alvarez, a former employee of Mindspeed
filed a putative class action lawsuit against Mindspeed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Orange. On April
24, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding our
subsidiary M/A-COM Technology Solutions Inc. as a defendant. The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Mr. Alvarez and certain
other employees who designed and manufactured hardware systems for
Mindspeed or MACOM Technology Solutions Inc. between March 10,
2011 and the present were misclassified as exempt employees under
California law. The lawsuit seeks recovery of alleged unpaid
overtime wages, meal and rest period premiums, penalties and
attorneys' fees.

"We dispute the allegations of the lawsuit," M/A-COM said.

On June 15, 2015, Mindspeed removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. The
lawsuit is currently in the early stages of litigation.

"We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously," M/A-COM said.


MADISON COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over FOID Service Charge
-----------------------------------------------------------
Madison Record reports that Wood River attorney Thomas Maag seeks
to represent a class of people who paid $1 more than state statute
allows when they applied for $10 firearm owner identification
cards (FOID).

Plaintiff Gary Patrick Sterr, also of Wood River, says he was
charged the extra buck on Oct. 6, as a convenience fee through the
Illinois E-pay program for processing applications online.

Mr. Maag filed the proposed class action in Madison County Circuit
Court on Oct. 15.

He names Jessica Trame in her capacity as Firearms Services Bureau
chief and Michael Frerichs (spelled Brerichs in the case title) as
Treasurer of Illinois.

Mr. Maag argues that statute 430 ILCS 65/5 expressly states that
the FOID fee is $10.

By charging an additional $1, Ms. Trame is unilaterally imposing
without statutory authority a 10 percent surcharge on FOID cards,
he claims.

He further claims it is impossible to get a FOID card without
paying the extra fee on top of the $10 mandatory cost (except for
certain members of the military who are exempt all together)
because the Firearms Services Bureau some time early this year
stopped accepting paper applications that allowed people to mail
$10 checks or money orders.

"Defendants have charged a minimum of ten thousand people, and
possibly substantially more, well into the hundreds of thousands
or millions of class members," Mr. Maag wrote.

In 2011, the state received 321,000 FOID applications, he wrote.

He notes that in order to lawfully possess a firearm in Illinois,
"it is generally required to have in a person's possession a
currently valid" FOID card.

Mr. Maag seeks to represent a class that includes anyone who
applied for a FOID card any time in 2015 and who paid a fee in
excess of $10.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 15-L-1337.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Defend "Owens" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company continues to defend the case,
Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed
April 17, 2014), the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

This putative class action lawsuit alleges that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's use of the Total Control Accounts as the
settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group
life insurance policies violates Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks
disgorgement of profits that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. The
court denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to defend this action
vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Defend "Robainas" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company continues to defend the case,
Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., December
16, 2014), the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 2009
through 2014 (the "Policies"). Two similar actions were
subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y.,
January 12, 2015) and International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both of these actions have been
consolidated with the Robainas action. The consolidated complaint
alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company inadequately
disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain
reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies
were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the
adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section
4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the
amount of the premiums paid for the Policies. MetLife intends to
defend this action vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Defend "Intoccia" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company continues to defend the case,
Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015);
and Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30,
2015), the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

Plaintiffs filed these putative class actions on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts
with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 2009 through 2015
(the "Annuities"). The complaints allege that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual
statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated
reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual
parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its
financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuits
seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of
a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for
Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to the Annuities.
MetLife intends to defend these actions vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Defend "Voshall" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company continues to defend the case,
Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015), the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and
April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living
adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


MGM RESORTS: Shareholder Litigation in Delaware Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has entered an
order providing for the dismissal of the shareholder litigation,
Adolf Stumpf and RoseMarie Stumpf as trustees for the Christine
Stumpf Trust v. MGM Resorts International, et al. (Case No. 10262,
filed October 21, 2014, Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware), and Pontiac General Employees Retirement System v.
Robert H. Baldwin, et al. (Case No. 10290, filed October 28, 2014,
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware).

These two actions were consolidated under the caption In re MGM
Resorts International Litigation (Case No. 10290) and the lead
plaintiffs designated the complaint in the Pontiac General action
as the operative complaint and agreed to a voluntary dismissal of
three directors named in the Stumpf complaint but not the Pontiac
General complaint - Mary Chris Gay, William W. Grounds and Gregory
M. Spierkel. The complaint named members of the Company's Board of
Directors and Bank of America as defendants.

Plaintiffs alleged that they were Company stockholders and that
they were acting on behalf of a class including all other Company
stockholders.  In the alternative, plaintiffs alleged their claims
derivatively on behalf of the Company.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by unjustifiably approving the Company's Amended
and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of December 20, 2012 (the
"Credit Agreement" or "Agreement"), which contained what
plaintiffs called a "Dead Hand Proxy Put" change of control
provision. Plaintiffs asserted that this provision permitted Bank
of America, as administrative agent under the Credit Agreement, to
declare a default, and accelerate payment of all outstanding debt
and interest thereunder, in the event of a change of control
(i.e., replacement of a majority of the directors by an actual or
threatened proxy fight or consent solicitation) under
circumstances specified in the Agreement.

Plaintiffs claimed that this provision had a coercive effect on
stockholder voting for change on the board of directors, and
entrenched the Company's incumbent directors. The complaint
further alleged that Bank of America aided and abetted the
defendant directors in their alleged breach of fiduciary duties.
The complaint sought a declaration that demand on the Board of
Directors to invalidate the challenged change of control provision
would have been futile, that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties, that Bank of America aided and abetted
this breach, and that the challenged change of control provision
is invalid, unenforceable, and severable; a permanent injunction
against enforcement of the challenged provision by Bank of
America; and attorneys' fees and other costs.

On April 28, 2015, the Company informed the Court that it had
reached agreement with Bank of America to remove the provision
challenged by plaintiffs from the Credit Agreement, and that
plaintiffs' lawsuit would be mooted once the amendment was
approved by a majority of the Company's lenders under the Credit
Agreement. On April 29, 2015, defendants answered the complaint,
denying all allegations of wrongdoing.

On May 4, 2015, the Company received approval from a majority of
its lenders and executed the amendment to the Credit Agreement.
The parties have agreed that the action is moot and the Company
has agreed to pay plaintiff's counsel $500,000 in attorneys' fees
and costs. The amount of this fee was determined by the parties
and was not passed upon by the Court.

On May 28, 2015, the Court entered an order providing for the
dismissal of the action following the publication of notice to the
Company's stockholders. Any inquiries regarding the dismissal of
this action may be directed to Joel Friedlander, plaintiffs'
counsel at Friedlander & Gorris, P.A. (302) 573-3500, Mark
Lebovitch, plaintiffs' counsel at Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP (212) 554-1400, Peter J. Walsh, the Company's counsel
at Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (302) 984-6000, or Stephen A.
Radin, the Company's counsel at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (212)
310-8000.


MGM RESORTS: Settlement in Securities Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the proposed settlement
in the MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation remains subject to the
satisfaction of various conditions, including negotiation and
execution of a final stipulation of settlement, notice to the
proposed class, and court approval.

In 2009 various shareholders filed six lawsuits in Nevada federal
and state court against the Company and various of its former and
current directors and officers alleging federal securities laws
violations and/or related breaches of fiduciary duties in
connection with statements allegedly made by the defendants during
the period August 2007 through the date of such lawsuit filings in
2009 (the "class period").

In general, the lawsuits assert the same or similar allegations,
including that during the relevant period defendants artificially
inflated the Company's common stock price by knowingly making
materially false and misleading statements and omissions to the
investing public about the Company's financial statements and
condition, operations, CityCenter, and the intrinsic value of the
Company's common stock; that these alleged misstatements and
omissions thereby enabled certain Company insiders to derive
personal profit from the sale of Company common stock to the
public; that defendants caused plaintiffs and other shareholders
to purchase Company common stock at artificially inflated prices;
and that defendants imprudently implemented a share repurchase
program to the detriment of the Company.

The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution
and disgorgement of alleged profits and/or attorneys' fees and
costs in amounts to be proven at trial, as well as injunctive
relief related to corporate governance. The state and federal
court derivative actions were dismissed pursuant to defendants'
motions. Only two of these lawsuits remain pending.

The lawsuits are:

In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-
GMN-LRL.  In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for Nevada
consolidated the Robert Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No.
2:09-cv-01558-RCL-LRL, filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur
Hovhannisyan v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH-
RJJ, filed October 19, 2009) putative class actions under the
caption "In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation." The cases name
the Company and certain former and current directors and officers
as defendants and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  After transfer of
the cases in 2010 to the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, the court
appointed several employee retirement benefits funds as co-lead
plaintiffs and their counsel as co-lead and co-liaison counsel.
In January 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, alleging that between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009,
the Company, its directors and certain of its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

In September 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Defendants answered the amended
complaint, the court entered a scheduling order and discovery is
proceeding. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in
November 2014.  Defendants filed their opposition to class
certification in February 2015. The court heard oral argument on
the class certification motion on April 21, 2015 and took the
matter under advisement. No trial date has been set in this case.

In July 2015 the lead plaintiffs and defendants agreed in
principle to settle the securities cases. Under the proposed
settlement, the claims against the Company and the named former
and current directors and officers will be dismissed with
prejudice and released in exchange for a $75 million cash payment
by the Company's directors and officers liability insurers. The
proposed settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of various
conditions, including negotiation and execution of a final
stipulation of settlement, notice to the proposed class, and court
approval.

"If these conditions are satisfied, the proposed settlement will
resolve all claims in these cases against the Company and the
individual defendants. In the event that we are unable to execute
a final settlement and obtain court approval, we and all other
defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in these securities cases," the Company said.


MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Faces "Samet" Suit Over Product Mislabeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Samet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Millennium Products, Inc., Case No. 115-cv-286908
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 16, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
the consumers who purchased kombucha, a fermented tea made with
sugar and a symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast, that were
mislabeled by the Defendant as soft drinks when in fact they
contain significant amounts of alcohol.

Millennium Products, Inc. is a California corporation. Its
principle place 27 of business is 4646 Hampton Street, Vernon,
California 90058. Millennium is the United States' largest
manufacturer of kombucha.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
      PRATT & ASSOCIATES
      1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
      San Jose, CA 95126
      Telephone: (408) 429-6506
      Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
      E-mail: pgore@prattattomeys.com


MISTRAS GROUP: Two Employee Class Suits Filed in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2015, that in April 2015, two separate
lawsuits were filed in California as purported class action
lawsuits on behalf of current and former Mistras employees. The
cases are David Kruger v Mistras Group, Inc., pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California and Edgar
Viceral v Mistras Group, et al, pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. Both cases were
originally filed in California state court and were removed to the
respective U.S. District Courts for the districts in which the
state court cases were filed. Both cases allege violations of
California statutes primarily from the California Labor Code; the
Viceral case also seeks to proceed as a collective action under
the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act.  Both cases are predicated on
claims for allegedly missed rest and meal periods, inaccurate wage
statements, and failure to pay all wages due, as well as related
unfair business practices. Both cases are requesting payment of
all damages, including unpaid wages, and various fines and
penalties available under California law. Both matters are in the
preliminary stages. Counsel for the plaintiffs in these cases have
notified the Company that they intend to dismiss the Kruger case
without prejudice and amend the complaint in the Viceral case to
include the plaintiffs in the Kruger case and add any claims in
the Kruger complaint that are not included in the Viceral
complaint. The Company is currently unable to determine the likely
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential
liability, if any, related to these matters, and accordingly, has
not established any reserves for these matters.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court to Hear Sunday Ticket Arguments on Dec. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Siegemund-Broka, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports
that on Dec. 3, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation will hear arguments for the consolidation of six
lawsuits over the NFL and DirecTV's "Sunday Ticket" into the
California lawsuit from the San Francisco bar The Mucky Duck.  The
same day, the panel will consider the consolidation of lawsuits in
Alabama, Texas, Missouri and two in California over the Ashley
Madison hack (and numerous lawsuits over the Volkswagen scandal).


NATIONAL WESTERN: Class Suit Pending Since June 2006 Now Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company resolved a class action lawsuit pending since June 12,
2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. The case is titled In Re National Western Life
Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation. The complaint asserted
claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder Abuse, Violation of
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq, Violation of Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and
Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Concealment, Cal.
Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and Imposition of Constructive
Trust.

On July 12, 2010 the Court certified a nationwide class of
policyholders under the RICO allegation and a California class
under all of the remaining causes of action except breach of
fiduciary duty. The parties entered into a Settlement and Release
Agreement in August of 2013 ("Settlement") which was finally
approved by the Court on February 11, 2014.

On February 12, 2014, the Court issued a redacted final approval
order granting the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement. The Settlement became final and non-appealable on
April 12, 2014. The Settlement Agreement and Plaintiffs' Request
for Attorneys' Fees and Costs were approved by the Court, and the
Company paid the Court-approved amount of attorneys' fees and
costs in April 2014. The Company also made certain payments to
surrendered and annuitized policyholders in June 2014.

In addition, the Company agreed to provide bonuses on
annuitization for active policyholders who choose a 10-year or a
20-year certain and life settlement option. The Company had held
reserves of $6.5 million for the matter which approximated the
ultimate settlement amounts.


NELNET INC: Illegally Debits Bank Accounts, "Sanders" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danyielle Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nelnet, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02164-MCE-KJN
(E.D. Cal., October 16, 2015) is an action for damages as a result
of the Defendant's alleged illegal action of debiting the
Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' bank accounts on
a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed
or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund
transfers from the Plaintiffs' and also the putative Class
members' accounts.

Nelnet, Inc. is a conglomerate headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NETFLIX: Faces Class Action over Lack of Song Subtitles
-------------------------------------------------------
Austin Siegemund-Broka, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports
that subtitles for dialogue in film and TV are standard stuff, but
what about song lyrics? Films from Guardians of the Galaxy (iconic
1970s soundtrack and all) to Rocky and shows including House of
Cards and Orange Is the New Black without song subtitles are the
subject of a proposed class action against Netflix and a group of
major studios.  Claiming violations of business practices laws and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, the nine plaintiffs look to
represent a class of millions in getting their money back for
films and TV shows without song subtitles.

Sony, Paramount and Warner Bros. declined comment.  THR has
requested comment from the other defendants.


NEWS CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Opposed Bid to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
News Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs have opposed
News America Marketing's petition for leave to appeal the class
action certification granted in the action brought by customers of
the NAM business.

On April 8, 2014, in connection with a pending action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
in which The Dial Corporation, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., H.J.
Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., Foster Poultry Farms,
Smithfield Foods, Inc., HP Hood LLC and BEF Foods, Inc. allege
various claims under federal and state antitrust law against News
Corporation, News America Incorporated ("NAI"), News America
Marketing FSI L.L.C. ("NAM FSI"), and News America Marketing In-
Store Services L.L.C. ("NAM In-Store Services" and, together with
News Corporation, NAI and NAM FSI, the "NAM Group"), plaintiffs
filed a fourth amended complaint on consent of the parties. The
fourth amended complaint asserts federal and state antitrust
claims both individually and on behalf of two putative classes in
connection with plaintiffs' purchase of in-store marketing
services and free-standing insert coupons. The complaint seeks
treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The NAM
Group answered the fourth amended complaint and asserted
counterclaims against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company,
H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and Foster Poultry Farms on April 21,
2014, and discovery is proceeding.

On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of a class of all persons residing in the United
States who purchased in-store marketing services on or after April
5, 2008, and have not purchased those services pursuant to
contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs did not,
however, move to certify a class of purchasers of free-standing
insert coupons. On June 18, 2015, the District Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on July 2, 2015,
the NAM Group filed a petition for leave to appeal the District
Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which plaintiffs have opposed.

While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree
of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the NAM Group
believes it has been compliant with applicable antitrust laws and
intends to defend itself vigorously.


NORTHWEST WILD: Expands Canned Seafood Product Recall
-----------------------------------------------------
This is an update by Northwest Wild Products of Astoria, Oregon of
a prior press release issued 10/19/15, relating to the recall of
canned seafood products.  The purpose of this updated press
release is to include three additional recalled products.
Consumers should disregard the previous press release.

Northwest Wild Products of Astoria, Oregon is voluntarily
recalling ALL canned black cod, salmon, sardines, steelhead,
sturgeon, tuna, and Razor clams with any codes starting with "OC"
because it has the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium
botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or
death.  Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it
does not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms:  general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing.  Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

All products were sold to consumers in Oregon from our retail
store and through mail order.The last date of distribution of
recalled products was September 2015.  Affected production codes
include any codes starting with "OC".  The code can be found on
either the bottom or on top of the can.  Recalled products are
packaged in metal cans with net weight 6.5 oz.

  Product Name           Net Weight      UPC        Label
  ------------           ----------      ---        -----
  Pacific Black Cod      6.5 oz.         None       NO
  Wild Columbia River    Custom Smoked   None       Y
  Coho Salmon-           6.5 oz.
  Wild Columbia River    6.5 oz.         None       NO
  Coho Salmon
  Columbia River         6.5 oz.         None       Y
  Chinook Salmon
  -Custom Smoked
  Columbia River         6.5 oz.         None       Y
  Chinook Salmon
  Wild Steelhead         6.5 oz.         None       Y
  Salmon - Custom
  Smoked
  Wild Steelhead         6.5 oz.         None       Y
  Salmon
  Oregon Sardines -      6.5 oz.         None       Y
  Mustard
  Oregon Sardines -      6.5 oz.         None       Y
  Spicy Tomato
  Wild Columbia River    6.5 oz.         None       Y
  Sturgeon - Custom
  Smoked
  Pacific White          6.5 oz.         None       Y
  Albacore Tuna -
  Custom Smoked
  Wild Northwest Razor   6.5 oz.         None       y
  Clams - Custom Smoked
  Wild Northwest Razor   6.5 oz.         None       y
  Clams
  Pacific Black Cod-     6.5 oz.         None       Y
  Custom Smoked
  Oregon Sardines -      6.5 oz.         None       Y
  Custom Smoked
  Pacific White          6.5 oz.         None       Y
  Albacore Tuna

There have been no reported cases of illnesses associated with our
products to date.

Northwest Wild Products canned seafood products were made by
Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC and this voluntary recall was
initiated after we were notified that that our products were
possibly under- processed. The problem was discovered during an
inspection at Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC by the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

Consumers who have purchased recalled canned seafood products are
urged to destroy or return it to the firm for a full refund.  If
you have any questions, please call Northwest Wild Products at
(503) 791-1907 between the hours of 9 am and 3 pm PST, Monday-
Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/mz62VY


NUCOR CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class-Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation continues to defend antitrust class-action
complaints against steel producers, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015.

Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a
co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints
filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The majority of these complaints were filed in September
and October of 2008, with two additional complaints being filed in
July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints have been
voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending.

The plaintiffs allege that from April 1, 2005, through December
31, 2007, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in
anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale
of steel. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief on behalf
of themselves and a putative class of all purchasers of steel
products from the defendants in the U.S. between April 1, 2005,
and December 31, 2007. Five of the eight defendants have reached
court approved settlements with the plaintiffs.

"Although we believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
will vigorously defend against them, we cannot at this time
predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate the range of
Nucor's potential exposure. Nucor has not recorded any reserves or
contingencies related to this legal matter."


OLEAN GENERAL: Insulin-Injected Patients' Class Action Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
class action status has been denied to plaintiffs who may have
been exposed to infections when receiving insulin injections
though used needles at a western New York hospital between
November 2009 and January 2013.

An Appellate Division, Fourth Department, panel ruled that none of
the plaintiffs developed blood-borne illnesses such as hepatitis
or HIV that can be traced to the injections.  Such proof of actual
exposure is one of the requisites to recovery as members of a
class under CPLR 901, the court said in an unsigned ruling in
Westfall v. Olean General Hospital, 14-01932.

If actual exposure is established, the panel added,
"individualized determinations with respect to each plaintiff"
would be required to make the case the victims allege for
negligence, malpractice and loss of consortium against Olean
General Hospital in Cattaraugus County.

The predominance of individualized factual questions about
patients' exposure make the case "unsuitable for class treatment,"
the Fourth Department panel concluded, citing Dimich v. Med-Pro,
Inc., 34 AD3d 329 (1st Dept. 2006).

Presiding Justice Henry Scudder and Justices Nancy Smith, Edward
Carni, Stephen Lindley and Brian DeJoseph joined in the ruling.

Michael Scinta, a partner at Brown Chiari in Lancaster,
represented the plaintiffs.

Sally Broad -- sbroad@gmclaw.com -- a partner at Gibson, McAskill
& Crosby in Buffalo, argued for the hospital.

In January 2013, Olean General notified 1,915 patients who had
received insulin at the hospital since November 2009 that they
faced a "very low" risk of having been exposed to blood-borne
infections due to the improper use of insulin pens on more than
one patient.


ONEIDA FINANCIAL: MOU Reached to Settle Merger Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oneida Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company, Community
Bank System, Inc., and the other defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with the Plaintiff, Second
Plaintiff and Third Plaintiff regarding the settlement of class
action lawsuits related to the merger between Oneida and Community
Bank.

On February 24, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement to be acquired by Community Bank System, Inc. for
approximately $142 million in Community Bank System, Inc. stock
and cash. The merger agreement has been unanimously approved by
the board of directors of both companies and the stockholders of
Oneida Financial Corp. The merger is expected to close in October
2015, subject to required regulatory approval.

Current Litigation Relating to the Merger

On March 3, 2015, Paul Parshall (the "Plaintiff") filed a
stockholder class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Oneida, against the Company, the directors
of the Company and Community Bank System, Inc. The lawsuit
purports to be brought on behalf of all of the Company's public
stockholders, excluding the directors of the Company. The
complaint alleges that the directors of the Company breached their
fiduciary duties to the stockholders by failing to take adequate
steps to ensure that the Company's stockholders receive adequate,
fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances and by
engineering the merger to the benefit of themselves and/or
Community Bank System, Inc. without regard to the Company's
stockholders. The complaint further alleges that Community Bank
System, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty by the Company's directors. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the
proposed merger from proceeding and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages on behalf of the Company's stockholders and/or rescission
of the proposed merger transaction.

On March 12, 2015, John Solak (the "Second Plaintiff") filed a
stockholder class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Oneida, against the Company, the directors
of the Company and Community Bank System, Inc. Similar to the
Plaintiff's lawsuit, the Second Plaintiff's lawsuit purports to be
brought on behalf of all of the Company's public stockholders,
excluding the directors of the Company. The complaint alleges that
the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to
the stockholders by failing to take adequate steps to ensure that
the Company's stockholders receive adequate, fair and maximum
consideration under the circumstances and by engineering the
merger to the benefit of themselves and/or Community Bank System,
Inc. without regard to the Company's stockholders. The complaint
further alleges that Community Bank System, Inc. aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors.
The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the
Company's stockholders and/or rescission of the proposed merger
transaction.

On March 13, 2015, the Company filed a complaint in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Madison, against FinPro,
Inc. ("FinPro"). The Company's complaint alleges that FinPro has
wrongfully demanded a $1.42 million services fee as a result of
the Company's entering into the merger even though FinPro has
provided no services in connection with the merger and has no
right, contractual or otherwise, to such a fee. As a result, the
Company is seeking declaratory judgment nullifying the improper
demand made by FinPro, and any purported agreement on which the
demand is allegedly based.

On April 24, 2015, Linda Colvin (the "Third Plaintiff") filed a
stockholder class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland, against the Company, the directors of
the Company and Community Bank System, Inc. Similar to the
lawsuits by the Plaintiff and the Second Plaintiff, the Third
Plaintiff's lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all of the
Company's public stockholders, excluding the directors of the
Company. The complaint alleges that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders by agreeing to
a merger transaction that fails to maximize shareholder value and
by putting their personal interests ahead of the interests of the
Company's stockholders. The complaint further alleges that
Community Bank System, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors. The lawsuit seeks to
enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages on behalf of the Company's stockholders
and/or rescission of the proposed merger transaction.

On June 9, 2015, the Company, Community Bank and the other
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
with the Plaintiff, Second Plaintiff and Third Plaintiff regarding
the settlement of the lawsuits. Pursuant to the MOU, the Company
agreed to provide additional information to Oneida Financial Corp.
stockholders in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus of Oneida Financial
Corp. and Community Bank System, Inc. dated May 6, 2015 (the
"Proxy Statement/Prospectus"). The Company, Community Bank System,
Inc. and the other defendants deny all of the allegations in the
lawsuits. The Company, Community Bank System, Inc. and the
individual director defendants believe the disclosures in the
Proxy Statement/Prospectus were adequate under the law.
Nevertheless, the Company, Community Bank System, Inc. and the
other defendants have agreed to settle the lawsuits in order to
avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction of further
litigation. Any costs associated with settling the lawsuits was
paid by the Company's insurance carrier and the Company did not
incur a loss on the settlement.


PENNSYLVANIA: ACLU Sues for Individuals Incompetent to Stand Trial
------------------------------------------------------------------
John McDevitt, writing for CBS, reports that the ACLU filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of hundreds of people in
Pennsylvania with severe mental illness awaiting court ordered
mental health services known as competency restoration treatment.

The wait time may be the longest in the nation.

When people are charged with a crime sometimes they are found to
be incompetent to stand trial.

"So they don't understand the nature of the proceedings they can't
assist in their defense," says Vic Walczak, legal director for the
ACLU of Pennsylvania.

And what typically happens, Mr. Walczak says, is the judge refers
them to competency restoration treatment at one of only two state
forensic hospitals.

"Which is a combination usually of medications, group and
individual therapy and instruction in court procedures.  The hope
is they can be restored to competence; if they can then they stand
trial on charges, if not then they have to either be released or
civilly committed."

Mr. Walczak says the focus of this lawsuit is on the delays that
occur between the time of the court order for the treatment and
when the facility is able to accept them because of lack of bed
space.

In eastern Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, he says the
delays are up to one to two years.

"And you got federal courts in other states saying that delays
over seven days are unconstitutional."

Mr. Walczak says there are 11 representative plaintiffs in the
suit. If there is a favorable court decision he says it will then
extend to everyone in a similar situation.

He says there are about 200 on the current waiting list to get
into the hospitals.


PERFORMANCE PRESSURE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wayne Peacock, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Performance Pressure Pumping
Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00901 (W.D. Tex., October 17,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Performance Pressure Pumping Services, LLC operates an oilfield
services company that provides pressure control and well
stimulation services to oil well drilling companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PERRIGO COMPANY: Eltroxin Actions Stayed Pending Motion to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 27, 2015, that class actions related to
Eltroxin have been stayed pending a decision on the motion to
appeal.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the
manufacturers of the product, and various healthcare providers who
provide healthcare services as part of the compulsory healthcare
system in Israel.

One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight
applications were consolidated into one application. The
applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version
of Eltroxin in Israel. The consolidated application generally
alleges that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients,
pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation;
and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor
patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients
were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result,
claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a)
purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by
patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting
from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of
the reformulation.

Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated
application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May
17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining
respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

On June 16, 2015, Perrigo submitted a motion for permission to
appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court
together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action
until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. The
decision whether to allow Perrigo to file an appeal has been
transferred to a panel of three justices. Other than requiring
Perrigo to file its statement of defense to the underlying
proceedings, the underlying proceedings have been stayed pending a
decision on the motion to appeal.

"At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the outcome or the
liability, if any, associated with these claims," the Company
said.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Tysabri(R) Product Liability Suits Still Open
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc and collaborator Biogen Idec are co-defendants
in product liability lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of
Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy ("PML"), a serious
brain infection, and serious adverse events, including deaths,
which occurred in patients taking Tysabri(R), Perrigo Company plc
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
June 27, 2015.

Perrigo Company plc and Biogen Idec will each be responsible for
50% of losses and expenses arising out of any Tysabri(R) product
liability claims. While these lawsuits will be vigorously
defended, management cannot predict how these cases will be
resolved.

"Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits could result in
substantial judgments against us," the Company said.


PETRO RIVER: No Specific Timeline for Court Ruling in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that there is no specific
timeline by which the court must render a ruling in a class
action.

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

On October 7, 2014 Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
motion to dismiss the August 11, 2014 Proceeding on various
procedural and legal arguments.  Plaintiffs filed their response
to the motion to dismiss on October 27, 2014.  Spyglass filed its
reply brief on November 10, 2014 and the plaintiffs were granted
leave until November 19, 2014 to file a surreply to Splyglass's
reply brief.  Once the briefing cycle concluded on November 19,
2014, the motion to dismiss became ripe for determination by the
court.  Oral arguments may be ordered by the court.  There is no
specific timeline by which the court must render a ruling.


PIONEER SURGICAL: Faces "Gervais" Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Gervais v. Pioneer Surgical Institute Technology, Inc. d/b/a
RTI Surgical, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00150 (W.D. Mich., October
16, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pioneer Surgical Institute Technology, Inc. operates a commercial
enterprise in the Western District of Michigan, Northern Division.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sandra Hanshaw Burink, Esq.
      112 W. Washington Street, Suite A
      Marquette, MI 49855
      Telephone: (906) 273-1551
      E-mail: shburink@hb-lawoffices.com


POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Amended Suit Not Yet Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Polypore International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that a consolidated
amended complaint has not yet been filed.

On March 3, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Lax v.
Toth, et al., Civil Action No. 10741-VCN (the "Lax Action") was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Polypore, its
directors, Asahi Kasei and ESM. Subsequently, five additional
putative class action lawsuits, captioned Pirollo v. Polypore
Int'l, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10746-VCN, Kott v. Graff, et
al., Civil Action No. 10752-VCN, Zaborny v. Polypore Int'l, Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. 10762-VCN, Scardina v. Graff, et al.,
Civil Action No. 10777-VCN (the "Scardina Action") and Police
Retirement System of St. Louis v. Toth, et al., Civil Action No.
10832-VCN (the "St. Louis Action" and, collectively with the
preceding putative class action lawsuits and the Lax Action, the
"Stockholder Litigation"), were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the defendants named in the Lax Action (except
that Polypore is not a defendant in the Scardina Action or the St.
Louis Action) and, in certain cases, 3M. Collectively, the
complaints in the Stockholder Litigation, filed by purported
holders of shares of Polypore common stock, challenge the
contemplated integrated transactions with 3M, Asahi Kasei and ESM
and allege, among other things, that Polypore's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Polypore stockholders by engaging in a
flawed sales process, agreeing to a transaction price that does
not adequately compensate Polypore and agreeing to certain unfair
deal protection terms.

On April 13, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the St. Louis
Action, which complaint also alleges that the directors of
Polypore breached their fiduciary duties by making materially
misleading and incomplete disclosures in the definitive proxy
statement filed with the SEC on April 8, 2015 in connection with
the integrated transactions. The complaints in the Stockholder
Litigation also allege that Asahi Kasei, ESM and, in certain
cases, 3M, aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints in the Stockholder Litigation seek various remedies,
including declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages
and costs.

On April 29, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating
lawsuits. A consolidated amended complaint has not yet been filed.
Polypore and its directors believe that the allegations against
them lack merit and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


RENASANT CORPORATION: Class Action Parties Finalizing Accord
------------------------------------------------------------
Renasant Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in a class
action are in the process of finalizing the pleadings to submit a
settlement agreement to the Court for approval.

On December 31, 2014, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit,
Stein v. Heritage Financial Group, Inc. et al., was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Civil Division (the
"Court"), against Heritage Financial Group, Inc. ("Heritage"), the
members of its board of directors, HeritageBank of the South, the
Company and Renasant Bank. The complaint, which was amended on
February 18, 2015, alleged that the Heritage directors breached
their fiduciary duties and/or violated Maryland law in connection
with the negotiation and approval of the merger agreement by
failing to maximize shareholder value and failing to disclose
material information in the February 9, 2015 preliminary joint
proxy statement/prospectus and that Heritage, HeritageBank of the
South, the Company and Renasant Bank aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. In addition to monetary
damages in an unspecified amount and other remedies, the lawsuit
sought to enjoin Heritage and Company stockholders from voting on
the merger at their respective special meetings and to otherwise
enjoin the directors from consummating the merger.

While the defendants believed these actions were without merit, in
order to avoid the expense of litigation, Heritage, HeritageBank
of the South, the Company and Renasant Bank entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
("Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiff in which Heritage,
without admission of liability, agreed to make certain disclosures
related to the merger agreement in supplemental materials which
were filed with the SEC in a Form 8-K on May 18, 2015.  The
Settlement Agreement is subject to Court approval after notice to
the former shareholders of Heritage. The parties are in the
process of finalizing the pleadings to submit the Settlement
Agreement to the Court for approval which may lead to payment of
attorney's fees and costs of $262,500, which would conclude the
litigation if accepted by the Court.


RESONANT INC: Consolidated Class Action Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is
defending a consolidated class action.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative
class action lawsuits were commenced against the Company, Terry
Lingren and John Philpott, in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.  The three lawsuits, which are
described below, each purport to assert claims under the federal
securities laws based on similar allegations. As described below,
on June 9, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating these
three putative class action lawsuits into one consolidated action;
however, plaintiffs in the consolidated action have not yet filed
a consolidated complaint.

On March 17, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned John Paggos v. Resonant Inc., et al., No.
2:15-cv-01970. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and that the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff purports
to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or
acquirers of our common stock between August 14, 2014 and February
26, 2015 (the "Paggos Class Period"). The plaintiff alleges that,
as a result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations,
prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Paggos Class Period. The plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief,
but has not specified the amount of damages being sought in the
action.

On March 19, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned John DeVouassoux v. Resonant Inc., et al.,
No. 2:15-cv-02054. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of
purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between November 6,
2014 and February 26, 2015 (the "DeVouassoux Class Period"). The
plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly
false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our
financial well-being and prospects, our common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices throughout the DeVouassoux Class
Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and fees and
costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of
damages being sought in the action.

On March 31, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Ramon Arias v. Resonant Inc., et al., No.
2:15-cv-02369. Later the same day, an amended complaint was filed.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff purports
to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or
acquirers of our common stock between August 14, 2014 and February
26, 2015 (the "Arias Class Period"). The plaintiff alleges that,
as a result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations,
prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Arias Class Period. The plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief,
but has not specified the amount of damages being sought in the
action.

On June 9, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the
Paggos, DeVouassoux and Arias actions into one consolidated
action, In re Resonant Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-
01970 SJO (VBKx). On August 7, 2015, the court entered an order
appointing William Haskins and Brent Kaneshiro as co-lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated action. The court has set a
schedule under which co-lead plaintiffs were anticipated to file a
consolidated amended complaint no later than September 21, 2015.

"We deny the material allegations of these three actions and
intend to defend them vigorously. We have directors' and officers'
liability insurance, which will be utilized in the defense of
these matters. As of June 30, 2015, we have incurred legal
expenses of approximately $22,000 and expect to incur some costs
to defend these suits in the future. The liability insurance may
not cover all of the future liabilities we may incur in connection
with the foregoing matters," the Company said.

"Legal fees and other costs associated with such actions are
expensed as incurred. We assess, in conjunction with our legal
counsel, the need to record a liability for litigation and
contingencies. Litigation accruals are recorded when and if it is
determined that a loss related matter is both probable and
reasonably estimable. Material loss contingencies that are
reasonably possible of occurrence, if any, are subject to
disclosure. Based on the very early stage of litigation for the
cases referred to above, it is not possible to estimate the amount
or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse
judgment or a settlement of these matters.  We will evaluate
developments in legal proceedings and other matters on a quarterly
basis. As of June 30, 2014 and June 30, 2015, there was no
litigation or contingency with at least a reasonable possibility
of a material loss. No losses have been recorded during the three
and six months ended June 30, 2014 and June 30, 2015,
respectively, with respect to litigation or loss contingencies."


ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Securities Class Action Still Open
---------------------------------------------------
The securities class action against Roka Bioscience, Inc. remains
pending, Roka disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

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

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
two applicants filed motions on February 23, 2015 for appointment
as lead plaintiff.  On March 23, 2015, the applicant with the
smaller loss agreed not to oppose the application for lead
plaintiff filed by the applicant with the larger loss. The court
appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law
Firm as lead counsel on April 21, 2015. The lead plaintiff then
filed an amended complaint, captioned Stanley Yedlowski v. Roka
Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8020, on June 23, 2015. The
amended complaint pleads Securities Act claims on behalf of
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Roka
securities pursuant or traceable to the IPO Registration Statement
during an extended putative class period, running from July 17,
2014 through March 26, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that
the Registration Statement was false or misleading in that it
failed to disclose that the Company's customers purportedly were
experiencing false positives and other usage issues with the
Company's Listeria assays apparently arising from the customers'
employees' inability to follow the Company's Listeria assay
workflow. The amended complaint alleges that the full extent of
the purported misstatements and omissions was not revealed until
March 26, 2015. Defendants were scheduled to respond to the
amended complaint by August 25, 2015.

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


RUSH COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Debit Card
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gould, writing for Dailymail.Com, reports that Russell
Simmons is a fraud, claims a new class action lawsuit he's been
slapped with.

The document exclusively obtained by Daily Mail Online accuses the
58-year-old hip-hop mogul's company Rush Communications, UniRush
and Meta Financial Group, Inc. of breach of contract over the
RushCard failure.

Thousands were blocked from accessing their money on the prepaid
debit card for over a week and a half -- five cardholders were
named in the lawsuit -- and some of them claim they were forced to
choose between feeding their children or paying their electric
bill.

Other cardholders reported money was missing from their accounts.

They are now demanding Mr. Simmons pay damages and restitution for
what he has caused them.

This comes just as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau says
it is investigating the "troubling issue".

The federal watchdog keeps close watch of mortgages, credit cards
and student loans.
The music mogul launched the prepaid debit card named RushCard
back in 2003.

The company explained the card, "has been providing access to the
financial mainstream for 10 years."

It allows those with lower incomes -- who don't normally qualify
for traditional banking services -- a full range of financial
management tools including electronic pay and payroll direct
deposit.

But it doesn't come without a price.  Customers can get started
with a card for a one-time fee ranging from $3.95 to $9.95.
There are two plans -- unlimited and pay as you go.

For those who choose the unlimited plan they must pay a fee
ranging from $5.95 to $7.95 on the first of each month -- where as
banks like TD and Wells Fargo have no monthly fee at all.

However, all of this changed when thousands of cardholders
accounts were frozen -- leaving them without access to their own
money for 12 days.

According to company, the issue stemmed from a glitch in the
computer system when the company decided to change to a new
transaction-processing vendor.

Mr. Simmons' company promised the issues would be fixed.

Mr. Simmons tweeted on Oct. 22: 'Daylight ALL FUNCTIONS back up.
Except that there area few people that have problems with card to
card transfer fixing that now'.

Daily Mail Online reached out to him on Oct. 23 for comment but
has not heard back.

The class action lawsuit filed on Oct. 23 by RushCard users
details how beginning on October 12th and continuing - they did
not have access to their money.

That left them unable to pay for basic necessities such as food,
rent, electricity and gas.  Additionally, customers who were
unable to pay their household bills -- were slapped with late
fees.  Those customers who did regain access to their accounts say
there were discrepancies, including account balances completely
wiped out.

Others were charged fees for their failed ATM withdrawal attempts
during the time period the RushCard system was down.

The plaintiffs contend the contract they signed for their RushCard
say all disputes must be handled through arbitration.

However, they say the provision in the agreement is unenforceable
and unconscionable and against public policy.

The suit states, "Plaintiff's and class members were fraudulently
induced into purchasing RushCards and depositing money into their
RushCard accounts because they were led to believe their funds
would be 'safe and protected' with unhindered access to these
monies."

They are suing for negligence, fraud, breach of contract and
violation of the New York deceptive acts and practices law.

The cardholders are demanding the court order Mr. Simmons'
companies to pay restitution to those who suffered harm from not
being able to access their cash, a judgment awarding damages and
further damages for defendant's knowing, willful and intentional
conduct.

The Kardashian sisters -- Kim, Kourtney and Khloe -- came under
similar fire for the prepaid debit card they endorsed -- The
Kardashian Kard.

The sisters promoted it on social media and in the press, but were
then criticized for the cards high fees especially since its
target was kids.

They stopped promoting it and were sued for $75 million by Revenue
Resource Group, the owners behind the card for walking away from
the deal.  The Kardashians won the lawsuit.

On its website on Oct. 23 -- RushCard has declared a "Fee-Holiday
Season" from November 1 to February 29, 2016, which means
customers can use their RushCard without incurring fees from their
Fee Schedule.

Mr. Simmons founded the music label Def Jams and is the creator of
several clothing lines including Phat Farm.  He is worth an
estimated $340 million.


RAYONIER INC: Hearing on Motions to Dismiss Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that following the Company's
November 10, 2014 earnings release and filing of the restated
interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March
31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the "November 2014 Announcement"),
shareholders of the Company filed five putative class actions
against the Company and Paul G. Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort,
David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker arising from circumstances
described in the November 2014 Announcement, entitled
respectively:

     * Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01395; filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida;

     * Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01398, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida;

     * Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier
Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13,
2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida;

     * Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01429, filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida; and

     * Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-
08986, initially filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474.

On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated
into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters'
Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on
January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015.

On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint,
plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a defendant N.
Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the filing of the
Amended Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin Kiker were dropped
from the case as defendants. Defendants timely filed Motions to
Dismiss on May 15, 2015. The court set a hearing on the motion for
August 25, 2015.

At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine whether
there is a reasonable likelihood a material loss has been incurred
nor can the range of any such loss be estimated.

                           *     *     *

District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan, in an Order dated August 10,
2015, ruled that:

     1. The Motion of Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement
        System and the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers
        for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Their
        Selection of Lead Counsel is granted. The Motion of Frank
        J. Ferraro to Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff and to Approve
        Proposed Lead Plaintiff's Choice of Counsel and the
        Motion of Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust and
        Welfare Funds for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
        Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel are denied.

     2. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and the
        Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers are appointed
        as Lead Plaintiff.

     3. Lead Plaintiff's selection of Saxena White P.A. and Grant
        & Eisenhofer P.A. as Lead Counsel is approved.

     4. No motion, request for discovery, or other pretrial
        proceeding shall be initiated or filed by any plaintiff
        without the approval of Lead Counsel, so as to prevent
        duplicative pleadings or discovery. No settlement
        negotiations should be conducted without the approval of
        Lead Counsel.

     5. The Court sets the following preliminary case schedule:

        a. On or before September 11, 2015, Lead Plaintiff
           shall file an amended complaint.

        b. On or before October 26, 2015, defendants shall file
           any answer or motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
           Any motion to dismiss shall not exceed 25 pages.

        c. On or before December 10, 2015, Lead Plaintiff shall
           file any opposition to the motion to dismiss, not to
           exceed 35 pages.

        d. On or before January 11, 2016, defendants shall
           file any reply brief in support of the motion to
           dismiss, not to exceed 15 pages.

        e. The anticipated motion to dismiss is set for hearing
           on March 1, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., before the
           undersigned in the United States Courthouse,
           Courtroom 10D, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville,
           Florida.  The Court intends to discuss scheduling for
           the remainder of the case at the hearing.

     6. Discovery remains stayed, without prejudice to any party
        filing a motion explaining why particularized discovery
        is necessary to preserve evidence or prevent undue
        prejudice.

     7. The requirements of Local Rule 4.04(b) remain suspended
        until further order of the Court.

     8. Movants Frank J. Ferraro, Local 295, are terminated from
        the case, and their counsel as parties receiving notice
        in the case.

A copy of the Court's order is available at http://is.gd/ErEhvJ
from Leagle.com.

Rayonier Advanced Materials, Inc., et al., as defendants, are
represented by Daniel Kearney Bean, Holland & Knight, LLP, Stephen
P. Warren, Holland & Knight, LLP & Tracy A. Nichols, Holland &
Knight, LLP.


SABINE OIL: Bankruptcy Filing Stayed Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that class actions
against the Company are stayed after Sabine filed for bankruptcy.

The cases are Stourbridge Investments, LLC v. Forest Oil
Corporation, et al., Raul v. Carroll, et al., Rothenberg v. Forest
Oil Corporation, et al., Gawlikowski v. Forest Oil Corporation, et
al., Edwards v. Carroll, et al., Jabri v. Forest Oil Corporation,
et al., Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al.

Following the May 6, 2014 announcement of the proposed
Combination, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by
Forest Oil shareholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by
the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those
breaches of fiduciary duty by Sabine entities in connection with
the proposed Combination. By order dated July 8, 2014, the six New
York cases were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In
re Forest Oil Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index No.
651418/2014.  On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated New
York action filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint seeks to
certify a plaintiff class consisting of all holders of Forest Oil
common stock other than the defendants and their affiliates. The
defendants named in these actions include the directors of Forest
Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D.
Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I.
Wilcox), as well as Sabine and certain of its affiliates
(specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC,
Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II
LLC).  The Consolidated Complaint also purports to identify FR XI
Onshore AIV, L.L.C. as a defendant, but no causes of action are
alleged against that entity.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the proposed Combination
arises out of a series of unlawful actions by the board of
directors of Forest Oil seeking to ensure that Sabine and
affiliates of First Reserve Corporation ("First Reserve") acquire
the assets of, and take control over, Forest Oil through an
alleged "three-step merger transaction" that allegedly does not
represent a value-maximizing transaction for the shareholders of
Forest Oil. The Consolidated Complaint also complains that the
proposed Combination has been improperly restructured to require
only a majority vote of current Forest Oil shareholders to approve
the Combination with Sabine, rather than a two-thirds majority as
would have been required under the original transaction structure.
The Consolidated Complaint additionally alleges that members of
Forest Oil's board, as well as Forest Oil's financial adviser for
the proposed Combination, are subject to conflicts of interest
that compromise their loyalty to Forest Oil's shareholders, that
the defendants have improperly sought to "lock up" the proposed
Combination with certain inappropriate "deal protection devices"
that impede Forest Oil from pursuing superior potential
transactions with other bidders.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts causes of action against the
directors of Forest Oil for breaches of fiduciary duty and
violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, as well as a
cause of action against the Sabine defendants for aiding and
abetting the directors' breaches of duty and violations of law,
and it seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin
consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative,
rescission and/or rescissory and other damages in the event that
the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is
resolved.

In addition to these New York proceedings, one putative class
action lawsuit has been filed by Forest Oil shareholders in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. That
action, captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01409-
MSK-CBS, was commenced on May 19, 2014, and plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint (the "Olinatz Complaint") on June 13, 2014. The
Olinatz Complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Sabine defendants in connection with the
proposed Combination, as well as related claims alleging
violations of Section 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misstatements
in a Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Forest Oil on May
29, 2014, which recommends that Forest Oil shareholders approve
the proposed Combination. The Olinatz Complaint names as
defendants Forest Oil and certain of its affiliates (specifically,
Forest Oil Corporation, New Forest Oil Inc., and Forest Oil Merger
Sub Inc.), the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James
H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll,
Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), and Sabine and certain
of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine
Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine
Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC), and seeks preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed
Combination or, in the alternative, rescission in the event the
proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is
resolved, as well as imposition of a constructive trust on any
alleged benefits improperly received by defendants.

On October 14, 2014, on motion by the Colorado plaintiffs, the
Court in the Colorado action entered an order directing the Clerk
of the Court to administratively close the action, subject to
reopening on good cause shown.

On November 11, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs in the New York action regarding a
settlement of that action, and that agreement is reflected in a
memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on that date.
The settlement, if consummated, will also resolve the Colorado
action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding, Forest Oil agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with
Sabine, which are contained in Forest Oil's November 12, 2014 Form
8-K, and Sabine agreed that, within 120 days after the closing of
the proposed combination transaction, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC
will designate for a period of no less than three (3) years at
least one additional independent director, as defined in Section
303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, as a
Sabine Nominee (as defined in Section 1.4 of the Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger). The total number of Sabine
Nominees will remain unchanged, but at least one of the remaining
two Sabine Nominees that had not yet been determined was required
to be independent. In connection with the closing of the
Combination, Thomas Chewning, an independent director as defined
in Section 303A.02 of the New York Exchange Listed Company Manual,
was appointed as a Sabine Nominee. The memorandum of understanding
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement.

On March 13, 2015, plaintiffs informed Sabine that they believed
Sabine had materially violated the terms of the memorandum of
understanding by (i) failing to replace or create a mechanism to
replace an independent director who resigned from the board of
directors in January of 2015, and (ii) making changes to the terms
of the merger agreement that were not necessary or required to
facilitate the consummation of the proposed transaction without
first disclosing and permitting shareholders to vote on the
changes. Sabine disagrees with plaintiffs' position and believes
it has fully complied with the memorandum of understanding. In an
attempt to facilitate a resolution, however, Sabine offered to:
(i) appoint an independent director if an additional director was
added to the Board of Directors (bringing the total number of
directors eight in the next twelve months, and (ii) remove or
waive the "Reincorporation Penalty" provision.  Plaintiffs
accepted the offer on April 22, 2015, contingent upon the Parties'
reaching agreement on a stipulation of settlement, which they are
presently negotiating.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval.  In the event the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the New York Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims or actions that were or could have been brought challenging
any aspect of the proposed combination transaction, the Amended
and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, the merger agreement
originally entered into by Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Forest
Oil, New Forest Oil Inc. and certain of their affiliated entities
on May 5, 2014, any disclosure made in connection therewith,
including the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all other matters
that were the subject of the complaint in the New York action,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.  In addition, in connection with
the settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties will
negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorney's fees
and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel in
connection with the Actions.  There can be no assurances that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the New York Court will approve the settlement even if the
parties were to enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated.  The parties are presently
negotiating the stipulation of settlement.  At this time, the
Company is unable to estimate the potential outcome of this
litigation or the ultimate exposure.

On July 15, 2015, Sabine filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the
"Bankruptcy Code") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York.  As a result of the pending
bankruptcy, this matter is currently stayed.


SALIX ANIMAL: Recalls Beefhide Chicken Sticks Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salix Animal Health, LLC of Deerfield, FL is voluntarily expanding
its recall of "Good 'n' Fun - Beefhide Chicken Sticks" because
this product may be contaminated with Salmonella.

Sampling conducted by the Georgia Department of Agriculture
confirmed the presence of Salmonella in an additional lot of this
product. In an abundance of caution, Salix Animal Health is
expanding its original recall to include the tested lot and others
made around the same timeframe. This affects Good 'n' Fun -
Beefhide Chicken Sticks only; no other product is affected by this
announcement.

Salmonella can affect animals that eat contaminated products and
there is a potential risk to humans if they come in contact with
Salmonella from handling contaminated products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some, or all, of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely,
Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation,
and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with this product should contact their healthcare
providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected, but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers of Salmonella and infect
other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled
product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

The recalled Good 'n' Fun - Beefhide Chicken Sticks were
distributed nationwide to Dollar General, Dollar Tree and Family
Dollar retail stores. The recalled product is packaged in a 2.8
ounce bag stamped on the back side with an item code number of
82247 and with an expiration date ranging from 02/2018- 07/2018.

The UPC code is 0 91093 82247 1 as shown in the table below.

  Brand  Size   Description  UPC Code      Item No.  Expiration
  -----  ----   -----------  --------      --------  ----------
  Good   2.8    Beefhide     091093822471  82247     02/2018
  'n'    oz     Chicken                              03/2018
  Fun           Sticks                               04/2018
                                                     05/2018
                                                     06/2018
                                                     07/2018

No other product is affected at this time. Customers should look
at the item number, and expiration date on the product package to
determine if it is subject to the voluntary recall. Customers who
have purchased the product subject to this recall are urged to
dispose of the product or return it for full refund.

We take our responsibility to pets and their owners seriously and
are taking steps to prevent it from occurring in the future. Salix
Animal Health is also working with retailers to ensure that the
affected product is removed from inventory and is no longer sold.

If you have these products, please contact Salix Animal Health's
consumer affairs team at 1-800-338-4896, Monday through Friday
between the hours of 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time for a
refund. Customers with questions may call the consumer affairs
team at the number listed above.

For press inquiries, please contact Connie Caldwell at 314-683-
2460, Monday through Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM Eastern Standard
Time.

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


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: "Steck" Case Transferred to N.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the venue of
the Steck class action has been transferred from the Southern
District of New York to the Northern District of Texas.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York (the "Steck Lawsuit"). On October 6, 2014, another
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas and was subsequently
removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas. Both lawsuits were filed against SCUSA, certain current and
former directors and executive officers of SCUSA and certain
institutions that served as underwriters in the IPO. Each lawsuit
was brought by a purported stockholder of SCUSA seeking to
represent a class consisting of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities pursuant and/or traceable to SCUSA's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO. Each complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
and Prospectus contained misleading statements concerning SCUSA's
auto lending business and underwriting practices. Each lawsuit
asserts claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities
Act and seeks damages and other relief. In February 2015, the
purported class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Texas, was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice. In June 2015, the venue of the Steck
Lawsuit was transferred from the Southern District of New York to
the Northern District of Texas.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Ill. Court Awards $0.4MM in Attorneys' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an Illinois court
awarded $0.4 million in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs in the
so-called WMS acquisition litigation.

Complaints challenging the WMS Industries, Inc. acquisition were
filed in early 2013 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois and the Circuit Court of Lake
County, Illinois. The actions are putative class actions filed on
behalf of WMS stockholders. The complaints generally allege that
the WMS directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with their consideration and approval of the acquisition and in
connection with their public disclosures concerning the
acquisition. The complaints allege that other defendants,
including WMS, Scientific Games Corporation and certain affiliates
of Scientific Games Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. The plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to
enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not
enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In
re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). The plaintiffs
in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware
Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with
the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the
consolidated Delaware action.

The Lake County, Illinois actions were transferred to Cook County.
All of the Illinois actions were consolidated in Cook County with
Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH 3540).

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion
for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on
the acquisition. Following that, in April 2013, lead counsel in
the Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all
actions in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion
for preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS
stockholder vote in return for WMS' agreement to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the acquisition.

In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an
amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged
aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In
September 2014, the plaintiffs' claims in the Illinois action were
dismissed with prejudice.

In March 2015, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action submitted a
motion for voluntary dismissal of the consolidated Delaware
actions. The Court granted the motion and the matter was
dismissed.

The plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed a claim for attorneys'
fees of $0.9 million, which we opposed. In February 2015, the
plaintiffs in the Delaware action moved to intervene in the
Gardner action for the purpose of participating in the motion for
attorneys' fees and, in March 2015, the Illinois Court granted the
motion. On August 3, 2015, the Illinois Court awarded $0.4 million
in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Settlement in Nevada Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a Nevada court
scheduled a hearing on September 17, 2015 where objections, if
any, to the proposed settlement would be heard in the Bally
Acquisition Litigation.

Complaints challenging the Bally Technologies, Inc. acquisition
were filed in August 2014 in the District Court of Clark County,
Nevada. The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of
the public stockholders of Bally and name as defendants Bally, its
directors, Scientific Games Corporation and certain of its
affiliates. The complaints generally allege that the Bally
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
consideration and approval of the acquisition and that we aided
and abetted those alleged breaches. The plaintiffs seek equitable
relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the
acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other
costs.

All of the actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
Bally Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. A-14-
705012-B) (the "Nevada Action"). In October 2014, plaintiffs filed
a motion for limited expedited discovery in connection with an
anticipated motion to enjoin the proposed transaction. Following
that, in October 2014, Bally and its directors filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and Scientific Games
Corporation and its affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the count
of the consolidated complaint alleging wrongdoing by Scientific
Games Corporation and its affiliates. Following that, the
plaintiffs withdrew their motion for expedited discovery and the
parties entered into preliminary settlement discussions.

On October 17, 2014, following arm's-length negotiations, the
parties to the Nevada Action entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") under which they agreed in principle to
settle all of the claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a class-
wide basis, subject to certain conditions, including confirmatory
discovery by the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and preliminary
and final approval of the Nevada court, which will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. Bally,
Scientific Games and the other named defendants entered into the
MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and
vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, the claims
alleged in the Nevada Action.  The MOU provided that Bally would
make certain supplemental disclosures about the transaction in a
definitive proxy statement, which it did on October 20, 2014.

On November 18, 2014, Bally's stockholders approved the Bally
acquisition and the Bally acquisition was consummated on November
21, 2014.  After entering into the MOU, the plaintiffs completed
confirmatory discovery and concluded that the settlement
contemplated by the MOU is fair, reasonable and adequate and is in
the best interests of the Bally public stockholders.

In April 2015, all parties to the Nevada Action entered into a
definitive stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and
release, providing for all claims that were or could be asserted
in the Nevada Action to be dismissed with prejudice on a class-
wide basis in accordance with the terms of the MOU, subject to
court approval.  Subsequently, plaintiffs moved for preliminary
approval of the settlement, class certification and notice to
class members.  The Nevada court approved the motion for
preliminary approval in June 2015. The Nevada court scheduled a
hearing on September 17, 2015 where objections, if any, to the
proposed settlement would be heard.

There can be no assurance that the Nevada court will ultimately
approve the settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement
will be null and void and of no force and effect. Payments made in
connection with the settlement, which are subject to court
approval, are not expected to be material.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Continues to Defend Oregon State Lottery Matter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend the so-called Oregon State Lottery Matter.

On December 31, 2014, a representative of a purported class of
persons alleged to have been financially harmed by relying on the
"auto hold" feature of various manufacturers' video lottery
terminals played in Oregon, filed suit in the Circuit Court of
Multnomah County, Oregon, against the Oregon State Lottery and
various manufacturers, including WMS Gaming Inc. The suit alleges
that the auto hold feature of video poker games is perceived by
players as providing the best possible playing strategy that will
maximize the odds of the player winning, when such auto hold
feature does not maximize the players' odds of winning. The
plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $134.0 million in monetary
damages. WMS Gaming Inc. and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss in February 2015.

In April 2015, the court granted the Oregon State Lottery's motion
to dismiss, stating the plaintiff had not satisfied the Oregon
Tort Claims Act. As a result of the dismissal, the court indicated
that all claims against WMS Gaming Inc. are moot. In June 2015,
plaintiffs filed an appeal on the matter.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the
lawsuit," the Company said.


SEAQUEST SEAFOOD: Recalls Fish Products Due to C. botulinum
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seaquest Seafood Corp. of Industry, California, is recalling its
Dehydrated & Marinated Uneviscerated Fish as listed below, because
they have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium
botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or
death. Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does
not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision
and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.

The recalled items were distributed nationwide in retail stores
and through restaurant distributors.

The products come in the corresponding weight listed below in
clear plastic package inside a master paper carton with Sunrise
Brand on the sides of carton.

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

The potential for contamination was noted after FDA inspection
found that the product had not been eviscerated or was under-
eviscerated.

--- Sunrise Brand Marinated Silver/White Croaker- 30 x 14oz-
     Barcode 5 08 54336-50081 0
--- Sunrise Brand Marinated Climbing Perch- 30 x 16 oz- Barcode
     2 08 54336-20130 4
--- Sunrise Brand Marinated River Barb- 60 x 10 oz- Barcode 2 08
     54336-20140 2
--- Sunrise Brand Dehydrated Anchovy size 2/3cm- 1 x 22 lb-
     Barcode 5 08 54336-50161 9
--- Sunrise Brand Dehydrated Anchovy size 3/5cm- 100 x 3.5oz-
     Barcode 2 08 54336-20161 9
--- Sunrise Brand Dehydrated Big-Eye Herrings- 1 x 3.3 lb-
     Barcode 5 08 54336-50201 2

Consumers who have purchased the above items are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-626-968-8188 (Wednesday to
Friday, 1pm to 5pm PST).

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/hu3ehA


SKINNY LATINA: Recalls Bottled Marinade Products Due to Soy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skinny Latina Foods, Inc. Miami, Florida is recalling all bottles
of the following product due to undeclared soy. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. No
illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
recall.

The product is only sold in clear, 12 oz glass bottles. Each
product is labeled with a "Best By" date on the back label. The
recall is for all of the individual bottles with the "Best By"
date of 12-15-15 or before (earlier), and which do not have
corrected labels indicating that the product contains soy.

The recalled products were distributed in retail stores
nationwide.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing soy within the gluten-free teriyaki sauce ingredient of
the product was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the
presence of the soy allergen on the label.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration have been notified of this
voluntary recall.

Purchasers allergic to soy and / or soybean should destroy the
product, or contact Skinny Latina Foods, Inc. for more
information. Anyone with questions, please contact Bibi at Skinny
Latina at (305) 609-3310.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/F988zr


SKYLINE FINANCIAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Lemelle-Zeidner, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Skyline
Financial Corp. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC597897 (Cal.
Super. Ct., October 15, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Skyline Financial Corp. is a financial services company in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 A
      Glendale, CA
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818)265-1021


SOTHEBY'S INC: 9th Cir. Affirmed Ruling in "Graham" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
An en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision in the case, Estate of
Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc., the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
State of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for
alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law.

In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion to dismiss the action on
the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates
the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act
of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to
Sotheby's motion to dismiss.

The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March
12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing
the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated
the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs
appealed this ruling.

On May 5, 2015, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the lower court
decision that the Resale Royalties Act was unconstitutional
insofar as it sought to apply to sales outside of the state of
California.


SPOT OF GARIBALDI: Recalls Canned Salmon and Tuna
-------------------------------------------------
The Spot of Garibaldi, Oregon is voluntarily recalling ALL canned
salmon and tuna with any codes starting with "OC" because it has
the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a
bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or death.

Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not
look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision
and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.

All products were sold to consumers from our retail store in
Oregon. The last date of distribution of recalled products was
September 2015. Affected production codes include any codes
starting with "OC". The code can be found on either at the bottom
or on top of the can. Recalled products are packaged in metal cans
with net weight 6 oz. for salmon or 8 oz. for tuna.

  Product Name               Net Weight      Best By Date Range
  ------------               ----------      ------------------
  Spot-On Chinook Salmon     6 oz.           No
  Spot-On Tuna               8 oz.           No
  Spot-On Tuna No Salt       8 oz.           No
  Spot-On Garlic Tuna        8 oz.           No
  Spot-On Jalapeno Tuna      8 oz.           No
  Spot-On Smoked Tuna        8 oz.           No

There have been no reported cases of illnesses associated with our
products to date.

The Spot canned seafood products were made by Skipanon Brand
Seafoods LLC and this voluntary recall was initiated after we were
notified that that our products were possibly under- processed.
The problem was discovered during an inspection at Skipanon Brand
Seafoods LLC by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Consumers who have purchased recalled canned seafood products are
urged to destroy or return it to the firm for a full refund.

If you have any questions, please call The Spot at 503-322-0080
between the hours of 10 am and 5 pm PST, Monday-Friday (closed
Tuesday).

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/2ms3Ly


SPRINT: Faces Class Action Over Credit Report Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago man believes Sprint violated federal law in disclosure
forms it provided him before checking his credit when he was
applying for a job.  And since he believes the company has done
the same with others, he has asked a judge to allow him to bring a
class action against the telecommunications company.

Roberto Rodriguez Jr. filed a complaint in Cook County Circuit
Court Oct. 20, naming Sprint Corp. and Sprint/United Management
Company, which manages Sprint's subsidiaries, as defendants and
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The two Sprint arms, he said, "routinely and systematically
violate the FCRA's basic protections by failing to provide
required disclosures prior to procuring background reports on
applicants and employees."

On June 4, Mr. Rodriguez applied for a job at a Spring retail
location in Wicker Park/Bucktown.  As part of the application
process, Rodriguez completed Sprint's "Authorization for
Background Investigation" form, which he said "violates the FCRA's
standalone disclosure requirement because it contains extraneous
information," and further that it "includes a vast and limitless
release of information that applies to third parties' provision of
information."

The disclosure form, according to the act itself, should be "clear
and conspicuous . . . made in writing to the consumer at any time
before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a
document that consists only of the disclosure, that a consumer
report may be obtained for employment purposes."

The inclusion of this information, he argued, was intended to
allow Sprint and A-Check America, its consumer reporting agency,
to waive several "carefully promulgated protections that protect
the privacy of personal information held by the government and
others," such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act and several more restrictive state government
regulations.

"This benefit to (Sprint) came at the expense of consumers'
statutory right to receive a compliant disclosure," the complaint
stated.

The conduct, he argued in his claim for relief, "is inconsistent
with the (Federal Trade Commission's) longstanding regulatory
guidance, judicial interpretation and the plain language of the
statute."

Sprint's use of this policy, Mr. Rodriguez argued, means the
company "voluntarily ran a risk of violating the law substantially
greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely
careless."

The class would include anyone about whom Sprint ran an
employment-related credit report dating back to Oct. 20, 2013, and
going forward until a class list is prepared.

The complaint detailed further instances in which Sprint's form is
allegedly in conflict with FCRA standards, including more
extraneous information paragraphs and a state-specific section.
It also detailed several cases in various courts that resulted in
inclusion of such information being found to violate FCRA
standards.

In addition to class certification, Mr. Rodriguez has asked the
court to declare Sprint violated the FRCA and that it acted
willfully, in knowing or reckless disregard of Mr. Rodriguez's
rights and its own FCRA obligations.  He is requesting statutory
and punitive damages and legal fees.  Statutory damages range from
$100-$1,000 per FCRA violation.  He requested a jury trial.

Mr. Rodriguez's attorneys are Ryan F. Stephan, James B. Zouras and
Jorge A. Gamboa, of Stephan Zouras, of Chicago, and E. Michelle
Drake -- drake@nka.com -- and Anna P. Prakash -- aprakash@nka.com
-- of the Nichols Kaster firm, of Minneapolis.


STAAR SURGICAL: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Staar Surgical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2015, that the Company intends to
file a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit.

On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the
federal court located in Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff
claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and omitted
material information from our investors between February 27, 2013
and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at STAAR's
Monrovia manufacturing facility. On July 21, 2014, the Company was
served with the Complaint. On October 20, 2014, plaintiff amended
its complaint, dismissed two Company officers, added one other
officer, and reduced the alleged Class Period to November 1, 2013
to June 30, 2014. Although the ultimate outcome of this action
cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the
allegations in the Complaint are without merit. The Company
intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Company
intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint, when
appropriate, in the ongoing proceeding.


SYMANTEC CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2015, that the Company has reached
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs under which the Company
will pay the plaintiffs $30 million.

On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and its previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.
against the Company, the lawsuit alleged violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies
Act and unjust enrichment related to prior sales of Extended
Download Service ("EDS") and Norton Download Insurance ("NDI"). On
March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these
products between January 24, 2005, and March 10, 2011. In April
2015, the Company reached agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs under which the Company will pay the plaintiffs $30
million, which the Company has accrued.


TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Court Yet to Rule on Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss a class action against Torchmark Corporation
remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On February 10, 2015, litigation was filed against Torchmark
subsidiary, Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company in Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma District Court (Proctor v. Globe Life And
Accident Insurance Company, Case No. CJ-2015-838) asserting claims
for breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing
and for false representation, deceit and conversion in connection
with Globe's denial of plaintiff's claim on a life insurance
policy for non-payment of premium. Plaintiff, who had alleged that
Globe had improperly retained 12 monthly premium payments on a
policy that was treated as lapsed or not returned to in-force
status, seeks actual and punitive damages, prejudgment interest,
attorney fees, costs and other relief. Plaintiff subsequently
amended his complaint to add allegations of conversion and civil
theft on behalf of a purported class of Globe's U.S. policyholders
who had paid premiums retained by Globe when their policies were
lapsed and not reinstated at the time of the premium payments.
Globe removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma (Case No. 15-CV-0070-M) on July 10, 2015 and
filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2015. The Court has not yet
ruled on such motion.


TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: Defending "Thompson" Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Trimble Navigation Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2015, that Rachel Thompson filed on
March 12, 2015, a putative class action complaint in California
Superior Court against the Company, the members of its Board of
Directors, and JP Morgan Chase Bank.  The suit alleges that the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary obligations
to the Company's shareholders by entering into a credit agreement
with JP Morgan Chase Bank that contains certain change of control
provisions that plaintiff contends are disadvantageous to
shareholders.  The complaint seeks declaratory relief, injunctive
relief and costs of the action, including attorney's fees, but
does not seek monetary damages. The Company intends to vigorously
contest these claims.


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Continues to Defend Wilder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. continues to defend the so-called
Wilder litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were
issued regarding the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The
News of the World. The suit names as defendants the Company,
Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks
compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs.
On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd as lead counsel.

Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing
that an amended consolidated complaint shall be filed by July 31,
2012. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31,
2012, which among other things, added as defendants NI Group
Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited) and Les
Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15, 2011
to July 18, 2011.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were
granted by the court on March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs were allowed to
amend their complaint, and on April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the
allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands
the class period to July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011.

On August 11, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
amended consolidated complaint, and on October 24, 2014,
plaintiffs opposed those motions. On November 21, 2014, defendants
filed their replies to plaintiffs' opposition. The Company's
management believes the claims in the Wilder Litigation are
entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend those
claims.


UNITED STATES: Idaho Man Files Class Action Over OPM Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that an
Idaho man has filed a lawsuit against the federal government
because he says his personal information was compromised as part
of a massive data breach of the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management.

Victor Hobbs, an aviation safety inspector for the Federal
Aviation Administration in Spokane, Washington, is asking the
judge to grant the case class-action status on behalf of himself
and other federal employees who may have been compromised by the
data breach.

He filed the lawsuit in Idaho's U.S. District Court against the
Office of Personnel Management, former and current officials at
the government agency and against agency contractor KeyPoint
Government Solutions.  The agency and contractor have not yet
responded to the lawsuit.

Hackers suspected of working for the Chinese government are
believed to have stolen records for as many as 18 million current
and former federal employees and contractors last year, including
detailed background investigations for employees with security
clearances.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Hobbs contends that the federal government
knew for years before the 2014 data hack that the Office of
Personnel Management had deficiencies in its cyber security,
including that agency employees didn't have guidance on how to
prevent software systems form being hacked.

"Log-in credentials stolen in the OPM Breach are reportedly
already being offered for sale on the internet," Mr. Hobbs wrote
in the lawsuit.

He contends that the Office of Personnel Management's actions
violated the federal Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures
Act, as well as amounting to negligence.

Several other potentially class-action lawsuits have been filed
against the Office of Personnel Management in other jurisdictions.
It's not yet known of those cases will ultimately be combined or
if they will proceed separately.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Criticism Over "Volunteer" Invitation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Law.com, reports that when clothing
retailer Urban Outfitters Inc. has faced controversy in the past,
it has been over the company's potentially offensive or even
intellectual property-infringing clothing choices.  But the
Philadelphia-based company recently found itself facing a
different kind of uproar when a leaked memo asking workers to come
in on weekends and "volunteer" at an Urban Outfitters warehouse
was obtained by news and gossip blog Gawker.

It wasn't long before the company faced public criticism for what
looked to many like asking employees to do unpaid labor on their
own time.  But even though the leak quickly turned into a major
public relations faux pas, it doesn't appear that the company's
request actually broke employment laws.  Even so, the incident
shows that companies need to stay attuned to wage-and-hour issues
in the workplace as well as the evolution of the law in this area.

Urban Outfitters' request to employees, titled "A Call for URBN
Volunteers!," explained that the company needs some extra help on
three weekends in October at one of its fulfillment centers in
Gap, Pennsylvania.  The company promises to provide lunch and
transportation for workers who want to "pick, pack and prepare
packages for shipment" in a "team-building activity."

It's certainly not the run-of-the-mill corporate community service
project or off-site meeting, but Urban Outfitters at least appears
to have done its due diligence to ensure that the warehouse work
won't be a lawbreaker.  By explicitly inviting only "salaried
employees," who are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act overtime
coverage, to partake in this unpaid work, it looks like the
company has probably eliminated the danger of facing an FLSA wage-
and-hour lawsuit.

The reality, says John Thompson -- jthompson@laborlawyers.com -- a
partner at Fisher & Phillips, is that as long as workers are
exempt, at least under federal law, Urban Outfitters didn't
technically even have to make the work voluntary.  "They could
have required it without additional pay," he notes, adding that
such a strategy may have been heavy-handed but not illegal.

Today workers are only exempt from the FLSA provisions requiring
time and half for every hour worked over 40 per week if they meet
certain conditions.  These exempt workers need to be salaried,
make over a certain threshold of pay, and have primary job duties
that fall into one of the federal government's job description-
based exemption categories, such as a "white collar exemption" for
executives, professionals and administrators.  Workers who don't
meet these criteria will be considered non-exempt hourly workers
who get overtime benefits promised to them by the FLSA.

Howard Wexler, an associate in Seyfarth Shaw's labor and
employment group, explains that the issue of who is covered by the
FLSA and who isn't has continued to spur plenty of lawsuits from
those who feel they've been classified incorrectly.  "Exempt
status is a hotly contested issue in litigation and now it's been
brought to the forefront with the proposed amendments as part of
the new [U.S. Department of Labor] regulations governing who is
exempt and not exempt from overtime," Mr. Wexler says.

In June, the DOL released a proposal to change the FLSA in a way
that may give another 5 million American workers nonexempt status,
and in doing so potentially make unpaid Urban Outfitters style
"volunteer" days a lot less legal for parts of the workforce.  The
proposed rules would raise the amount of money employees can make
and still get FLSA overtime coverage from $455 per week or $23,660
per year to $970 per week or $50,440 per year.

And due to the way the FLSA is structured, even if an employee
holds a job that passes one of the FLSA's primary duties-based
exemptions, they still can't legally be assigned an exemption
unless they make over the new pay threshold.  This means that if
and when the new regulations are finalized, all kinds of
professionals could start qualifying for overtime pay and getting
disqualified from free weekend work.


USA DISCOUNTERS: Customer Seeks Class-Action Status for Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Palank, writing for Dow Jones' Daily Bankruptcy Review,
reported that a former USA Discounters customer wants to press
forward with litigation accusing the bankrupt retailer of such
deceptive sales practices as marking up prices and forcing costly
insurance and warranties on shoppers.

According to the report, in court papers filed Oct. 28, lawyers
for Demera A. Gaskins asked a bankruptcy judge to certify a class
of customers in a proposed class-action lawsuit.

                       About USA Discounters

USA Discounters was founded in May 1991. in the City of Norfolk,
Virginia, under the name USA Furniture Discounters, Ltd.  It sold
goods through two groups of stores -- one group of specialty
retail stores operating under the "USA Living" brand, typically in
standalone locations, and seven additional retail stores operating
under the "Fletcher's Jewelers" brand, typically in major shopping
malls.

USA Discounters, Ltd., and two affiliates sought Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 15-11755) on
Aug. 24, 2015, to wind down the business.

The Debtors tapped Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP and Klee,
Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP as attorneys, and Kurtzman Carson
Consultants, LLC, as claims and noticing agent.

USA Discounters estimated $100 million to $500 million in assets
and $50 million to $100 million in liabilities.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 29
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
securities from February 28, 2014 through October 21, 2015, both
dates inclusive.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Valeant
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Valeant class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-757.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Valeant had deficient internal
controls, (2) Valeant had a relationship with a network of
specialty pharmacies used to boost Valeant's sales of its high-
priced drugs; (3) the use of specialty pharmacies left Valeant
vulnerable to increased regulatory risks, (4) Defendants were
under government scrutiny for its financial assistance programs
for patients, pricing decisions and the distribution of its
products, (5) Valeant faced the risk of scrutiny over its price
increases, (6) without using specialty pharmacies, Valeant's
financial performance would be negatively impacted, (7) without
using specialty pharmacies, Valeant's Class Period performance
would have been negatively impacted, (8) Valeant's true
relationship with Philidor and the extent of that relationship,
(9) Valeant controlled Philidor, (10) Valeant's subsidiary KGA had
a secured lien interest on Philidor's ownership, (11) Defendants
were engaged in a scheme to manipulate Valeant's stock price, and
(12) as a result, Valeant's public statements were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.  When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 21, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-757.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free
at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


VCA INC: To Defend Remaining Claim in "Duran" Action
----------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
remaining claim in the action, Jorge Duran vs. VCA Animal
Hospitals, Inc., et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company said, "On May 29, 2013, a former veterinary assistant
at one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class action
lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, titled Jorge Duran vs.
VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc., et al. The lawsuit seeks to assert
claims on behalf of current and former veterinary assistants
employed by us in California, and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtime
wages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods,
and engaged in unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks
damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs."

"On May 7, 2014, we obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing
four of the eight claims of the complaint, including the claims
for failure to pay regular and overtime wages. We intend to
continue to vigorously defend against the remaining claim in this
action. At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe
losses, if any, would have a material effect on our results of
operations or financial position taken as a whole."


VCA INC: Court Denied Class Cert. to Veterinary Assistants
----------------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has entered an Order
denying class certification to veterinary assistants who were
allegedly not given proper meal or rest periods. The plaintiff
continues to have a PAGA claim.

The Company said, "On July 16, 2014, two former veterinary
assistants filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles, titled La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek vs.
Vicar Operating, Inc., et al. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims
on behalf of current and former veterinary assistants, kennel
assistants, and client service representatives employed by us in
California, and alleges, among other allegations, that we
improperly failed to pay regular and overtime wages, improperly
failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, improperly failed
to pay reporting time pay, improperly failed to reimburse for
certain business-related expenses, and engaged in unfair business
practices. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory penalties, and
other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. These two
actions are related before the same judge hearing the Duran
action."

In September 2014, the court issued an order staying the La Kimba
Bradsbery lawsuit until class certification is completed in the
Duran case. Plaintiff Duran filed his class certification motion
and supporting documentation in January 2015. A class
certification hearing was held on June 2, 2015.

On June 25, 2015, the Court entered an Order denying class
certification to veterinary assistants who were allegedly not
given proper meal or rest periods. The plaintiff continues to have
a PAGA claim.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against the remaining
claim in this action. At this time, we are unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not
believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on our
results of operations or financial position taken as a whole."


VCA INC: Accrued Remaining 50% in Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has accrued the
remaining 50% in a class action settlement.

The Company said, "On July 12, 2013, an individual who provided
courier services with respect to our laboratory clients in
California filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Clara - San Jose Branch, titled Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics
Delivery Solutions, LLC, Antech Diagnostics, Inc., et al.
Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, a co-defendant in the lawsuit,
is a company with which Antech has contracted to provide courier
services in California. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on
behalf of individuals who were engaged by Logistics Delivery
Solutions, LLC to perform such courier services and alleges, among
other allegations, that Logistics Delivery Solutions and Antech
Diagnostics improperly classified the plaintiffs as independent
contractors, improperly failed to pay overtime wages, and
improperly failed to provide proper meal periods. The lawsuit
seeks damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs. The parties have an agreement in
principle to settle the action, on a class-wide basis, for an
amount not to exceed $1,250,000. Logistics Delivery Solutions,
LLC, has agreed to pay half of the claim.

"Accordingly, as of June 30, 2015, we have accrued the remaining
fifty percent. The proposed settlement, when and if it becomes
effective, would not be an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance
of fault by any of the defendants named in the complaint. Antech
Diagnostics and Logistics Delivery Solutions have agreed upon the
terms of this proposed settlement to eliminate the uncertainties,
risk, distraction and expense associated with protracted
litigation. The proposed settlement remains subject to court
approval and class notice administration before it will be
effective."


VCA INC: "Graham vs. VCA Antech" in Early Procedural Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that the case, Tony M. Graham vs. VCA
Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc., is in an early
procedural stage.

The Company said, "On May 12, 2014, an individual client who
purchased goods and services from one of our animal hospitals
filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal
Hospitals, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of
the plaintiff and other individuals who purchased similar goods
and services from our animal hospitals and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly charged such individuals for
"biohazard waste management" in connection with the services
performed. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, and other relief, including attorneys' fees
and costs. VCA successfully had the venue transferred to the
Southern District of California. This case is in an early
procedural stage and we intend to vigorously defend this action."

"At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on our results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole."


VECTREN UTILITY: Defending Class Action by SIGECO Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is
defending a class action filed by current and former SIGECO
employees.

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 in effect prior to
the formation of Vectren.

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.

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.


VIS SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Salmon and Tune Due to C. botulinum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vis Seafoods of Bellingham, WA is voluntarily recalling ALL canned
salmon and smoked salmon with any codes starting with "OC" because
it has the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium
botulinum, a bacterium that can cause life-threatening illness or
death.  Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it
does not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms:  general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing.  Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

There have been no reported cases of illness to date.

All products were sold to consumers from our retail store in
Bellingham, Washington and sold to internet consumers from the
website visseafoods.com.  The last date of distribution of
recalled products was September 2015.  Affected production codes
include any codes starting with "OC".  The code can be found on
either at the bottom or on top of the can.  Recalled products are
packaged in metal cans with net weight 5.5 oz and 6.0 oz.

  Product Name                 Net Weight    Best By Date Range
  ------------                 ----------    ------------------
  Wild Coho Salmon             6.0 oz.       6 10041 40004 4
  Wild Smoked Coho Salmon      6.0 oz.       6 10041 40001 3
  Wild King Salmon             6.0 oz.       6 10041 21001 8
  Wild Smoked King Salmon      5.5 oz.       6 10041 20001 9
  Wild Sockeye Salmon          6.0 oz.       6 10041 10002 9
  Wild Smoked Sockeye Salmon   5.5 oz.       6 10041 10001 2

This voluntary recall was initiated after we were notified that
our products were possibly under-processed.  The problem was
discovered during an inspection at Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC by
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Consumers are advised to destroy or return recalled product to Vis
Seafoods for a refund.

If you have any questions, please contact Vis Seafoods at 360-647-
0207 between 10am and 6pm PST, Monday-Friday or by email to
visseafoods@gmail.com.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/y9fW5j


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dvorak" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Amy Dvorak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-13665-MFL-RSW (E.D. Mich., October 16, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' intentional installation of so-called "defeat
devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States since 2009.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
      Tana Lin, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel Mensher, Esq.
      Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
              tlin@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
              rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Matthew Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Suit in Ala. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Isabella and Claiton Garcia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01815-HGD (N.D. Ala., October 16, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of so-
called "defeat devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and
Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
      D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
      MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
      301 Washington Street, Suite 302
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Telephone: (256) 532-2222
      Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
      E-mail: Artrip@mastandoartrip.com
              Tony@mastandoartrip.com

         - and -

      Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
      Michael Jaffe, Esq.
      Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
      Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Ave.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
      E-mail: Schmidt@whafh.com
              Jaffe@whafh.com
              Brown@whafh.com
              Kamin@whafh.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hendricks" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Hendricks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-13661-DML-MKM (E.D. Mich., October 16, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of so-
called "defeat devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and
Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Thompson, Esq.
      Lance C. Young, Esq.
      Amy L. Marino, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              lyoung@sommerspc.com
              amarino@sommerspc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Hoffman and Michelle M. Kram, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03157-ELH (D. Md., October
16, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation
of so-called "defeat devices" on at least 482,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thanos Basdekis, Esq.
      BAILEY GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: tbasdekis@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
      BAILEY GLASSER LLP
      1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 463-2101
      Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
      E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hough" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hough, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-13663-PDB-MKM (E.D. Mich., October 16, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' intentional installation of so-called "defeat
devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States since 2009.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq
      Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
              jzouras@stephanzouras.com
              aficzko@stephanzouras.com
              tbecvar@stephanzours.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kirkwood" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Kirkwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01104 (M.D. Tenn., October 16, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged intentional installation of defective diesel engine
systems containing a "defeat device" in approximately 500,000
affected vehicles that were sold in the United States and
Tennessee.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Yezbak, Esq.
      YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
      2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite B-200
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: (615) 250-2000
      E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lawrence" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Lawrence and Kathleen Lawrence, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-13658-SJM-MJH (E.D. Mich., October
16, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation
of so-called "defeat devices" on at least 482,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Thompson, Esq.
      Lance C. Young, Esq.
      Amy L. Marino, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              lyoung@sommerspc.com
              amarino@sommerspc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Pauli" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Levy Pauli, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-13664-VAR-EAS (E.D. Mich. October 16, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of so-
called "defeat devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and
Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
      Tana Lin, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel Mensher, Esq.
      Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
              tlin@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
              rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Matthew Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Pendry" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
William Pendry, Julia D. Hall, Thomas L. Buyers, and Latonia
Pitts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
13659-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich., October 16, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices"
in its 2009-20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to evade
clean air standards is illegal and a threat to public health.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarah Colegrove, Esq.
      BRIGGS COLEGROVE, P.C.
      1523 First National Building
      660 Woodward Ave.
      Detroit, MI 48226
      Telephone: (313) 964-2077
      Facsimile: (313) 961-2345
      E-mail: sarahc@briggscolegrove.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Ross" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat And Keri Ross, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-13662-BAF-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 16, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of so-
called "defeat devices" in its 2009-20015 Volkswagen and Audi
diesel vehicles, to evade clean air standards is illegal and a
threat to public health.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
      Tana Lin, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel Mensher, Esq.
      Ryan McDevitt,Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
              tlin@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
              rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Matthew Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Carl S. Kravitz, Esq.
      Paul B. Hynes, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPADER
      1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036-5807
      Telephone: (202) 778-1800
      Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
      E-mail: ckravitz@zuckerman.com
              phynes@zuckerman.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Non-Profit Files Amicus Brief with MDL Panel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a non-profit representing class
members against unfair class action procedures and settlements
filed an amicus brief with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation over pending federal litigation against Volkswagen.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute's subunit, the Center for
Class Action Fairness, filed its brief with the panel on Oct. 20.

The center, which merged with CEI, claims in its 12-page brief
that it is concerned the panel will not consider judicial track
records in scrutinizing the fairness of settlements when
transferring the case.

The nonprofit argues it is "critical" that the panel emphasize the
importance of judicial scrutiny to protect absent class members'
rights "to promote a just and efficient outcome."

"Plaintiffs and defendants will each argue for jurisdictions they
perceive as favorable to their interests (perhaps because of
previous rulings on class-certification or state-law issues) to
maximize their leverage in settlement negotiations," wrote
Ted Frank, attorney for and director of the center.  "But there is
one critical area where both plaintiffs' counsel and defendants
have a common but perverse interest in proposing transferee
courts: neither wishes the transferee court to closely scrutinize
the class action settlements that will inevitably be reached to
resolve the litigation.

"The naming of the transferee MDL court almost always means the
naming of the judge who will evaluate the settlement terminating
the case."

As Mr. Frank notes, there is no incentive for a plaintiff's
attorney or a defendant to ask the panel to ensure that the
transferee judge will closely scrutinize a class action settlement
-- as doing so will benefit absent class members at the expense of
class counsel's fees and the defendants' attempt to minimize
litigation expense.

"With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, this Panel must do
so," Mr. Frank wrote.

The location of where the litigation will take place is being
fiercely debated.

The center, in its brief, requests that Judge William Alsup, of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
be selected to oversee the MDL case, saying the move would be
"good public policy beyond this individual case."

"Judge Alsup has a long and distinguished track record of
scrutinizing class action settlements and fee requests closely, at
both the preliminary-approval and fairness hearing stages, even in
cases without objectors," Mr. Frank wrote.

The panel is scheduled to hear about the Volkswagen class actions
at its meeting in New Orleans on Dec. 3.

"There will eventually be a class action settlement in the
Volkswagen case," Mr. Frank said in a statement.  "For that
reason, it's important that this happen before a judge who can
assure the class members get the settlements they are entitled to,
rather than a sweetheart deal for the plaintiff lawyers and
Volkswagen, who will want to simply end the case quickly.

"We are the only ones raising this issue."

More than 175 class action lawsuits have been filed in the
aftermath of the automaker's emissions scandal.

Volkswagen admitted to intentionally programming turbocharged
direct injection, or TDI, diesel engines to activate certain
emissions controls only during laboratory emissions testing.

Volkswagen and Audi owners began filing class actions soon after,
claiming fraud and breach of contract due to expected reductions
in horsepower and fuel efficiency.  At least one investor lawsuit,
seeking class action status, has been filed to seek compensation
for the drop in stock value due to the scandal.

Originally founded by Frank in 2009, the Center for Class Action
Fairness has won millions for consumers and shareholders, and won
landmark precedents that safeguard consumers, investors, courts
and the general public.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Seeks Transfer of Venue for Emissions Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
autoblog reports that Volkswagen knows it has a long legal battle
ahead of it over the diesel emissions contretemps.  History is a
good enough guide for that knowledge, even better are the 350
lawsuits filed in 41 states and the District of Columbia so far,
with more coming daily.  Come what may, the company does not want
to fight that battle in California, which is where some of the
plaintiff's attorneys who are aiming to combine cases have
requested they be transferred.

VW says "California is not a convenient forum for this
litigation," and that there's nothing material that concerns The
Golden State.  Those plaintiff's attorneys -- perhaps just maybe
trying to secure a venue known for handsome judgments -- argue for
the west coast citing VW's North American emissions testing outfit
just north of Los Angeles, and the California Air Resources Board
emissions test facility just east of Los Angeles.  Plaintiffs seek
compensation for the premiums paid for their diesels and the lost
value, or a refund of the purchase price minus depreciation.

VW has suggested federal courts in Alexandria, VA near the US EPA
and the company's US headquarters in Herndon, VA or Detroit, MI
where the automaker was based in the US until 2008.  Other
plaintiff's counsels have suggested Virginia and Michigan as well,
and four other states outside of California.  If it goes to
Alexandria or Detroit, both courts have lighter caseloads than
California courts and typically get cases expedited more quickly.
The requests are being filed for a panel of seven judges who will
decide whether to combine cases and who will preside over them.
That hearing will take place on December 3 in New Orleans.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces 175+ Class Actions in 32 States
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that Volkswagen
A.G.'s legal problems jumped into overdrive.  More than 175 class
actions in 32 states have been filed over the emissions scandal.

Almost all the lawsuits have been brought on behalf of consumers
alleging they were duped into paying premium prices for "clean
diesel" vehicles that exceeded U.S. regulatory standards.  Others
have been filed by dealership franchises. The cases are in
addition to investigations by the U.S. Justice Department, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and attorneys general in at
least 28 states.

Unlike previous mass torts over automobile defects, no deaths or
injuries have been tied to the scandal.  But plaintiffs lawyers,
flooded with calls from irate car owners, have raced to the
courthouse claiming Volkswagen misled consumers about its diesel
vehicles.

"There's chum in the water," said David Vendler, a partner at
Morris Polich & Purdy in Los Angeles, who on Sept. 23 was the
first lawyer to move to coordinate all the litigation.  "All the
sharks are swimming."

On Sept. 18, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notified
Volkswagen that certain of its diesel cars made since 2009 had a
"defeat device" in them designed to cheat emissions tests in
violation of the Clean Air Act.  The device was in 11 million
vehicles worldwide, including 482,000 in the United States, which
the EPA has said emitted as much as 40 times the standard for
nitrogen oxides.

Volkswagen chief executive officer Martin Winterkorn has stepped
down, and German officials have launched a criminal investigation.
Volkswagen also has initiated an external investigation to be led
by Jones Day.

Many of the class actions are seeking reimbursement for the
premium prices they paid, but others want much more than that.

"Even if you give them a fix that is only to meet EPA regulations,
they still didn't get the fuel efficiency they wanted," said Frank
Pitre -- fpitre@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in
Burlingame, California.  "Those folks might say: 'I want my money
back.'"

Cody Guarnieri of Brown Paindiris & Scott in Hartford, who filed
the first class action in Connecticut federal court against
Volkswagen, requests injunctive relief in the form of a recall or
a free replacement program.

"They can't continue to be driven in the long term," Mr. Guarnieri
said of the affected cars.

Plaintiffs lawyers swiftly moved to coordinate all the consumer
class actions before a single judge.  The U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, which decides whether to coordinate the
litigation, is unlikely to hear those arguments until its Dec. 3
hearing in New Orleans.  So far, lawyers have supported districts
in six states.

One favorite venue is the Eastern District of Virginia, where
Volkswagen's U.S. headquarters is based in Herndon.  Volkswagen
Group of America Inc. has been named in nearly all the suits, and
subsidiary Audi A.G., whose U.S. division is also based in
Herndon, has been named in a few cases.

"We think that there's certainly going to be witnesses and
evidence centered in that district," said Warren Burns, a partner
at Burns Charest in Dallas.  "It's been my experience in cases of
this size and complexity that invariably you'll be drawn by the
decision-makers, and those folks are in the headquarters."

The district also is close to Washington, D.C., where the Justice
Department's civil investigation could end up coordinating with
the civil suits, he said.

"The Department of Justice is working closely with the EPA in the
investigation into these allegations," DOJ spokesman Wyn
Hornbuckle wrote in an email.  "We take these allegations, and
their potential implications for public health and air pollution
in the United States, very seriously."

Volkswagen is expected to file its own motion on coordination by
Oct. 20. A U.S. spokeswoman for Volkswagen declined to comment
about the litigation.

Other lawyers have pushed for New Jersey.  Diane Sammons --
dsammons@nagelrice.com -- of Nagel Rice in Roseland, said the
state was ideal because Volkswagen is incorporated in that state.
In addition, the automaker maintains its Eastern U.S. regional
office, test-vehicle fleet, parts distribution center, technical
center and products liaison group in New Jersey.

But there's also California.  In addition to the California Air
Resources Board, which assisted the EPA in uncovering the scandal,
two electronics research laboratories in the San Francisco Bay
Area were involved in recent testing of renewable fuels in
Volkswagen's diesel cars.

"We think there's a gold mine of information here in Belmont about
how bad these vehicles were performing and, what's worse,
continuing to tout these vehicles were performing very well and
even better with renewable fuels," Mr. Pitre said.

One lawyer has sued both of the research labs -- South San
Francisco-based Solazyme Inc. and Emeryville-based Amyris Inc. --
in Santa Barbara County Superior Court.

"We have California defendants that we believe knew or should have
known about the fact that the emissions were rigged," said
A. Barry Cappello, managing partner of Cappello & Noel in Santa
Barbara.

The case is one of at least four in state courts. O n Sept. 29,
Harris County, Texas, sued Volkswagen and Audi in Harris County
District Court for violating state environmental laws. The county,
home to 6,000 of the recalled vehicles, is seeking $100 million in
civil penalties.

Two lawsuits were filed in Charleston County Court of Common Pleas
under the South Carolina Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers
Act on behalf of all Volkswagen customers in the state. Both suits
name Volkswagen and an individual franchise dealership in South
Carolina.

Under the act, individuals can sue "for the benefit of the whole"
and get double their actual damages, or triple if a jury finds the
defendants acted maliciously, said Badge Humphries, a partner at
Lewis, Babcock & Griffin in Columbia, South Carolina.

"South Carolina will be better treated by having their claims
litigated in state court pursuant to state law, sent to a state
court judge who's trained in administering South Carolina law," he
said.


WASHIO INC: Liss-Riordan's Bid for Prohac Vice Admission Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that plaintiffs
lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan has earned a reputation for attacking
the Bay Area's on-demand economy, but she may have filed a few
suits too many, according to a recent ruling in her case against
Washio Inc.

On Oct. 9, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn denied
Boston-based Liss-Riordan's application for pro hac vice
admission, finding she is "regularly engaged in substantial legal
activities in California and thus not eligible."

The ruling is a win for Washio's attorneys at Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, who had argued Liss-Riordan is litigating
at least 11 putative class actions in California.

"Liss-Riordan and her law firm have established a California legal
practice without a California license," the lawyers wrote.

Judge Kahn said Ms. Liss-Riordan needs to join the California bar
in order to proceed with the case -- and she plans to do just
that. Liss-Riordan says she'll take the California bar exam in
February, and her firm, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, may open an office
in the state.

"If this defendant thought it could deter me by opposing this
routine courtesy that typically counsel provide each other, it was
mistaken," she wrote in an email on Oct. 13.

Ms. Liss-Riordan is leading a wave of litigation against companies
that use mobile apps to connect customers with services, claiming
they illegally deny their workers employee benefits by classifying
them as independent contractors.  Ms. Liss-Riordan's targets
include car services Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc., and
food-delivery companies Caviar Inc., GrubHub Inc. and DoorDash
Inc. She sued Washio this summer, claiming the laundry delivery
service denied its drivers, called "ninjas," reimbursement for
work expenses.

Ms. Liss-Riordan has partnered with San Francisco lawyer Matthew
Carlson in the Washio litigation, and he will take over the case
for now.

Washio's counsel objected to Ms. Liss-Riordan's prolific filings
in California, claiming she has put her name on initial pleadings
and served discovery before being granted pro hac vice status.
She sometimes prematurely lists herself in filings as "pro hac
vice" even before her application has been granted, the lawyers
wrote.

Washio's counsel urged Judge Kahn to "say enough."

Ms. Liss-Riordan responded she's never had defense counsel
successfully challenge her pro hac vice application.

"It is very clear this defendant or counsel wanted to try to
prevent me from litigating this case," she wrote in an email.
"I'm flattered."


WASHINGTON: Veterans Asked to Complete Class Action Survey
----------------------------------------------------------
Kip Hill, writing for The Spokesman-Review, reports that the
Washington State Patrol is asking all employees who are also
military veterans to complete a survey ahead of a potential
settlement in a class action lawsuit.

Six agency employees sued the WSP in Spokane Superior Court last
year, alleging violations of a federal law crafted to compensate
veterans for lost time spent in service.  The veterans, one of
whom lives in Spokane County, said they were not awarded
additional percentage points on promotion exams guaranteed under
the law.

The plaintiffs, who are represented by two Spokane attorneys, have
been negotiating a settlement with the WSP.  A judge approved a
class action lawsuit earlier this year, and employees now have
until Jan. 8 to complete the survey that will determine if they
are eligible for compensation.

In court records, the WSP said roughly 20 percent of its workforce
had served or were serving in the military.

The civil lawsuit has been put on hold until attorneys can
evaluate survey results.  The survey can be found at
http://www.wspveteranlitigation.com/


WESTERN CONNECTICUT: University Assistant Files Gender Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune,
reports that a lawsuit which claims that men get better jobs than
women at Connecticut's state universities, and make more money in
those jobs, is moving forward on the complex litigation docket in
Waterbury Superior Court.

Lynne Paris-Purtle of New Fairfield, who worked as a university
assistant for Western Connecticut State University, originally
sued the university, the state of Connecticut, and university
officials in 2014. Paris-Purtle's lawsuit seeks class action
status for state university assistants in Connecticut.

Some of her claims recently survived a motion to strike, and in
August, she filed a substitute complaint.  Among Ms. Paris-
Purtle's ongoing claims is that the university disproportionately
awards part-time university assistant positions to women and full-
time permanent positions to men.  She also claims she wasn't
properly paid for overtime.

The state responded to the amended complaint by filing a new
motion to strike on Sept. 28. A status conference is scheduled for
Oct. 26.

Attorney David P. Burke of Cramer & Anderson in Danbury, who
represents Ms. Paris-Purtle, did not comment on the case.
Jaclyn M. Falkowski, director of communications with the Office of
the Attorney General, which is representing the defendants,
declined to comment on the litigation beyond what the office has
filed in court.

Early this year, Superior Court Judge Kari Dooley dismissed some
of the original allegations in Ms. Paris-Purtle's complaint, such
as claims of age discrimination, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  However, Judge Dooley in August allowed the
plaintiff to continue pursuing equal pay and fair wage claims.

Ms. Paris-Purtle was hired by WCSU in 1981, and in 2004, she
started working with a program known as "Building a Bridge to
Improve Student Success," or the "Bridges" program, which is
designed to help prepare high school students for college,
according to her amended complaint.

In 2010, Ms. Paris-Purtle and WCSU entered into a series of
sequential six-month contracts in which she was hired to work 19
hours per week on the "Bridges" program.  According to her
lawsuit, to make the program operate smoothly, she had to work
many hours in excess of 19 hours per week, but she wasn't paid for
the extra time.  She said university officials were aware of the
extra effort needed.  "The amount of work required to properly
operate the Bridges program is demonstrated by the fact that it is
now administered by a full-time WCSU employee," the lawsuit
claims.

Ms. Paris-Purtle stated that she continued to put in the time
needed to make the program run properly because she was told the
position would eventually become a full-time one, according to the
lawsuit.  But she claims her position as a university assistant
lapsed on Dec. 31, 2012.

Ms. Paris-Purtle claims she performed substantially the same work
as a university assistant as that of WCSU's male employees who
held positions of substantially greater compensation.  The lawsuit
claims she performed the identical work of a specific male
employee, but while she earned $24,000 per year, this male
employee earned $86,779 in 2012.  "There are numerous other
instances of male employees doing the same work as done by female
employees, and being compensated at a materially higher rate of
pay," the lawsuit claims.

It alleges that state and university officials are aware of the
pay discrepancy and that many university assistants regularly work
more than the 19 hours a week for which they are paid.
"Defendants encourage, induce and extort their university
assistants to perform uncompensated services by informing them
that unless they perform their responsibilities to the
satisfaction of the [defendants], which defendants are aware
cannot be satisfactorily performed in nineteen hours, the
university assistants have no hope of professional advancement,"
the lawsuit states.

In the state's Sept. 28 motion to strike the substituted complaint
in its entirety, Assistant Attorney General Colleen Valentine
asserts that Ms. Paris-Purtle fails to state a cause of action
upon which relief can be granted because "plaintiff's complaint is
devoid of any factual support for her allegations."

Valentine argues that to state a claim for Equal Pay Act relief,
Ms. Paris-Purtle must assert that her employer pays different
wages to employees of the opposite sex, that employees paid
disparate salaries perform equal work on jobs requiring equal
skill, effort and responsibility, and the jobs are performed under
similar working conditions.

According to Ms. Valentine, Ms. Paris-Purtle has identified one
male employee who "performed substantially the same work," but he
fails to meet the other two criteria.  "The law is clear that
failure to allege all three prongs of an Equal Pay Act claim
results in dismissal for failure to state a claim," Ms. Valentine
wrote.  "Simply alleging that some duties overlap is not
sufficient . . .

"Remarkably, the plaintiff has chosen not to compare herself to
the more than twenty male university assistants employed by WCSU,"
Ms. Valentine added, noting the lawsuit does not identify any male
university assistants who earned more money.

Ms. Valentine also asserts the plaintiff has failed to provide any
factual support for allegations that she was not paid for hours
she worked, including overtime.  According to Ms. Valentine, Ms.
Paris-Purtle has failed to allege that the university ever
required her to work beyond 19 hours.

"Instead, she states that she unilaterally decided to work in
excess of the 19 hours and believes that she should be compensated
for that time," Ms. Valentine wrote.  "She does not, however,
identify ever having requested payment from WCSU for time or
overtime worked or that WCSU denied her request."


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Packaged Salad Products Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market of Cambridge, Massachusetts, is recalling bulk
and packaged Curry Chicken Salad and Classic Deli Pasta Salad sold
in stores in ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY and NJ because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.
Consumers should seek immediate medical care if they develop these
symptoms.

No illnesses have been reported.

The salads were sold prepackaged, in salad bars, in store's chef's
cases and in sandwiches and wraps prepared in the stores. The
effected products were sold in stores between October 18 and
October 22, 2015 and have a "sell by" date of October 23, 2015.
The recalled items include:

  UPC Code     Product Description             Lot Code
  --------     -------------------             --------
  285551       Curry Chicken Salad, Our        Sell by 10/23/15
               Chef's Own, sold by weight
  263144       Curry Chicken Salad Wrap,       Sell by 10/23/15
               Made Right Here, sold by
               weight, 12oz
  263126       Single Curry Chicken Salad      Sell by 10/23/15
               Wrap, Made Right Here, 7oz
  261068       Curry Chicken Salad CC,         Sell by 10/23/15
               sold by weight
  263142       PPK Salad Chicken Curry,        Sell by 10/23/15
               sold by weight
  265325       Curry Chicken Salad Rollup,     Sell by 10/23/15
               7oz
  260976       Classic Deli Pasta Salad,       Sell by 10/23/15
               Sold by weight
  270742       FP Pasta Salad Classic Deli,    Sell by 10/23/15
               sold by weight
  0 36406-     Classic Deli Pasta Salad, 6oz   Sell by 10/23/15
  30001 7
  0 36406-     Classic Deli Pasta Salad, 14 oz Sell by 10/23/15
  30264 6

A sampling of the products tested positive for Listeria
Monocytogenes during a routine inspection of Whole Foods Market's
North Atlantic Kitchen facility.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
should discard it and bring their receipt to the store for a full
refund. Consumers with questions should contact their local store
or call 617-492-5500 between the hours of 9am and 5pm EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/hBn9PT


WSFS FINANCIAL: Alliance, WSFS et al. Entered Into MOU
------------------------------------------------------
WSFS Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Alliance Bancorp Inc.
of Pennsylvania, WSFS and the other Defendants entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs (the
"Plaintiffs") regarding the settlement of a class action lawsuit.

Four purported shareholder derivative and class action complaints
relating to the pending merger with Alliance Bancorp Inc. of
Pennsylvania were filed during the quarter ended June 30, 2015.
These actions were consolidated under the caption In re: Alliance
Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania Derivative and Class Action
Litigation, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,
Pennsylvania, Consol. Action Lead Case No. 2015-3606 (Civil Div.)
(the "Alliance Action"). The complaint named as defendants
Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania, its directors and certain
of its officers, and the Company (the "Defendants").

On June 11, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, Alliance, WSFS and the other
Defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU")
with the plaintiffs ( the "Plaintiffs") regarding the settlement
of the Alliance Action. Pursuant to the MOU, Alliance filed with
the SEC and made publicly available to Alliance shareholders
supplemental disclosures, and the Plaintiffs agreed to release
Alliance, WSFS and the other Defendants from all claims related to
the Merger Agreement and the proposed merger, subject to approval
of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (the "Court"). In
the MOU, the parties agreed to negotiate in good faith to prepare
a stipulation of settlement to be filed with the Court and other
documentation as may be required to effectuate the settlement.
There can be no assurance that the parties ultimately will enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the MOU will
become void in the event that the parties do not enter into such
stipulation or the Court does not approve the settlement.


* California AG Unveils New Campaign to Combat Revenge Porn
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that flanked by
representatives of law enforcement and the tech industry, Attorney
General Kamala Harris on Oct. 14 announced a new campaign to
combat so-called revenge porn.

Ms. Harris, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, unveiled a website
that describes steps victims can take to try to remove intimate
photos or videos of them posted online without their consent.  She
also revealed a list of voluntary "best practices" for the tech
industry that was developed over months by an attorney general-
convened task force that included executives from Facebook Inc.,
Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., Pinterest Inc., Twitter Inc. and
Yahoo Inc.

"I'm not suggesting any of them were happy to get a call from the
AG saying, 'Come in, we want to talk to you,' but they all did,"
Harris told reporters at a Los Angeles news conference.  "This is
huge for these leaders in technology to step away from all of the
innovation that they are creating every day to get together in one
room and say, 'What are the best practices of our industry?' "
The industry's recommended actions are general in nature: offer
consumers a web page giving instructions on removing nonconsensual
images; set up a verification process to identify victims; and
educate the public about the issue.

"We do need to target the source of the bad behavior.  There are
limits to what the good actors can do," said John Doherty, vice
president of state policy and general counsel for TechNet.  The
best practices are really meant as "a guidepost" for companies who
may "also come up with not only their own ways but in the great
spirit of innovation, perhaps better ways."

Ms. Harris said she has issued a law enforcement bulletin alerting
police departments about existing and soon-to-be-enacted laws that
address revenge porn.

The governor this year signed into law two pieces of AG-sponsored
legislation dealing with the nonconsensual sharing of sexual
images.  SB 676 will allow police to seize the revenge-porn images
as well as the device an illegal poster used to store the images.
AB 1310 allows a cyberexploitation case to be brought in the
jurisdiction where the victim, and not necessarily the accused,
lives.


                            *********

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 2015. 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  * * *